Hannity & Colmes last night had a segment on the current bill
to deny
birthright citizenship to US-born children of persons not themselves
citizens or permanent residents. Rep. Gary Miller of California, one of the
sponsors of the bill, was interviewed & made a plain case: The current
situation is an incentive to illegal immigration, and we don’t need such
incentives. He seems perfectly sure that Congress has the power to change
the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and reports strong support
both within and outside Congress.
The segment appeared near the end of the 1-hour program, and was preceded by
several teasers sprinkled through the program (which, like most FNC programs
lately, was mostly concerned with some lady gone missing in Aruba). All but
one of these teasers were spoken by Alan Colmes, in the kind of language
that makes us immigration reformers tear our hair. Samples:
“Immigration activists are targeting the unborn children of immigrants.”
“A new bill would punish unborn children for illegal immigration — We’ll
bring you the shocking details in just a moment.”
“Republicans are now so intent on stopping immigration [sic] they are
targeting unborn children.”
Just look at that language: “targeting” … “punsh” … “shocking details”
… Un unwary viewer would get the impression that the unborn children of
illegal immigrants are to be ripped from their mothers’ wombs and tossed
into boiling oil. In fact, all that is proposed is that they not be given
authomatic U.S. citizenship.
Colmes, quite uncharacteristically — he is an extremely smart and clever
guy, and very charming in person — floundered when confronted with the very
presentable and clear Rep. Miller.
The only debating points Colmes could come up with were: (1) The proposed
bill denies a right to unborn children, and Republicans are “supposed to be
strong on the rights of the unborn,” and (2) That Miller’s remark about
other countries not having birthright citizenship is contrary to previous
grumbling by Republicans when SCOTUS calls in foreign countries’ laws to
bolster an argument.
On (1): Citizenship is not an unqualified right, like life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness. The denial of citizenship to a person ineligible
for it is not the denial of a right, still less a “targeting” for
“punishment.”
On (2): The context was reciprocity. If other countries do not give
birthright citizenship to infants born on their territory to US mothers, why
should we give our citizenship to the infants of their mothers? This is a
different thing from merely looking overseas for guidance in framing our
laws.