01-04-2006, 09:26 AM
"No more birthright citizenship in USA"
By Masood Haider
NEW YORK DEC 10. A group of 92 conservative US lawmakers will attempt next week to force a vote on legislation that would revoke the principle of "birthright citizenship," part of a broader effort to discourage illegal immigration ,said the Los Angeles Times in a report Saturday.
For nearly 140 years, any child born on U.S. soil, even to an illegal immigrant, has been given American citizenship according a US law. But conservatives believe that many women from mostly developing countries come to the United States to have children just to secure American citizenship for their children.
The newspaper said that the push to change the citizenship policy is backed by some conservative activists and academics. But it could cause problems for the White House and the Republican Party, which have been courting Latino voters. GOP officials fear the effort to eliminate birthright citizenship will alienate a key constituency, even if the legislation ultimately is rejected by Congress or the courts.
The principle at issue rests on the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to guarantee the rights of emancipated slaves: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Some US lawmakers advocating tougher immigration laws contend that the amendment has been misinterpreted for decades. Conservatives maintain that although illegal immigrants are subject to criminal prosecution and are expected to abide by U.S. laws and regulations, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States in the full sense intended by the amendment's authors â and their children therefore fall outside the scope of its protection.
Those who want to change the interpretation acknowledge that illegal immigration is largely driven by the hunger for jobs at U.S. wages. But they also say that for some immigrants, automatic citizenship provides another compelling incentive to cross the border. They note that the United States is one of few major industrialized nations that grant birthright citizenship with no qualifications.
"Illegal immigrants are coming for many different reasons," said Rep. Lamar Smith, (a republican), one of the lawmakers pushing for the House measure. "Some are coming for jobs. Some are coming to give birth. Some are coming to commit crimes. Addressing this problem is needed if we're going to try to combat illegal immigration on all fronts."
"This is about attempting to deal with a serious policy problem by going after people's babiesâ¦. It doesn't have to become law for this kind of proposal to offend people," Cecilia Muñoz, vice president for policy of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy group told LAT. "This one really hits a nerve."
The 92-member House Immigration Reform Caucus, headed by Rep. Tom Tancredo, a republican from Colorado , wants to attach an amendment revoking birthright citizenship to a broader immigration bill scheduled to be taken up sometime next week, the newspaper said.
Although several revocation bills have been introduced in the House, the most likely one to move forward would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.
The newspaper noted there is no official tally of the number of children born to illegal immigrants; unofficial estimates range from 100,000 to 350,000 a year. Smith and other critics of current immigration law say that 1 in 10 U.S. births â and 1 in 5 births in California â are to women who have entered the country illegally.
Upon reaching the age of 18, a U.S.-born child of illegal immigrants can petition to obtain permanent legal residency for his or her parents and siblings. Although it generally takes years for such requests to be approved or rejected, parents who receive visas then can begin the process of applying for full citizenship.
Because of the length of time involved, some immigration experts say that birthright citizenship is not a major incentive for the vast majority of illegal entrants.
However, the supporters of birthright citizenship expressed hope that they could head off the revocation measure in the House, or failing that, on the other side of Capitol Hill.
"There is no support for the concept in the Senate," said Sen. Judd Gregg , a republican from New Hampshire . "There are certain things that we have done as a nation for a long time that I don't think we're going to change. Rolling back the clock is not going to solve the problem of immigration."
-------------
Americans wary of immigrants: Gallup poll
NEW JERSEY, DEC 16: More Americans are wary of foreigners now than they were prior to Sept 11, a Gallup poll suggests.
However, Asia and Africa are comparatively welcoming of immigrants, but Europe, the Middle East, and Central and South America make it difficult for foreigners to settle.
In the U.S., the most favored destination of migrants, 51 percent said yes to immigrants, and while 44 percent said no. But the proportion of those hostile to foreigners has shot up since a Gallup poll in June 2001, right before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, in which 62 percent said they were for and only 31 percent against.
There are presently 35.2 million foreign-born people living in the U.S. â about 12.1 percent of the population, pushing the percentage of the U.S. population born in other countries to the highest point in nearly 100 years, according to Center for Immigration Studies.
Among French people made wary by recent immigrant riots, 50 percent said they would not welcome immigrants, while only 30 percent would, according to Gallup.
Amid recent racial turmoil in France and Australia and rising concern about immigrants worldwide, Gallup International conducted a survey of 55,000 people in 70 countries to mark the UN's proclamation of Dec. 18 as International Migrantâs Day. It found a global tendency to be wary of outsiders, as some 47 percent of respondents did not want foreigners to immigrate to their countries, while 43 percent did.
However, a substantial majority in Africa (63 percent), Asia (56 percent), and North America (54 percent) felt positively about immigration, while the majority in the Middle East (67 percent), Eastern Europe (61 percent), and Central and South America (53 percent), and some 50 percent in Western Europe were against immigrants.
The countries statistically most favorable to foreign influx were Israel and the Philippines (87 percent), Malaysia (80 percent), Nigeria (76 percent), and Canada (74 percent). The least welcoming was Turkey (7 percent), followed by Bulgaria (10 percent), and countries created after ethnic strife in former Yugoslavia, Serbia-Montenegro (10 percent) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (12 percent). In Korea, 57 percent favored foreign immigrants and 23 percent did not, which is about average for Asian countries.
------------
Indiaâs changing image abroad
NRIsNEW JERSEY, DEC 23: The rising profile of Indian professionals abroad is directly related to the growing culture and thirst for education, now one of the fastest growing activities in India, says the editor, India Focus.
In an article in The Financial Express, India focus editor Subhash Agrawal, says that India's middle class is saving, borrowing and toiling for the right academic opportunity for its children as never before, even though a good degree can be very expensive for the average family.
Going abroad for studies has now become such a standard practice that every year more than 50,000 Indian students join foreign universities. In fact, by the end of 2002, India already surpassed China as the leading country of origin for international students in the United States. For every one student China sends to university, India sends six, according to Agrawal.
In fact, nowhere is Indiaâs educational profile more in the spotlight than via its diaspora community of engineers, doctors, writers, academics and management gurus. Generally speaking, and with perhaps the exception of Gulf countries, where the bulk of Indian expatriates are low-skilled workers on short-term contracts, the vast majority of ethnic Indians living abroad tend to be very well educated, if not very well paid, observes Agrawal.
As per the last official census in the UK, the average income of Indian living in Britain was about 15% higher than the national average, while in Canada it was 20% higher.
In the US, where this has been meticulously documented by a report 'We the People: Asians in the United States', that was issued by the government some time ago and was based on the 2000 census, emigre Indians have the highest per capita income of any ethnic group, including the Chinese.
This report found that Indian migrants had higher incomes and educational levels than not just the average US family but also virtually every other Asian community. For example, 64% of Indians held a bachelorâs degree or more, as compared to 48% among Chinese or 54% among Pakistanis.
So far so good, but education remains tightly controlled and poorly supervised by the government in India, in effect reducing both quantity and quality in one stroke.
By Masood Haider
NEW YORK DEC 10. A group of 92 conservative US lawmakers will attempt next week to force a vote on legislation that would revoke the principle of "birthright citizenship," part of a broader effort to discourage illegal immigration ,said the Los Angeles Times in a report Saturday.
For nearly 140 years, any child born on U.S. soil, even to an illegal immigrant, has been given American citizenship according a US law. But conservatives believe that many women from mostly developing countries come to the United States to have children just to secure American citizenship for their children.
The newspaper said that the push to change the citizenship policy is backed by some conservative activists and academics. But it could cause problems for the White House and the Republican Party, which have been courting Latino voters. GOP officials fear the effort to eliminate birthright citizenship will alienate a key constituency, even if the legislation ultimately is rejected by Congress or the courts.
The principle at issue rests on the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to guarantee the rights of emancipated slaves: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Some US lawmakers advocating tougher immigration laws contend that the amendment has been misinterpreted for decades. Conservatives maintain that although illegal immigrants are subject to criminal prosecution and are expected to abide by U.S. laws and regulations, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States in the full sense intended by the amendment's authors â and their children therefore fall outside the scope of its protection.
Those who want to change the interpretation acknowledge that illegal immigration is largely driven by the hunger for jobs at U.S. wages. But they also say that for some immigrants, automatic citizenship provides another compelling incentive to cross the border. They note that the United States is one of few major industrialized nations that grant birthright citizenship with no qualifications.
"Illegal immigrants are coming for many different reasons," said Rep. Lamar Smith, (a republican), one of the lawmakers pushing for the House measure. "Some are coming for jobs. Some are coming to give birth. Some are coming to commit crimes. Addressing this problem is needed if we're going to try to combat illegal immigration on all fronts."
"This is about attempting to deal with a serious policy problem by going after people's babiesâ¦. It doesn't have to become law for this kind of proposal to offend people," Cecilia Muñoz, vice president for policy of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy group told LAT. "This one really hits a nerve."
The 92-member House Immigration Reform Caucus, headed by Rep. Tom Tancredo, a republican from Colorado , wants to attach an amendment revoking birthright citizenship to a broader immigration bill scheduled to be taken up sometime next week, the newspaper said.
Although several revocation bills have been introduced in the House, the most likely one to move forward would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.
The newspaper noted there is no official tally of the number of children born to illegal immigrants; unofficial estimates range from 100,000 to 350,000 a year. Smith and other critics of current immigration law say that 1 in 10 U.S. births â and 1 in 5 births in California â are to women who have entered the country illegally.
Upon reaching the age of 18, a U.S.-born child of illegal immigrants can petition to obtain permanent legal residency for his or her parents and siblings. Although it generally takes years for such requests to be approved or rejected, parents who receive visas then can begin the process of applying for full citizenship.
Because of the length of time involved, some immigration experts say that birthright citizenship is not a major incentive for the vast majority of illegal entrants.
However, the supporters of birthright citizenship expressed hope that they could head off the revocation measure in the House, or failing that, on the other side of Capitol Hill.
"There is no support for the concept in the Senate," said Sen. Judd Gregg , a republican from New Hampshire . "There are certain things that we have done as a nation for a long time that I don't think we're going to change. Rolling back the clock is not going to solve the problem of immigration."
-------------
Americans wary of immigrants: Gallup poll
NEW JERSEY, DEC 16: More Americans are wary of foreigners now than they were prior to Sept 11, a Gallup poll suggests.
However, Asia and Africa are comparatively welcoming of immigrants, but Europe, the Middle East, and Central and South America make it difficult for foreigners to settle.
In the U.S., the most favored destination of migrants, 51 percent said yes to immigrants, and while 44 percent said no. But the proportion of those hostile to foreigners has shot up since a Gallup poll in June 2001, right before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, in which 62 percent said they were for and only 31 percent against.
There are presently 35.2 million foreign-born people living in the U.S. â about 12.1 percent of the population, pushing the percentage of the U.S. population born in other countries to the highest point in nearly 100 years, according to Center for Immigration Studies.
Among French people made wary by recent immigrant riots, 50 percent said they would not welcome immigrants, while only 30 percent would, according to Gallup.
Amid recent racial turmoil in France and Australia and rising concern about immigrants worldwide, Gallup International conducted a survey of 55,000 people in 70 countries to mark the UN's proclamation of Dec. 18 as International Migrantâs Day. It found a global tendency to be wary of outsiders, as some 47 percent of respondents did not want foreigners to immigrate to their countries, while 43 percent did.
However, a substantial majority in Africa (63 percent), Asia (56 percent), and North America (54 percent) felt positively about immigration, while the majority in the Middle East (67 percent), Eastern Europe (61 percent), and Central and South America (53 percent), and some 50 percent in Western Europe were against immigrants.
The countries statistically most favorable to foreign influx were Israel and the Philippines (87 percent), Malaysia (80 percent), Nigeria (76 percent), and Canada (74 percent). The least welcoming was Turkey (7 percent), followed by Bulgaria (10 percent), and countries created after ethnic strife in former Yugoslavia, Serbia-Montenegro (10 percent) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (12 percent). In Korea, 57 percent favored foreign immigrants and 23 percent did not, which is about average for Asian countries.
------------
Indiaâs changing image abroad
NRIsNEW JERSEY, DEC 23: The rising profile of Indian professionals abroad is directly related to the growing culture and thirst for education, now one of the fastest growing activities in India, says the editor, India Focus.
In an article in The Financial Express, India focus editor Subhash Agrawal, says that India's middle class is saving, borrowing and toiling for the right academic opportunity for its children as never before, even though a good degree can be very expensive for the average family.
Going abroad for studies has now become such a standard practice that every year more than 50,000 Indian students join foreign universities. In fact, by the end of 2002, India already surpassed China as the leading country of origin for international students in the United States. For every one student China sends to university, India sends six, according to Agrawal.
In fact, nowhere is Indiaâs educational profile more in the spotlight than via its diaspora community of engineers, doctors, writers, academics and management gurus. Generally speaking, and with perhaps the exception of Gulf countries, where the bulk of Indian expatriates are low-skilled workers on short-term contracts, the vast majority of ethnic Indians living abroad tend to be very well educated, if not very well paid, observes Agrawal.
As per the last official census in the UK, the average income of Indian living in Britain was about 15% higher than the national average, while in Canada it was 20% higher.
In the US, where this has been meticulously documented by a report 'We the People: Asians in the United States', that was issued by the government some time ago and was based on the 2000 census, emigre Indians have the highest per capita income of any ethnic group, including the Chinese.
This report found that Indian migrants had higher incomes and educational levels than not just the average US family but also virtually every other Asian community. For example, 64% of Indians held a bachelorâs degree or more, as compared to 48% among Chinese or 54% among Pakistanis.
So far so good, but education remains tightly controlled and poorly supervised by the government in India, in effect reducing both quantity and quality in one stroke.