[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 12, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4940-H4943]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMIGRATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Ohio). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King)
is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to address you here
on the floor of the United States House of Representatives and to bring
to the attention of this body some subject matter that doesn't often
get a debate here on the floor but it does get some discussion in
Special Order time and sometimes in the 1-minute and 5-minutes that
Members present to you here in this great deliberative place that we
have the privilege to serve in.
One of the things that I wanted to bring before your attention here
this evening is the immigration issue here in the United States. It is
something that I don't know has been discussed here for some time. I
bring this forward because it is an important issue. It is essential
that we maintain and sustain and enhance the rule of law here in the
United States. So I bring this forward. A number of things are on my
mind.
The first thing that comes to mind for me is a subject that was
reported on Fox News on July 11. I picked up this article and I wanted
to express this to you on what is going on.
I introduced early in January, one of the first days of business here
in this new 112th Congress, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011. Mr.
Speaker, I brought this act forward working with people who have been
leaders on this issue for some time. One of them would be our friend,
Nathan Deal, now Governor Deal of Georgia, who was the lead on this
issue when he served in the United States Congress. And some of the
successor people involved would be Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia
and the incoming freshman from Georgia, Rob Woodall; from California,
Congressman Gary G. Miller, one who has been a strong proponent of the
rule of law and standing up for the rights of American citizens. These
people and others have been strong supporters of the Birthright
Citizenship Act. And because of my role on the Immigration Committee
where I have been for now going onto the 9th year, it seemed to be a
better fit for me to carry this legislation, so I stepped forward with
it because we needed to take a position.
What is going on, Mr. Speaker, is that in the United States of
America, there are people who erroneously read the 14th Amendment of
the Constitution in the component that addresses what we call
birthright citizenship. It says, in the 14th Amendment, that all
persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof are American citizens. All persons born or
naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof are American citizens.
Now, the circumstances are that it has created a misinterpretation. A
misinterpretation of this section of the 14th Amendment has created
birthright tourism. So we have, you might see a $30,000 turnkey
operation going on where a pregnant woman in China, and she is probably
going to have a benefactor that would sponsor this, could receive a
turnkey operation for a little tourism trip into the United States, get
her on an airplane and smuggle her into the United States one way or
another where she would have a baby. She would be 8\1/2\ months
pregnant or so, theoretically, and have the baby here in the United
States. The baby would get a nice, new American birth certificate with
his little footprint stamped on it. And then that baby might go back to
China with the baby's mother, or the mother might stay here
[[Page H4941]]
in the United States with family and friends, whoever might want to
harbor that mother and/or child. And when that child is old enough, the
child can sponsor the entire family to come in the United States by
virtue of that automatic citizenship that is conferred upon a child
that is born here to an illegal mother and a who-knows father.
That is going on not just in rare circumstances, and certainly not
just with Chinese. In fact, that is not one of the larger numbers. It
is happening in this country someplace between 340,000 times a year and
750,000 times a year, Mr. Speaker. We have a people that sneak into the
United States for the purpose of having a baby so that baby can become
an American citizenship.
I believe, as the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee, Lamar
Smith, believes, that citizenship should be precious. It should be
precious. It shouldn't be dealt out. It shouldn't be something that you
can buy a turnkey ticket to game the system to have a baby that then is
automatically an American citizen subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Mr. Speaker, I will argue that Chinese woman that flies into the
United States with a $30,000 turnkey tourism for birthright is not
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, not in the way that
was envisioned by the people that wrote the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was put in place to guarantee
that the babies born to formerly slaves, and then at that time of
ratification freed slaves, would be American citizens, that the babies
born to the freed slaves would not be denied all of the rights of
citizenship as were guaranteed to them in the 13th and 14th Amendments.
And it took into account that babies born on Indian reservations, some
of them, would have lost their rights, their tribal rights on those
reservations if they had become automatic American citizens. So some of
the Native Americans said, no, they didn't want that conferred upon
them.
The drafters of the 14th Amendment then wrote language in it to
preclude automatic citizenship to any Homo sapien that was born within
the territory of the United States. They also had to be subject to the
jurisdiction thereof. And this Congress went through a great deal of
debate in the House and in the Senate on what that actually meant in
the clause, ``subject to the jurisdiction thereof.''
It was not contemplated that the children of diplomats would become
automatic American citizens. It was not contemplated that certain
Native Americans born on certain reservations would be subject to the
jurisdiction thereof and become American citizens. But it was
contemplated that the children born to freed slaves would be American
citizens.
It is a guarantee, and it was written with a significant amount of
wisdom. They could not have anticipated that America would get so lazy
and so lax that this constitutional amendment would drift its way into
a practice, an erroneous practice of conferring automatic citizenship
on mostly any baby that would be born in America.
Now, here is how it is. If there is a plane flying through the United
States, and let's just say this plane is bound from China to Toronto,
which does happen, Mr. Speaker. And it was going to be a flight that
was going to be a direct flight and drop into Toronto, but because of
weather conditions or maybe mechanical problems, it had to land in
Chicago. Let's just say if there is a woman pregnant on that plane who
is flying into Toronto and the plane lands in Chicago and it is stuck
there for mechanical repairs or a weather-related delay and the woman
is inside security and has the baby, the baby is not an American
citizen. But if she walks through the security, is outside the security
during the layover and has the baby out there, this baby is an American
citizen.
That is what has been going on in the practice of this automatic
citizenship that I think is an erroneous misinterpretation, and I think
a willful misinterpretation, or probably more often a lazy
misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
And so I have introduced the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011,
along with the friends and colleagues that I have mentioned and many
others, and a good number of cosponsors who take the position with me
that if a child is born in America, has to be born to at least one
legal parent in order to be a citizen of the United States. It is
pretty simple. It clarifies the 14th Amendment. It clarifies the clause
in the 14th Amendment, ``subject to the jurisdiction thereof.''
Congress has the authority to do that.
I got concerned about this when there were a couple of Senators who
were talking about the need to amend the Constitution to fix this
problem.
{time} 2100
Mr. Speaker, it doesn't require a constitutional amendment to fix the
automatic citizenship practice that is so flawed that it confers an
automatic citizenship on as many as 750,000 babies born to illegal
parents here in the United States.
To give you an example, as I said, it's not just a Chinese woman who
comes over here, pregnant, to have the baby here--and that happens on a
very regular basis. It's often someone who comes in from a neighboring
country. We know, of the criminal aliens that are in our prisons, two-
thirds of them come from Mexico. One might presume that of a similar
number of these automatic citizenship babies also their mothers are
citizens of Mexico who are in the United States illegally, having the
babies here and picking up that automatic citizenship, that birth
certificate. They may or may not go back to their home country, but you
can bet that when the time comes that that child will already be
programmed to petition for the family reunification plan, which has our
immigration plan in America out of control--out of control.
So what do we do about this?
The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011.
It should be a simple decision for this United States Congress to
address this situation, but some will argue, well, ``subject to the
jurisdiction thereof'' means nothing, that that clause in the 14th
Amendment doesn't have meaning; therefore, it requires that they all be
citizens. I think that is a very thin and a very marginal argument at
best. The clause must mean something.
``All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof,'' are American citizens. There is a reason
that it says: ``and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'' If everyone
born in the territory of the United States is automatically a citizen,
you would strike that language from the 14th Amendment ``and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof,'' and it would simply read: ``All persons
born or naturalized in the United States'' are American citizens. If
that were the intent, if that were the understanding of the 14th
Amendment, that's what it would have said, Mr. Speaker, but it says:
``and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'' The definition of that
phrase is subject to the interpretation of the understanding of what it
meant at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment, and it
meant that ``subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' didn't mean that
there was going to be automatic citizenship for illegals.
Granted, we didn't have much for immigration laws at the time. There
wasn't enough human migration to be very concerned about it, but they
clearly didn't intend to confer automatic citizenship on Native
Americans born on reservations that were not subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States. They clearly didn't intend to confer
automatic citizenship on the children born to the diplomats or their
staff, or for tourists for that matter. I mention the tourism part when
I explain what happens if a plane lands in Chicago on its way to
Toronto and a baby is born. Which side of the security? Here is
automatic citizenship on the U.S. side of the security. That's nuts,
Mr. Speaker, but we've gotten lazy and lax with the practice of
conferring automatic citizenship.
So people don't challenge it, and I'm really worried about an
administration--actually, I've been worried about a couple of those
administrations since I've arrived in this town--that doesn't seem to
have much vigor for enforcing immigration law. It's pretty frustrating
to be here in the United States Congress, pounding away to have to pass
legislation to fix something that's just a matter of intellectual
laziness; but the people who are enforcing this, the people who are
handing out birth
[[Page H4942]]
certificates almost like candy, aren't challenging it. They don't have
a very good constitutional understanding or there would be some
pushback out there from across the countryside.
In the OB ward of the hospitals around the country, they've got to
have stacks of these birth certificates, and when a baby is born, it's
almost an automatic process. Here is the footprint. Here is the data.
Here is the birth certificate. Send that child off. He's an American
citizen. What do we suppose happens if a diplomat or the wife of a
diplomat or even a staff of the diplomat comes into the hospital to
have a baby?
Do they meet them at the door and say, ``Do you happen to be a
diplomat? Are you here on some kind of foreign immunity, and you're
planning on having a baby here, and do you think that baby is going to
be an American citizen?''
``No, we're not going to allow it. Citizenship is not going to be
cheapened like that.''
That doesn't happen, Mr. Speaker. What really happens is the children
of diplomats are often conferred with automatic citizenship because the
whole system of America is so automatic that any baby born inside the
U.S. territory is just given the paperwork and the documents.
Here is an article that came out on Fox News, as I mentioned a little
bit earlier, reported on July 11--by good, thorough people, I might
add. This is Elizabeth Robichaux Brown who has written this article.
The Center for Immigration Studies says: ``Foreign diplomats are
obtaining U.S. birth certificates and Social Security numbers for their
newborn children--effectively becoming U.S. citizens. On top of their
new status in the world, these children carry an additional perk that
most Americans do not have--diplomatic immunity.'' So it creates what
the CIS describes as a ``super citizen.'' Just like their parents, most
are immune to the criminal jurisdiction of the United States, creating
super citizens. These super citizens are, of course, children of
diplomats, and all they need to have is a U.S. birth certificate and a
Social Security number, and they're effectively American citizens.
Who is going to challenge it? There's no question on the birth
certificate that asks the question: Are you a diplomat? Is one of your
parents legal? an American citizen, perhaps? Those questions don't get
asked. They just routinely stamp those birth certificates and
send those children off with automatic citizenship 340,000 to 750,000
times a year--some who are clearly not subject to the jurisdiction
thereof.
In fact, in the concluding statement in the article, you've got a
statement here from one of the proponents of the policy that I
advocate, a statement that says: ``Despite Congress' clear intent to
not create a completely universal and automatic birthright citizenship
policy, the current application of the Citizenship Clause is so lax
that the United States has a de facto universal birthright citizenship
policy that denies U.S. citizenship by birth to no one, including
children born to foreign diplomats.''
Mr. Speaker, that has to change. We intend to change that with the
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011--that's H.R. 140--and I intend to be
engaged in that and to be helping to move that legislation forward.
It has gotten to the point where the children of diplomats, with
diplomatic immunity, are getting automatic American citizenship just
because they're born inside the territory of the United States--perhaps
not even born on U.S. soil. They might even potentially be born in that
sovereign territory of the Embassy itself, and they're still American
citizens.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we also have an out-of-control legal immigration
system, aside from the illegal immigration, which I talk about quite a
lot. If we look back over the last decade, we'll see that we brought
in, roughly, one and a quarter legal immigrants a year. Over that last
decade, if you would look at the new jobs created by the United States
economy, those new jobs created are going to average about one and a
quarter million jobs a year. This is before the recession began. These
numbers held up then, and they're even stronger now. The new jobs
created by the American economy have been almost exactly the same
number of jobs that would be taken by the legal immigrants who come
into the United States.
If we had shut down, slowed down, the legal immigration in the United
States over the last 10 years, there would have been just, say,
roughly, 10 million fewer legal immigrants in America, and we'd have 10
million fewer unemployed Americans. That's just a simple way of looking
at this. I don't propose that we eliminate all legal immigration, not
by any means, Mr. Speaker. What I do propose is that we do an economic
analysis of this. When we look at real numbers of testimony that have
come before the committee, under oath data, here is what we have:
A country should establish an immigration policy that is designed to
enhance the economic, the social and the cultural well-being of the
United States of America. That should be our task. Yet, with our legal
immigration, that legal immigration that is based upon merit, when we
take a look at what these individuals have to offer the United States,
when we take a look at what they have for capital to invest or their
ability to assimilate or their educational background or their relative
youth so they've got some years to contribute before they start to draw
from the system, these are all logical things that we should ask for.
{time} 2110
But it's only between 7 and 11 percent of the legal immigration in
American that is based upon anything that has to do with what's good
for America. And the balance of it would be 89 to 93 percent of the
legal immigration in America is out of the control of the value
judgment of the American people, in the hands of the legal immigrants--
or sometimes the illegal immigrants--themselves. It's out of our
control.
Birthright citizenship is a piece of that that I'm not even sure is
part of this equation that I've just described to you. There is a
family reunification plan that takes up a big chunk of this, that once
someone comes in they can start bringing in their family and their
extended family, and it goes out like a tree to no end. We need to
limit that family reunification plan. And we need to roll this thing
back around and base the legal immigration in America on merit again--
what do they have to offer the United States?
And Mr. Speaker, I will say also, we had testimony before the
committee, and there were a number of strong faithful representatives
that testified there. Some of them are national leaders in the faith
community who argued that we need to find a way to accommodate the 11
million to 20 million illegals that are here in America and give them a
path to citizenship. And every one of them said that they thought they
should go to the back of the line. They should go to the back of the
line, the 11 million to 20 million illegals in America should go to the
back of the line, but we should give them a means by which they can
earn American citizenship. Well, think about it, Mr. Speaker, go to the
back of the line. Which line? I asked them, which line? Well, the back
of the line. Now that's a talking point that apparently wasn't thought
about any deeper than that because if they can't answer the question
which line, they surely don't know where that line is. Is it in the
United States or is it in lines in the foreign countries, people
waiting to come into the United States?
I would submit that if those who are in the United States illegally
are to go to the back of the line, it's not a line in the United
States. The people in line to come into the United States legally are,
by definition, not in the United States. They're outside the United
States, they're in their home country, they're following the laws of
America, they're lined up to come in the right way--God bless them for
doing that. But that line, that line of legal waitees--to maybe coin a
phrase--the line of people who are willing to respect American
immigration law, get in line and wait in line isn't just some short
little old line that you can put 11 million to 20 million people behind
and think you're going to process them through. That line of the people
who are respecting American laws and are waiting to come into the
United States legally, none of them are in the United
[[Page H4943]]
States. It's 50 million strong, Mr. Speaker; 50 million people have
taken the trouble to line up to try to come into the United States
legally.
We are the most generous country in the world by far, letting in
around 1.25 million legal immigrants--a very small percentage of them
actually come here because of merit, as I said--and meanwhile we've got
11 million to 20 million here in this country that have disrespected
our laws. And I would suggest that I would much rather see the 11
million to 20 million who are in the line respecting American laws
waiting to come in, I would like to see them come in and become
American citizens ahead of those who have disrespected American laws.
That sustains the rule of law. That upholds the rule of law. That
strengthens us as a Nation. And rewarding law breakers weakens the rule
of law and weakens us as a Nation and chisels away at that beautiful
marble pillar of American exceptionalism called the rule of law. That's
the equation.
And I hear constantly arguments from people that have their own
interests, their own viewpoint. They need somebody to milk the cows or
they need somebody to take care of their equestrian herd or they need
somebody to do their gardening, they need somebody to be their butler
or their maid. So they're saying, I can't afford to hire somebody in
this country. You need to bring me some cheaper labor.
I would suggest that Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation is
right: We have become a welfare state. And a household headed by a high
school dropout, without regard to their immigration status, costs the
taxpayer annually $23,449 a year. But it boils down to this: They will
draw down $32,000 a year in benefits--a welfare state--they will pay
$9,000 a year in taxes. And that's the change, that's the difference.
And when you multiply it times 50 years of managing the household,
being the head of the household, 50 years, it costs the taxpayers an
average of $1.5 million to subsidize that household. And that's a high
school dropout. Now it may not get worse when they're an illegal high
school dropout, but it doesn't get a lot better. There is a net number,
too, that he produces, I think that's around the order of $19,499 a
year. In this area, let's say $20,000 a year, plus or minus a thousand
or two, for a household headed by a high school dropout and/or an
illegal immigrant.
Now the burden to the taxpayer, because we're a welfare state, can't
be ignored. And the weight on the taxpayers, when we have an oversupply
of cheap labor and an undersupply of taxpayers, and 47 percent of
households don't pay income tax, we're living in a welfare state, and
we're giving automatic citizenship to 340,000 to 750,000 babies a year
that are born to an illegal mother who sneaks into the United States.
And then the President has the temerity to go down to the border in
El Paso and make fun of people who think like I do, that say let's
build a fence, a wall and a fence. He said some will want a moat, some
will want alligators in it. He was standing down there within 220 yards
of this, Mr. Speaker. This is El Paso, Texas. This is Juarez, Mexico.
Some people would want a moat, some people would want a fence, some
would want alligators in it--I don't think there are any alligators in
here, Mr. Speaker. But this is the aerial picture that I had seen just
a few weeks before the President gave this speech in El Paso. The
records are good--not many people are getting across the border here.
Why? Because we have--here's a fence right here, this is the Rio Grande
River. We have a fence, a river, another fence--here is a patrol road
that is patrolled by the Border Patrol. There is a Border Patrol
vehicle right here, another one up around the curve--a patrol road,
then another fence, then a canal that's forwarding a lot of water, and
it flows pretty fast, then another fence. If you can get over that,
you're in the United States, into El Paso, and maybe you can catch a
ride here and you're home free.
Not a moat, not a moat with alligators; you might say two moats and
four fences--a fence, the Rio Grande River, a fence, a patrol road, a
fence, a canal with flowing water--and deep--another fence, and then
you're off into the United States. Three of those fences you have to
climb wet. This is very effective. And the President is standing within
220 yards of that making fun of Americans who think that physical
structures help control illegal immigration.
So we're spending $12 billion a year on this southern border,
enforcing it and chasing people across the desert 100 miles into the
United States. And out of that $12 billion a year, that's $6 million a
mile, on average, for every mile on our southern border. I can build
you a fence, a wall and a fence for about $2 million a mile, about one-
third of the annual budget. And I don't suggest that we build 2,000
miles of it right away, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that we start building
it and stop building when they stop going around the end. That's the
scenario, that's the logical way to address this. Build a fence, a wall
and a fence; use the funding that we have, roll it into that kind of
infrastructure. It is effective. And the President's staff didn't serve
him very well if he was standing with his back to a fence, a river, a
fence, a patrol road, another fence, a canal, and another fence. Those
are the barriers to get into the United States, and he's making fun of
it. And the Border Patrol is telling us this is effective. It is
effective. It's been effective in El Paso, it keeps them in Juarez.
It's been effective in San Luis in southwest Arizona. It's not
effective where there is nothing. And we have to pay a lot of people a
lot of time and money to chase all over the desert after people that
walked around the end.
Let's build it until they stop going around the end. Let's pass the
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011. Let's make sure that the kind of
security that is in El Paso can be applied in other high-traffic areas.
Build a fence until they stop going around the end, and then, Mr.
Speaker, we can also pass my New Idea Act, which shuts off the Federal
deductibility for wages and benefits paid to illegals, brings the IRS
into this mix, and gives the employer safe harbor. All of that. Simple
solutions to a complex problem, Mr. Speaker.
I would conclude with that statement, thank you for your attention,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________