La Enfermedad

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here in an effort to consolidate all articles in one location**

He estado viendo las discusíones sobre la nueva ley de Arizona #1070.  Es necesario aclarar muchas de las malas representacíones al respecto de esta ley.  Pero mas que eso, todo la discusíon evita enfrentar lo que es realmente el problema. El problema de la inmigracíon illegal es simplemente un sintoma de una enfermedad mucho mas grande.  La política económica y el ambiente de negocios en México.  Roma se quema y nadie ve el humo.

Nadie quiere reconocer lo que es mas obvío de la situacíon, la razon por la cual vienen millones de immigrantes a los Estados Unidos es que la economia en Mexico no esta suficientemente estable o fuerte para mantener empleados a todos sus ciudadanos.  Y la razón por la cual las empresas no van a Mexíco es por las reglas y la inseguridad de hacer negocios. Hay ciertos hechos que se tienen que presentar.

El dinero enviado por los trabajadores mexicanos en Estados Unidos a sus familias alcanzó la marca de 12 mil millones de dólares en el 2003.  Los envíos “son nuestra principal fuente de ingresos extranjeros, mucho más que el petróleo, el turismo o las inversiones extranjeras”, dijo (Presidente) Fox a la prensa luego de reunirse con empresarios méxico-estadounidenses. 1   En 2009 la suma de remesas a Mexico era de 21.1 billones de dólares, 15.7% menos que en el año 2008. 2  México obtuvo divisas por turismo de 11.275 billones de dólares en el 2009, menores a los 13.289 billones de dólares del año previo.3 

PEMEX anuncio que perdió 16.6 billones de pesos (1.3 billones de dólares) en el ultimo cuatrimestre del 2009 que resulto en una suma de  48.5 billones de pesos de pérdidas para él año.4 

La politica economica de Mexicoesta a la raíz del problema.  Nos tenemos que preguntar, ¿porque?
¿Porque teniendo tantos recursos naturales Mexico no sale adelante?
¿Como es posible que en esta economia global una empresa petrolera pierde dinero?
¿Que tiene la economia Mexicana que su pueblo no ve oportunidad o forma de salir adelante?
¿Porque se le hace dificil a las empresas extranjeras establescerce en Mexíco?

Hay muchas preguntas pero al fin de cuenta el problema sigue siendo el ambiente de negocios en Mexíco. Por ejemplo, el porcentage de los impuestos que le cobra el gobierno Mexicano a una empresa son 51%5  y el promedio de dias que toma un pleito comercial son 415 dias 5    para resolverse.Las grandes empresas, tal vez, estan dispuestas a soportar semejantes costos. Pero una empresa apenas formandose o una empresa de tamaño mediano, no tiene los recursos o no esta dispuesta a aceptar tan grandes desventajas y buscará otro lado para poner su negocio. 

Cada uno de nosotros quiere salir adelante y proveer para nuestros hijos algo mejor que lo que tuvimos.  En este sentido entiendo porque se vienen los latinos de todas partes.  Pero ningún país puede permitir que se ignoren sus leyes y vengan y vayan inmigrantes cuando y como quiéran.  Es hipocrecía que Mexíco, y en particular, presidente Calderon regañe al estado de Arizona cuando la verdad es que las leyes migratórias de Mexico son sumamente mas estrictas que las de los Estados Unidos o el Estado de Arizona.  Y ademas, el problema no es la ley de los Estados Unidos, mucho menos la ley de Arizona, el problema es Mexíco.
La solucíon no es ni va ser fácil, pero tiene que empesar con el gobierno de Mexico.  Los Estados Unidos pueden poner todas las leyes que quieran, pero eso no cambia las situacíon en Mexíco.  El gobierno Mexicano tiene que tomar responsabilidad de lo que pasa, y de lo sucedido desde hace muchos años.  Pero siempre se le hace mas fácil dejar las cosas como estan; en parte porque no le cuesta nada al gobierno Mexicano, al contrario recibe el pais una gran cantidad de ingresos y el gobierno no tiene que invertir nada. Y al fin el pueblo se haya entre la espada y la pared, o se quedan en Mexico en la pobreza o se van ilegalmente a los Estados Unidos a buscar oportunidad y la posibilidad de una mejor vida para sus hijos.  La desgracia es que su gobierno prefiere culpar a los Americanos en vez de verse al espejo y tomar la responsabilidad por sus politicas que no le permiten el exito a su gente.

No entiendo porque se niega la gente ver que toda la situación es economica, y la entidad responsable es el gobierno de Mexíco.  El exportacíon principal de Mexíco, desgraciadamente, no es petróleo, ni madera, es su gente. Exporta su pueblo a cambio de dinero en la forma de remesas.

Don't Call Them Drunk Drivers

Here we go again. In an “opinion” piece from June 23, Linda Valdez of the Arizona Republic re-enforces the tried (or should I say tired) and true method of the left; vilify Americans while at the same time beatify illegal immigrants.

If people want to make an argument for unfettered, uncontrolled, unmonitored immigration then they should just make it. But please stop glorifying illegal aliens as some sort of altruistic population of innocents who should be exempted from criticism because they are "trying to provide a better life" for their kids or family or by using the "we wouldn't have any onions, lettuce,oranges, etc... if it weren't for illegal aliens," meme. give me a break.

First you have to swallow the supposition that the people that cross the border, in violation of federal law, are "migrants." Well the cold hard fact is this: these people are illegal aliens, criminals; just because they are not violent does mean that they do not commit crimes.

Second, even if you recognize that they are illegal aliens, you must somehow absolve them of any wrongdoing once they are in the country. Notice how the illegal alien mother people love to imagine in these hypothetical scenarios, apparently, bears no responsibility for putting her own son in danger of being arrested for violating the law, just so she can get a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk. What kind of parent are we talking about here? How much more selfish could she possibly be? Here are all these illegal immigrants in this country and Ms. Valdez seems to believe that illegals should be allowed to come and go as they please without any fear of being arrested or deported. That there shouldn't be any consequences for there actions because they pick onions.

And finally you must delude your self into thinking that crossing the border illegally is the ONLY crime/violation of the law they have committed; never taking into account that illegals drive without valid driver's licenses, drive without insurance, present fraudulent documentation to get jobs, steal social security numbers and other identification, fail to pay taxes, and may even commit fraud in order to collect government benefits such as food stamps.

Let us, for a moment, imagine that we use this same logic on drunk drivers. But please, don't call them drunk drivers, call them inebriated chauffeurs. No wait! How about impaired vehicle operators. No, no, no. Stop being so judgmental! They are just commuters. They are just regular people trying to get to work so they can support their families. You shouldn't try to pass laws that further force commuters to go into the shadows. And if a 18 year old commuter is taking his mother grocery shopping he shouldn't fear being arrested for taking his mom to get milk; never mind that his blood alcohol level is .136 and he has been arrested twice before for DUI. Nope. He is just trying to get his momma some milk.

And if you support laws that would prosecute commuters then you must be prejudiced against them and you are only writing these laws to try and get them to stop commuting in your state. Because they aren't doing anything bad, they are just driving under conditions that your average American refuses to drive under. They shouldn't be punished for driving when others refuse to drive. Never mind that in addition to driving while intoxicated they run red lights, fail to yield, speed, fail to signal, and fail to maintain reasonable and prudent distance from the vehicle in front of them. Those are just harassment laws designed to persecute commuters. and putting breath-analyzers in cars is just pure persecution; no one should have to "prove" their sobriety before commuting. We shouldn't pass laws that would discourage commuters from driving. Leave commuters alone.

Silly? Absolutely!! But that is the argument from the left; it doesn't make any logical or common sense when applied to any other group of people or any other type of law, and yet they continue to make it.

How sad.

The Nightmare that is the Dream Act

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here.  I will post all of my previous articles here as a method to consolidate all articles in one location**
Keep this article in mind when you hear this Act is again before Congress for passage. RRB

The DREAM Act is a complete and utter disaster. The DREAM Act as it is currently proposed is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to pass amnesty to a vast number of illegal aliens.  This act does nothing to solve the current illegal alien crisis and should be opposed by all Americans who believe in the rule of law.  I went online and read the proposed act to see what all the hubbub is about.  First of all let me just say that I am not a lawyer, but fortunately you don’t need to be to understand what the DREAM Act is trying to do nor how it is trying to do it.  The surprise here is how overt liberals have become in telling the American public exactly what they plan.  The only catch is that the American public has to read the act and engage as necessary.  I am not writing this as an opinion commentary, this is a column to inform you of what is in the act.  If you don’t agree you need to get off you duff and start calling your senator and congressman.  You have no idea what this act allows for and the politicians advocating its passage don’t want you to know, because if you knew there would be a national uprising of indignation and disgust.  Here’s hoping for a little of that.

Before we get too far, there are parts of this act that might require a lawyer but I will only address those portions which I both think are egregious and are straightforward. There is no way that a congressman should be able to argue that he/she didn’t understand the language or that he/she wasn’t aware of the consequences, etc…   I have excerpted the part of the bill in question so you can see the language yourself.  So here we go!!!

SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF STATE OPTION TO DETERMINE RESIDENCY FOR PURPOSES OF HIGHER EDUCATION BENEFITS.

(a)   In General- Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) is repealed.
The federal law mentioned above prohibits illegal aliens from getting instate tuition. I would like to take the time to point out the irony that any state that allows illegal immigrants to get instate tuition is violating federal law, this would be the perfect example of Preemption, unfortunately the federal government won’t stop this practice.

SEC. 4. CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF CERTAIN LONG-TERM RESIDENTS WHO ENTERED THE UNITED STATES AS CHILDREN.

(a) Special Rule for Certain Long-Term Residents Who Entered the United States as Children
(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security may cancel removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, subject to the conditional basis described in section 5, an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States, if the alien demonstrates that–
(A) the alien has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act, and had not yet reached the age of 16 years at the time of initial entry;
This act would allow anyone who is 5 years plus one day who was brought into this country as a newborn to be eligible.  Later in the act it stipulates that the “alien” can be not older than 35 years old to apply.  Has anyone thought about how many people we are talking about?  And once all these people are rewarded with citizenship they can proceed to legalize all of their relatives.
(B) the alien has been a person of good moral character since the time of application;
This essentially forgives anything the alien has done up to the point of application.  So, technically an alien could apply and there would be no consideration of any previous criminality, this might also include DUI, and any other previous arrests and/or convictions.
(2)   WAIVER- Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the ground of ineligibility under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the ground of deportability under paragraph (1)(E) of section 237(a) of that Act for humanitarian purposes or family unity or when it is otherwise in the public interest.
DHS can waiver anyone and stop them from being deported.  Under the guise of family unity that would essentially include every single illegal “alien” that applies for the program. But in case that isn’t enough DHS can waive deportation if they can find some public interest as determined by DHS.
(d) Exemption From Numerical Limitations- Nothing in this section may be construed to apply a numerical limitation on the number of aliens who may be eligible for cancellation of removal or adjustment of status under this section.
There is no limit to how many people can qualify under this act.  If there are 13 million, so be it. People will wait for years to get approved and, as you will see later; once they apply they cannot be deported if they have pending application.
(f) Removal of Alien- The Secretary of Homeland Security may not remove any alien who has a pending application for conditional status under this Act.
ONCE AN ILLEGAL ALIEN APPLIES HE/SHE CANNOT BE DEPORTED!!!!

SEC. 5. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS.

(2) HARDSHIP EXCEPTION-
(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Homeland Security may, in the Secretary’s discretion, remove the conditional status of an alien if the alien–
(i) satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1);
(ii) demonstrates compelling circumstances for the inability to complete the requirements described in paragraph (1)(D); and
(iii) demonstrates that the alien’s removal from the United States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien or the alien’s spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
The DHS can determine a hardship and remove the conditional status of the alien, without the alien having either completed a degree or serving in the armed forces.  Notice that the hardship can affect anyone in his immediate family who is a US citizen.  This paragraph will essentially allow anyone who entered illegally as a child and subsequently had children to stay in the US.

SEC. 7. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.

(c) Employment- An alien whose removal is stayed pursuant to subsection (b) may be engaged in employment in the United States consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and State and local laws governing minimum age for employment.
Once the alien applies he/she is legally allowed to work. Fancy that! Who needs a guest worker program when all you have to do is go to school or join the army?

SEC. 9. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

(b)    Penalty- Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be examined in violation of this section shall be fined not more than $10,000.
I’m not completely sure but I think this is a clause that will prohibit the oversight of this program by anyone outside of DHS and the DOJ.  That means there is no way to see what is happening behind the scenes. Who is getting a waiver, who is a hardship, how many are in the program, how many actually completed the requirements.  It is unconscionable that the federal government would legislate that a federal program cannot be audited or examined.

SEC. 11. HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE.

Notwithstanding any provision of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), with respect to assistance provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), an alien who adjusts status to that of a lawful permanent resident under this Act shall be eligible only for the following assistance under such title:
(1) Student loans under parts B, D, and E of such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq., 1087a et seq., 1087aa et seq.), subject to the requirements of such parts.


(2) Federal work-study programs under part C of such title IV (42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), subject to the requirements of such part.

(3) Services under such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), subject to the requirements for such services.
The American Tax Payer will foot the bill for the education of all these Illegal aliens getting an education. YOU have to pay for it. You have to subsidize the failure of other governments to offer economic opportunity to their citizens.
There is more in this very short proposition, I recommend everyone read it. Then ask yourself what the hell is going on in this country when not only are we rewarding illegal aliens with the opportunity for an education but we may in fact end up paying for it.  Meanwhile law-abiding immigrants are essentially punished for following the law and trying to do things the right way.
Call your Senator.

LOCATION, LEGISLATION, AND IMMIGRATION: THE TRUTH BEHIND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Many people on both sides of the issue, as it relates to anchor babies and birthright citizenship, cite the 14th Amendment to support their particular view on the subject of illegal aliens and whether or not their children are citizens.  In Arizona the debate has intensified as the Legislature debates the passage of Senate Bills (SB) 1308, 1309, and 1611.  Additionally, there has been an increase in the debate of birthright citizenship and whether there is a method by which this can be changed.  There are various views of the argument; some argue that birthright citizenship is a Constitutional right and cannot be changed without a Constitutional Convention, while I would argue that, in fact, birthright citizenship is statutory in nature and the only requirement to change the status quo is for Congress to clarify the existing statutes through legislation.  That is the argument which I will lay out in this article.

First, here are some facts that should be taken into consideration when discussing the issue.

1.   The power of establishing naturalization statutes lies with the Legislative Branch under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...”

2.  The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed and became law in April, 1866; it redefined the requirements for citizenship eligibility as it pertained to slaves, former slaves and children of slaves and specifically excluded “Indians not taxed.”

3.  The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9^th, 1868. It was designed to codify into the Constitution the provisions passed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, giving citizenship rights and immunities to the newly emancipated slaves after the Civil War. 

4.  The 14th Amendment, through the jurisdiction clause, did not give citizenship rights to everyone born in the United States, and did not retroactively apply to all peoples in the US at the time. 

Now, let’s step through the events logically.

The Constitution clearly stipulates that naturalization is a power held by the Legislative Branch of the government.  As such, it is Congress that decides who can and cannot become a citizen, and under which circumstances citizenship can be granted.  Congress is responsible for the regulations of citizenship and modifications of those regulations.  If Congress is empowered by the Constitution to establish the “Rule of Naturalization” then it cannot be said that citizenship, whether it be birthright citizenship or naturalization, is a Right as set forth in the 14th Amendment.

The Civil Rights act of 1866 was passed two years before the 14th Amendment.  This means that Congress had granted citizenship to all emancipated slaves and their children two years before the 14th Amendment was ratified.  The Civil Rights Act of 1866 specifically excluded “Indians not taxed” to avoid giving citizenship to Indians who were members of tribes on reservations who were members of those sovereign “Indian nations.”   Indians born within the United States (boundaries) were not considered and were not extended citizenship rights; presumably because they did not have allegiance to the US, rather to their tribe.  The point here is that the determination of citizenship was statutory, since at the time of passage of the Civil Rights act of 1866 the 14th Amendment did not exist.  Again, this is evidence that citizenship is granted through statutory regulation rather than as a direct consequence of the 14th Amendment.

This begs the question: If slaves were already citizens why was the 14th amendment necessary?  I think it is safe to say that Congress wanted to codify into the Constitution the provisions passed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, giving citizenship rights and immunities to the newly emancipated slaves after the Civil War.   By codifying these rights into the Constitution it would prevent any future congress from changing the naturalization statutes in the future and void or jeopardize the rights of emancipated slaves by simple majorities.

During the debate over the amendment Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, defined who would fall within the "jurisdiction of the United States": [E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the phrase “Subject to the Jurisdiction.”   Sen. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland explained the jurisdiction requirement as: “[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power -- for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before -- shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”  Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois said that 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' meant subject to its 'complete' jurisdiction, meaning “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

The very real and relevant point about the ratification of the 14th Amendment is that (there is no mention of slaves or Native Indians) it did not grant citizenship to everyone in the United States by edict.  Native Indians were not granted or considered citizens as a consequence of the 14th Amendment.  When the 14th Amendment was passed it made no mention of excluding Native Indians, nevertheless, it was plainly understood that Native Indians had not previously been citizens nor were they granted citizenship as a result of the 14th Amendment’s ratification.  Native Indians, although born in the territory of the United States were not considered US Citizens.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) the Supreme Court ruled that Native Indians were not citizens and that individuals could not become citizens merely by declaring themselves so: “But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law.”  The justices go on to point out that: “Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”  This case established the precedent on citizenship issues as they relate to birthright citizenship.   As a matter of fact, in 1919 Congress passed the American Indian Citizenship Act.  This act provided that American Indians who had participated in World War I and had been honorably discharged could apply for and subsequently be granted citizenship.  So even into the early 20th Century Indians, although born in the United States Territory, were not considered Citizens nor automatically granted that privilege under the law.  And it wasn’t until 1924 that Congress passed the Indian Citizen Act which granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States.  This was done through statute and passed by Congress, it was then that Native Indians gained birthright citizenship in the United States. 

Subsequent decisions are cited to support the idea that birthright citizenship is a Constitutional right, particularly US v. Wong Kim Ark.  But even though Wong was granted naturalization based on his birth in the United States, his parents were legally present in the country through a treaty with China, at least part of the decision rested on his perceived allegiance to the United States vis a vis China.  It can be said that Wong was wrongly decided since immigration and naturalization was expressly prohibited in the treaty with China at the time and it was understood that Chinese workers were still subjects of China.  But even this decision acknowledged the right of Congress to legislate naturalization laws. 

Additionally, the argument that you are citizen based on the physical location of your birth is not recognized by any other nation.  It is contrary to common law as it has been understood for hundreds of years.  A person’s citizenship is always based on his parents’ status.  This is why the US government has written legislation to accommodate children born in foreign countries and those born to Military servicemen overseas, among many others; because other countries do not automatically recognize the child born as a citizen of their respective countries unless one of the parents is a national of that country.  There was even an act granting citizenship to Mexicans who elected to reside in the US after the War with Mexico; otherwise those people would have remained Mexican citizens.  The presumption is that a child inherits his citizenship from his parents.  This idea is not new and it is disingenuous to believe or to argue otherwise.  Just because a child is born in Germany does not make him German, in order to be a citizen he must be born to parents who are subject to German law.  And one cannot ignore hundreds of years of jurisprudence because it suits his agenda.

All of the arguments notwithstanding look at the “jurisdiction” clause and ask yourself whether or not illegal immigrants in this country are truly under the jurisdiction of the United States.  To answer that question, one must wonder why illegal immigrants often call the Mexican Consulate for legal assistance.  If they are claiming citizenship for their children (because they are presumably under the jurisdiction of the United States per the 14^th Amendment), they would, by definition, have no allegiance to Mexico; why would they call a foreign diplomatic corps for assistance?  Probably because we all know instinctively that allegiance to your country, no matter who you are, is much more than the physical location of your birth.

Much, much more…

ANCHOR BABIES AND THE ATTEMPT TO SILENCE CRITICS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

This is a response to an opinion piece in the Arizona Republic by James Garcia.

“Anchor babies” are identified as such because their parents are illegally in the country.  And, these parents are fully aware that once the child is born he/she/they are immediately eligible for government handouts, among these are WIC subsidies, Food Stamps, housing assistance and welfare.  This term is used to quickly refer to the situation of these children while economizing words. This method of creating terms for people is quite common in society.  I don’t recall anyone ever objecting to the term “crack babies”; a term used to describe children who are born to mothers that are addicted to crack cocaine.  Is this a form of racial slur?  Is this a detestable label?  How about “welfare mother” or “soccer mom” or DINK (dual income no kids), or Yuppie (young upwardly mobile), or X-genner, Y-genner?  And what about the use of the term “Tea bagger,” is this also a detestable label?  This term is also meant “to punish, degrade and dehumanize.”  Has Mr. Garcia ever called for the end to its use? 

This indignation is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize and silence anyone who disagrees with his view on illegal immigration: if you use the term you are racist and therefore your ideas are not worth listening to.  

Mr. Garcia takes offense because his parents are Mexican; from what he indicates his parents arrived and spent their time in the US legally.  Kudos to them!  This does not, however, change the dynamics of the phenomenon we know today as anchor babies.   The United States is financially broke and indebted up to its ears; unfettered immigration is steadily increasing that debt as more and more illegal immigrants come across the border with the sole intention of giving birth to their children in the United States in an effort to abuse the system and to take advantage of the American taxpayer. 

Mr. Garcia then claims that birth-right citizenship is a constitutional right, when, in fact, Rule of Naturalization is a power given to the Legislative branch under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”  This would make it statutory, not Constitutional.  I’m sure that Mr. Garcia would then point to the 14^th Amendment as his Constitutional proof, but even Senator Howard, who wrote the 14^th Amendment explicitly stated that it was not intended to apply to aliens: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers”…   Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, elaborated: "What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means ... It cannot be said of any (one) who owes allegiance ... to some other government that he is 'subject' to the jurisdiction of the United States."  re foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministries."

If Mr. Garcia wants to stop these slurs he should support efforts to eliminate the situation which creates this category of people.  If illegal immigration is the root cause of what society calls “anchor babies” then the logical solution is to eliminate, as much as possible, illegal immigration.  But this is not part of Mr. Garcia’s agenda; he merely wants to squelch people’s right to express their opposition to illegal immigration by feigning indignation instead of talking about a real solution to the illegal immigration problem in the United States.