Posted on 05/22/2010 2:17:14 PM PDT by pissant
Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce, the author of the controversial state immigration bill, told his constituents that he wants to invalidate the U.S. citizenship of children who were born to illegal immigrants.
He also sent constituents an e-mail he later said he disagrees with. "If we are going to have an effect on the anchor baby racket, we need to target the mother," it said. Other political leaders have called for an end to birthright citizenship.
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California told a tea party rally he´d support deporting the children of illegal aliens despite their birthright citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at shortnews.com ...
What SCOTUS decision are you hanging your hat on?
I have spoken to J.D. Hayworth about this a few years ago. He feels the same way.
I would be curious for a "clarification" on what it is that he feels the same way about. There are two different ways of understanding your statement.
One way says that a state can (and has the legal ability to) deprive a kid who is born in that state of being a U.S. Citizen, if his parents are not citizens. Those are called "anchor babies"... the parents either being legal or illegals, in the United States at the time.
The second way of understanding what you just said, is that he believes that we should not have the situation where there can be "anchor babies" legally speaking, and that we need to changed that in our laws (namely Congress needs to change that).
I don't know which one of the two you are talking about. And I consider the difference between the two to be a sign of whether someone is "attached to reality" or not ... LOL ...
Take your ignorance elsewhere
No. It is a grotesque misinterpretation of the constitution. Grotesque and idiotic.
What SCOTUS decision are you hanging your hat on?
You must not have seen what post I was responding to... then ...
See Post #35 ...
I happen to like this thread and it’s very interesting and also very appropriate for the current political debate... so why on earth should I go somewhere else?
I believe this is what Star Traveler is referring to: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
See my post at #13 for the explanation.
How many damn WRONG and pisspoor reasoned court decisions have we had in our history. A whole bumch. Just because Kelo was decided the way it was does not make it right, moral, permanent or remotely constitutional. Sorry
GO shill for the illegals on someone else’s thread.
No. It is a grotesque misinterpretation of the constitution. Grotesque and idiotic.
Wishful thinking on your part... but if something is to be done about it... (and people have talked before about "anchor babies") -- then it's going to take Congress dealing with it...
Im not arguing with you about whether it is right or wrong to have the law say what it says. I’m just telling you what it says...
The US Constitution also does NOT give the states the power to decide nationalization laws.
Article 1, section 8 of the Federal Constitution gives naturalization power to the United States Congress. Not the States! So Arizona WILL lose in the Supreme Court on this if they try to change birthright citizenship.
The reason the founders put that in there is because they didnt want every state to have different citizenship rules. It would create a mess and too confusing (ie: a person is a citizen in one state but not another would make no sense). So they gave this power to the federal level.
Arizona has no case here.
He was all for getting rid of the anchor baby ruling at the time I spoke to him. He was my representative at the time and said that he would look into it.
Are you just grumpier than usual today, or have you become an anarchist?
GO shill for the illegals on someone else’s thread.
You're barking up the wrong tree here... in Oklahoma, I was 100% behind their illegal immigrant law that was passed there... and it was considered the toughest law in the nation, at the time it was passed. Other states started modeling their laws after Oklahoma's...
And..., in addition, you can see several posts where I've featured Oklahoma's law on illegal immigration.
The situation here is that you've got an issue that the states can't address -- but Congress can address it.
Thumbs up on that
He was all for getting rid of the anchor baby ruling at the time I spoke to him. He was my representative at the time and said that he would look into it.
Okay, that clarifies it somewhat -- and I have also been for getting rid of the "anchor baby" status here in this country too. To me, when I hear a representative saying it that way -- it means he recognizes what the law is right now, and that it's needed to be changed by Congress. That's how I "hear" someone, when they say that.
Glad to hear that ... :-)
ping
Related:
Mon, 06/22/2009
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/43997
A Tucson hospital’s health-care package promises affluent Mexican women the chance to have their babies in posh surroundings with access to the latest medical equipment.
But the marketing materials leave out a key draw in the arrangement: U.S. citizenship for the newborn.
Tucson Medical Center’s “birth package” gives an official nod to a generations-old practice of wealthy Mexican women coming to U.S. hospitals to give birth. Mexican families do the same thing at all local hospitals, but the Tucson hospital is the only one actively recruiting their business.
The practice is legal, but offensive to some advocates of tougher U.S. immigration standards.
“What it really amounts to,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, “is buying U.S. citizenship.” ...more
Amen! This provision should have been in the original bill.
It's a good thing they didn't put it into that law -- because that would have given the opponents of that law (as it is right now) the ability to overturn the whole thing on that basis.
As it stands right now, they're in good standing... but you add this thing (in this thread) to that Arizona Immigration law -- and you've got a guaranteed overturning of the law by the Supreme Court.
That’s Right! Send them ALL back, so they can still be together!
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.