Posted on 05/21/2010 5:25:38 PM PDT by Steelfish
Author of Arizona Immigration Law Wants To End Birthright Citizenship
The author of Arizona's immigration law, state Sen. Russell Pearce, told constituents he wants to pass another measure to invalidate citizenship granted to the children of illegal aliens. Pearce wrote that he plans to "push for an Arizona bill that would refuse to accept or issue a birth certificate that recognizes citizenship to those born to illegal aliens, unless one parent is a citizen," in an email obtained by Phoenix CBS affiliate KPHO.
Pearce also forwarded an email from another correspondent expanding on the proposal — which he later told KPHO he didn't agree with. "If we are going to have an effect on the anchor baby racket, we need to target the mother. Call it sexist, but that's the way nature made it. Men don't drop anchor babies, illegal alien mothers do," the email said. Pearce did tell the CBS affiliate, however, that he didn't see anything wrong with using the term "anchor baby" to refer to natural-born U.S. citizens.
Last year, 92 Congressmen sponsored a bill that would change the 14th Amendment so that children of illegal aliens born in the United States would not be granted citizenship. The bill is still in committee. Last month, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California told a tea party rally he would support deporting children of illegal aliens, even if they are citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The author of Arizona's immigration law, state Sen. Russell Pearce, told constituents he wants to pass another measure to invalidate citizenship granted to the children of illegal aliens.
“If a law is is unconstitutional it should not be passed period.”
Passing a law that says someone born of an illegal in the US is not a US citizen is NOT unconstitutional! The Constitution says they must be under the jurisdiction of the US...so what does that mean? From what I’ve read, the court cases are ambiguous.
A state law could force clarity by forcing a court to consider the question. Unfortunately, I think reality is that A) no state - certainly not Arizona, not right now - will pass such a law, and B) a court would try to sidestep the issue by saying a state has no jurisdiction.
As I said, a state could deport the mother without regard for the child, although I suspect there are enough liberals on the SCOTUS to rule THAT is unconstitutional.
If you are really feeling better you are invited over for kabobs. Teriyaki ckicken/beef/shrimp. I added a little bit more crushed red pepper flakes to the homemade Italian dressing marinade for the veggie part than I intended, just to forewarn you.
“Passing a STATE law saying someone is not a citizen of the United States is absolutely unconstitutional.”
The law would INTERPRET the 14th Amendment, not replace it. It could be written to say that for the purposes of state benefits, the state only recognizes those born under the jurisdiction of the USA as citizens. Or it could be written as requiring the deportation of anyone without immigration paperwork who is not a citizen IAW the Constitution, and then expand that to specify that the children of illegals are NOT under the jurisdiction and thus subject to deportation.
There is no chance Arizona will pass such a law, so it is a bit academic. But there is nothing in the Constitution or that I’ve seen in court cases that REQUIRES the child of an illegal to be considered a citizen. In fact, I can think of several SCOTUS decisions that would support the reverse. Decisions such as Perkins v Elg, or WKA all make the point that the parents were here legally at the time of birth.
Thanks! Just kabobs, or will there be some sides of shish? ;’)
Ummm, we pronounce it “sheesh”, and yes, I think I will have you doing facepalms in short order. :-))
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.