Birth Tourism?

I just read an article on the Houston Chronicle today that described a new twist on the immigration issue. It seems that some companies are providing "birth tourism" packages for pregnant women from foreign countries to come to the US for a few months around their expected delivery dates. By doing this, the child gets US citizenship and all the benefits associated with it. It is their belief that this gives their child education and other benefits. It seems that the State Department will not refuse to grant the women a visa just because they are near term on their pregnancy.

Personally, I do not agree with this. We have more people in this country than we need already and we don't need more coming here making it overcrowded like other countries around the world. We need to tighten up our immigration policy and one way of doing that would be to make it such that US citizenship is not automatically conveyed just because you are born here. I think that we should make it so that to be a US citizen at birth, your parents must be US citizens. As long as we're at it, we might as well define what it takes to be a "natural born" citizen. I propose that to be "natural born", it means that you must be born to parents who were also born in the US and who also had citizenship at birth.

Maybe we need to define it something like this:

1. Naturalized Citizen -- a person who meets the current regulatory requirements to become a citizen through specified immigration procedures.


2. Ordinary Citizen -- a person born in the US to parents both of which are either Naturalized Citizens or Ordinary Citizens.


3. Natural Born Citizen -- a person born in the US to parents who are both Ordinary Citizens.
   

Of course, only Natural Born Citizens would be able to be President. This change in definition would be a bit more restrictive than is currently in place. In fact, the term "Ordinary Citizen" is even more restrictive than what is currently used for "natural born citizen". There are some of the past Presidents who might not be classified to hold office under this new definition.

Islamic Terrorism? What's in a Name?

Well, it seems that Bama-Boy is saying that we should no longer call what his Islamic friends have been doing to us "Islamic Terrorism". I guess someone thinks that it just is not politically correct to call something by what it obviously is. Come now, what motivates these people? Their religion, of course! Maybe we could just call them "Camel Fucker Terrorists"? Is that politically correct enough for the idiots in DC? I don't seem to remember there being all that much of an uproar by the Irish when the IRA members were called "Irish terrorists"... One might think that we could call the Islamic Terrorists "Arab Terrorists", but that is not really that great of a description of them since that is not the major identifying factor in their terrorism. From what I understand, the terrorists from Iran are not Arab, but are rather Persian. So, being Arabic is not a prime identifying factor with them. Plus, there are US citizens who end up supporting the terrorists. These US citizens do not suddenly change their race and become Arabs. They do change their religion and become Islamic though. So, it goes back to what is the identifying factor in their terrorism and that is the fact that they are Islamic.