LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteI want to do it like canada and the usual suspects that bash us over our immigration policies...how do they handle anchor babies?
Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
Administrator
I caught this one in the news today. It's not yet an introduced bill, but State Senator Peace has been one of the biggest pushers of the AZ anti-illegal immigrant initiatives and been pretty successful in getting them enacted to date.
Arizona: GOP Bill May Target Illegal Immigrants' Kids - TIME. . . Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona — and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution — to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state senator Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law-enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists — things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. . . .
See also, e.g.,
Children born to non-US citizens could be barred from American birth certificates - Telegraph
IMO, the 14th Amendment's language is clear on this subject...such people at issue are US citizens and it would be clearly unconstitutional. Moreover, denying an AZ birth certificate seems to be spurious enough to warrant a constitutional challenge considering that issuing a birth certificate itself does not mean citizenship. For example, US born children of foreign diplomats holding diplomatic immunity from prosecution under US law can get them because it indicates the mere details of one's birth although they are not citizens given they are not born under US jurisdiction. The proper way for this subject to get debated is to bring it up for a recommended US constitutional amendment.
Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 06-16-2010 at 12:35 PM.
For 5 little cents per day, you can view the forums w/o advertising, search the forums endlessly, feel good about keeping this place up and running, among the other benefits that are offered to contributing members.
President
I want to do it like canada and the usual suspects that bash us over our immigration policies...how do they handle anchor babies?
Speaker of the House
A constitutional amendment would seem to be a better option but Arizona is hoping for a challenge that will go to the Supreme Court where, as we all know, up can be down and in can be out. Shall make no law restricting doesn't mean shall make no law restricting and the right to bear arms shall not be abridged does not mean the right to bear arms shall not be abridged. If the Supreme Court can find a right to an abortion in the Constitution I suspect they can find that being born in the U.S. to foreign parents does not grant citizenship, or does, as the majority wants.
Actually, birth certificates have a flexibility I never imagined. Two people of the same sex being listed as mother and father on a birth certificate? Get outta here.
Administrator
I'd LOVE to see the 14th Amendment repealed.
The Reconstruction Acts were among the worst abuses of congressional authority and, although well intentioned, have caused horrendous damage over the years. If congress had wanted to nullify the effects of Dred Scott (which most definitely needed to be nullified) there were better options than coersion and broad, overreaching strokes of legislation.
Legend of USPO
All I can say is hat's off to Arizona!!!!!!!!!!!
Take a good hard look, it's coming.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
I agree. States don't have the authority to make the determination as to who is or is not a citizen by birth. That most definitely falls under the Federal government.Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere
Moderator
What?
So now all those kids can grow up to be President?
County Council Member
Are you sure they get actual B.C.'s & not one of these?
As a resident of Az., I support this 100%. I think it may be unconstitutional & probably won't stand up to a legal challenge, but it keeps people talking about the illegal alien problem. And who knows, maybe the Supreme's will hand down a decision that forces a constitutional change. I hope so. Anchor babies were "created" to expand the population. That is no longer necessary & has, in my opinion & in something like 60% of the rest of the nation's opinion, become detrimental.
Administrator
Many of them handle the situation poorly IMO....for example, the recent European Court's ruling in the Harrow case:
YouTube - Illegal immigrants given full access to UK benefits (24Feb10)
Ireland had to get rid of automatic birthright citizenship back in 2005 thanks to crappy court rulings like that and ridiculous social welfare benefit programmes that encourage the migration of scumbag scamsters and moocher types instead of only the productive types along with other stupid laws and court decisions that won't allow the deportation of such immigrants who have 'anchor babies,' e.g,
YouTube - Immigrant welfare fraud in Ireland 2/2
The US is well ahead of that thankfully, given immigrants are generally not entitled to any welfare benefits even if here legally, and definitely not if illegal, and that 'anchor baby' tactics for gaining residency are not allowed and parents of US born children can be deported just as easily as if they didn't have the US born children.
Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 06-16-2010 at 02:43 PM.
For 5 little cents per day, you can view the forums w/o advertising, search the forums endlessly, feel good about keeping this place up and running, among the other benefits that are offered to contributing members.
Administrator
The problem IMO is that all public officials take the initial oath to uphold the US Constitution and a predicate and prerequisite of accepting office, not violate it when in personal disagreement with its terms. It's not even a situation of challenging a SCOTUS decision; it's the plain language of the 14th Amendment at issue here. They aren't permitted by oath and obligation to attempt to enact a facially void unconstitutional law. Even the SCOTUS can't ignore plain directive language in the Constitution and issue a decision in derogation of it. The only remedy in such situation is to seek to amend it if one believes the language at issue is unwise in whole or in part.
For 5 little cents per day, you can view the forums w/o advertising, search the forums endlessly, feel good about keeping this place up and running, among the other benefits that are offered to contributing members.
Legend of USPO
Vice President
Not true at all. We have many laws that restrict gun ownership that flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment.
"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." - John Maynard Keynes (admits his philosophy is not viable)
Vice President
Hopefully this will start some much needed debate on the 14th Amendment.
"The spirit must be the firmer, the heart the bolder,
courage must be the greater as our might fails"
Vice President
It will be interesting to see how Ginsberg, Sotomyer, Stevens, and Breyer try to twist the 14th amendment from something that intended to provide rights for those who's ancestors where dragged here against their will, to economic suicide that allows trespassers to exploit us.
Vice President
Perhaps, but I doubt it. What this will do is to bring more national attention to our illegal immigration woes. Which is sorely needed. Most of the media have neglected to report on the problems of illegal immigration. We needed in depth reporting years ago, because of the negetive effects. That we have not gotten it, except a bit from FNC, should clearly show the "bias" of much of the media.(Lou Dobbs always covered it, on CNN, but he was cut) The illegal issue is just too damn huge for the media to willfully ignore it, as they have. But, who in the media is actually affected by this issue? I would make a guess and say NONE. How many of the elites in D.C. are affected. NONE. How many non political elites are affected? NONE. How many actually employ illegals? Probably more than you could shake a stick at.
I think the truth of the matter is this. If you are in a profession that is "safe" from the illegal worker, you don't mind the common rabble being affected. And that is all that it boils down to. Some folks actually think that all Americans are capable of going to college, and getting into college educated professions. It has never been that way, and it will never be that way. These people who think like this live in a fantasy world, of their own making. Few stray from their posh neighborhoods, and get out among the dirt and the grime of the common rabble.
Unless the Az. laws help to bring the non elite attention to the problelm, the status quo won't change, IMO. An immigration reform is nothing more than another misnomer for amnesty. These guys should be honest and just call any bill what it actually is. Amnesty for illegals, just as happened with Pres. Reagen. No major attempt was made by the Feds in stopping the flow after this last amnesty, and what makes anyone think a new reform would be any different? Blue
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks