Dear Representative Veasey,
RE: Your Opposition to H.R. 140 – Birthright Citizenship Act of 2013-2014

Dear Marc,

I am happy you took the time to write and give me your reasons for opposing the bill. I would like to address them one at a time.

The first statement is “H.R. 140 would change the definition of “American” which is absolutely not true. What it means is a child born would have at least one citizen parent to be a U.S. citizen. You must have never learned what the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. Children born of illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of our country. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the country from where there came from. Amending the IMM & NAT ACT to require one of the parents to be an American citizen would remove a strong magnet that currently attracts illegal aliens to sneak into the country to give birth to nearly 400,000 babies a year called “Anchor Babies”. I suggest you trace back the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and Representative John A. Bingham who is referred to as the father of it. Rep. Bingham discusses Natural Born citizen and the reason for the 14th amendment.

The second statement you made was H.R. 140 if passed would have the “goal of preventing future immigration.” I don’t know what world you are living in but how you came to that conclusion is not a reasonable response, when one is warranted.

The third statement you made was “eliminating birthright citizenship would do nothing to reduce illegal immigration.” If so, why do 400,000 births a year happen to parents who are illegal aliens? They sneak in to have babies here so the child can lock them into the U.S. welfare system at the expense of American workers.

“The proposal to eliminate birthright citizenship is a distraction from fixing our broken immigration system” is an incorrect statement. Marc, I just mentioned 400,000 babies a year born to illegal aliens in the U.S. annually and you think H.R. 140 is a distraction? You also state we have a “broken immigration system” which is the statement all democrats make. There are two things promised by Congress in 1986 that were never delivered; a secure border like we have had in Korea for 60 years and a mandatory system to make sure all workers are legal workers that is E-Verify. The system you refer to is not broken; it is simply not being enforced. If Congress would have fulfilled those two promises we wouldn’t be talking about H.R. 140.

Another statement you made was “Congress should be addressing immigration issues head on by reforming our immigration laws in a way that fairly addresses the economic and labor needs of the country, unites American families, and ensures that immigrants have legal channels to enter, remain and work in the U.S.” Do you happen to know what the U.S. population is and where we rank in being the most populated? The answer Marc is we rank third in population and have over 90,000,000 that have dropped out of the labor force. Are you aware we import maids and lawn mower operators while millions of your brothers and sisters are sitting on the couch watching game shows and waiting for the next welfare check.? Blacks are most affected adversely by illegal immigration for employment yet you are for open borders.

I have three questions for you:

1. What is the purpose of mass immigration since immigration has always been used in the past to settle virgin lands but there are none left?
2. If mandatory E-Verify had been put into place by Congress when promised 28 years ago do you think we would have millions of illegal aliens without an income living here?
3. Do you think if Congress would have secured the border as we have in Korea for 60 years now do you think we would have illegal aliens and drugs moving back and forth at will?

Thanks for writing Marc and feel free to contact me again.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ineligible Illegals File Request to Get Dreamer Status, Force Obama’s Hand
Hundreds More Criminal Illegal Aliens With Brutal Records Released Onto American Streets

EDITORS NOTE: H.R. 140 – Birthright Citizenship Act of 2013-2014 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.