There are 3.6M 'DREAMers' — a number far greater than commonly known

[timosman]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...re/1042134001/

The political debate over the fate of "DREAMers" — undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children — has overlooked just how many there are in the country today: about 3.6 million.

That number of people whose lives risk being uprooted is not widely known, in large part because so much public attention has been focused recently on 800,000 mostly young DREAMers accepted into the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

This smaller group of DREAMers is in the spotlight because President Trump terminated DACA in September, saying it was an illegal overreach of executive authority that can only come from Congress, which is negotiating with Trump on a compromise immigration plan.

While many politicians use DREAMer and DACA interchangeably, the terms are "not a distinction without a difference," said House Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

DREAMers got their name from the DREAM Act, a bill that has been proposed in Congress since 2001, but never passed, that would protect that group of immigrants.

The 3.6 million estimate of undocumented immigrants brought to U.S. before their 18th birthday comes from the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit think tank that studies global immigration patterns. That is roughly a third of all undocumented immigrants in the country and does not include millions of their immediate family members who are U.S. citizens.

A number so large raises the stakes for both sides in the dispute over whether to deport DREAMers, allow them to stay under prescribed conditions or provide them with a path to citizenship.

Ali Noorani, executive director of the pro-immigrant National Immigration Forum, said exposing millions of DREAMers to deportations would be a moral and economic calamity.

"At a time when our economy is growing and our labor market is extremely tight, these are all folks of working age who have skills to immediately contribute," Noorani said. "We would be spending billions of dollars to remove folks who have the potential to help the country grow."

On the other side is Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Status, which favors lower levels of immigration. He argues for only extending protections for the 800,000 in DACA. "It's not like they're entitled to anything, but prudence suggests an extraordinary act of mercy," he said. "Amnesty is warranted for them alone, at least this time."

In exchange for DREAMer protections, Republicans want enhanced border security, the end of a diversity visa program for people from under-represented countries, including several from Africa, and a reduction in relatives that U.S. citizens can sponsor for visas.

The impact of what may happen to DREAMers was highlighted this week when Jorge Garcia, 39, a Detroit landscaper who has lived in the U.S. for 30 years, was deported back to his native Mexico even though he arrived in the country when he was 10 years. Garcia, whose wife and two children are all U.S. citizens, did not qualify for DACA because he was just over the age limit.

To qualify for DACA, created in 2012, DREAMers had to undergo a thorough background check, prove they arrived in the U.S. before their 16th birthday, were 30 or younger, were attending school or in the military, and had not committed a felony or serious misdemeanor. The program provided work permits and two-year reprieves from deportation that could be renewed.

Cecilia Muñoz, Obama's domestic policy director, said he chose to protect a limited number of DREAMers because he could go only so far through executive action. Now that Congress is involved, Muñoz said, far more DREAMers should be protected.

"The right policy is to be as generous as possible," Muñoz said. "We know the success of DACA. It's good for the country, and this has overwhelming support around the country from people on both sides of the aisle. There's no reason to limit who is eligible."

There are several legislative proposals that each protect different numbers of DREAMers. Some deal only with those who entered the country before their 16th birthday. Others set age limits and include education or military requirements and clean criminal records.

According to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute:

• The most generous proposal is the American Hope Act introduced by Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., which would provide legal status to 3.5 million DREAMers, excluding a small group who pose public safety threats.
• Another plan known as the DREAM Act presented to Trump by a bipartisan group of senators last week would allow 2.1 million to stay in the country.
• "There is support across the country for allowing Dreamers — who have records of achievement — to stay, work, and reach their full potential," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said. "We should not squander these young people’s talents and penalize our own nation."
• Other proposals from Republicans would protect up to 1.7 million immigrants.
• The most restrictive proposals would provide legal status only to the 798,980 people approved for DACA.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has said it will not deport former DACA recipients if their protections expire. But under Trump's orders, it will arrest any undocumented immigrant agents come across. The percentage of undocumented immigrants without criminal records arrested by ICE has increased dramatically since Trump took office.

If Congress does not strike a deal by March 5, DACA enrollees will begin losing their deportation protections and work permits.

[RonZeplin]

They missed the Anchor Babies entirely.

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14^th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14^th Amendment by writing:

"Every 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."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14^th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

The original intent of the 14^th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007, as did New Zealand in 2006, Ireland in 2005, France in 1993, and the United Kingdom in 1983. This leaves the United States and Canada as the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, irrespective of their parents' nationality or immigration status.

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

For more information, see:

• 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship
• The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans, by P.A. Madison, Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies, February 1, 2005
• Illegal Aliens and American Medicine, by Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D., Esq., The Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 10 Number 1 - Spring 2005
• Track 'anchor babies', by Al Knight, Denver Post, September 11, 2002.
• Change U.S. law on anchor babies, by Al Knight, Denver Post, June 22, 2005.
• The Mexican Fifth Column by Tom DeWeese, January 27, 2003.
• Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens, by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
• The Outrages of the Mexican Invasion, by Tom DeWeese, American policy Center.
• Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance, by P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog, December 17, 2005.
• Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11 - Testimony of Dr. John C. Eastman, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Oversight Hearing on “Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty” - U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims
• Birthright Citizenship: Is it the Right Policy for America?, Jon Feere, Center for Immigration Studies, April 29, 2015, Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
• Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison, John Feere, Center for Immigration Studies, August, 2010.
• Justice Brennan's footnote gave us anchor babies, Ann Coulter, August 4, 2010.
• Nations Granting Birthright Citizenship, NumbersUSA.com, August 6, 2014.
• Children of Illegal [Alien] Immigrants Are Not Born American Citizens, Tim Dunkin, Canada Free Press, August 25, 2015.

[Brian4Liberty]

"Children" being used as a foot in the door for a general amnesty. "It's for the children!"

[devil21]

The bankers need the illegals to turn "legal" so they are legally liable for taxation like the rest of the cattle. The anchor babies were already turned into cattle when they were born, via birth certificate registration and citizenship. Now, the rest of them are due for their branding. This is the main reason why illegal immigration was allowed to get so far out of hand in the first place. More tax slaves to support the monetary ponzi scheme.