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 ...
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!
vaudine
Thanks for that... I was pointing to that other post, but your post is absolutely “solid” and indisputable ...
Yes! No way the Founding Fathers meant for Mexicans to run for the border and fall across it just to have a citizen on whom to anchor the importation of the rest of the family, including siblings, in-laws, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc.
Well, then..., the founding fathers did provide a way for you and me to change that -- if we don't agree with what has happened, in the meantime, since they founded this country.
They provided, for you and me, the Constitutional Amendment process -- in order to have the "will of the people" prevail upon the courts, no matter what the courts think.
That's how it can be taken care of ...
We shouldn't have to. The 14th Amendment does not authorize 'anchor babies'
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
Also see this thread for what 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' really means.
Given that language, how has it come about that we let these babies be citizens?
So we should REWARD those who break into this country illegally and steal our resources by giving their children instant citizenship (virtually?) This is NOT constitutional, and the U.S.S.C. would have to stand reason on its head to argue this on the basis of constitutionality (not that they’ve needed this basis before.)
Citizenship by birth location makes no sense now that the U.S is less than 1-day’s travel from almost everywhere.
Thanks.
I do have to say I understand everyone’s frustration on this issue because I feel the same. Babies of illegal aliens should have their parents nationality(ies).
Something I want to add: when illegal alien parents are deported the family must be kept together. Children born here of alien parents can always, upon majority, apply to be recognized as U.S. native born citizens.
The U.S. government isn’t constitutionally required to provide child welfare for foreigners who are deported.
Can a Constitutional matter be nullified by a jury?
Is jury nullification for that one time only or does it set a precident that can, over time, nullify completely a law or a Constitutional element?
So, any anchor baby born here of illegal aliens is a native born citizen but will never be eligible to become President.”
Since that law has already been violated by the Kenyan in the Oval Office.....
I don’t think we should have any of these ‘anchor babies’ here at all.
It is a drain on our resources beyond anything the media has ever had the guts to tell citizens.
And make it RETROACTIVE. Like they do with tax increases.
Power grab by the general government. After grinding through the public education system, most people won't even entertain the thought that the federal government has any sort of restraints, much less look at the evidence that clearly shows the differentiation between a Citizen of a State and a citizen of the United States.
§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
Flap your gums to someone else.
Works for me. Mexico, come pick up your los ninos at the border control point.
I guess if we can’t get them to read a 10 page bill, they probably won’t read the constitution.
Arizona certainly has a case here. Their case is that within their borders, THEY WILL FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, not some liberal courts bastardization of it.
Hell of a GOOD idea!
Gets my vote...
End chain migration...Gets my vote...
This government would allow cannibals the African Congo to immigrate here, and tell us we must respect their culture...
Our government has become very troublesome.
LOL ... you still haven’t gotten the clue yet, even though I tell you just about every time ... I don’t “continue” with conversations with people if they stop talking to me ... :-)
But, that’s too difficult for you to comprehend, obviously, so I’ll try it again and see if it sinks in this time ...
Given that language, how has it come about that we let these babies be citizens?
Ummm..., the Supreme Court ... :-)
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. I see nothing that says, “except, of course, anchor babies.” If we want to exclude anchor babies from citizenship, then we’re going to have to do better than simply lie about the provision for natural born citizens. That’s what the Democrats do.
The link doesn’t work?
Arizona is still a state in the union and therefore bound by the federal constitution which gives naturalization authority to the US Congress. Read Article 1, section 8, clause 4.
Naturalization laws can only change from the federal level.
What happens to the anchor babies now when the parents are deported? Do they go into U.S. foster care if the parents do not take them? Do the parents abandon their rights to the kids?
I like what you’ve posted and particularly thank you for the link at the bottom. It was good reading. But the 14th Amendment wasn’t the total reason for our present law, which is based on case law: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). (See my post #13 for more details.)
I want to add something. The present Govenor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, was born in the U.S. to parents who were citizens of India. They were legal alien residents and their son is considered to be a native born citizen but not a natural born citizen (Jindal is not eligible to be President).
I firmly believe that the Wong Kim Ark case legal determination has been corrupted. Wong’s parents were legal resident aliens who, because of a treaty, could not naturalize as citizens. “The jusisdiction thereof” should not be perverted into covering the babies of illegal aliens.
“What happens to the anchor babies now when the parents are deported?”
Many times they remain in the U.S., fostered by relatives or friends. Then they’re used as “anchors”, so the parents can get back into the U.S. legally.
I understand that. The discussion was about their kids being born in the US. As far as the US Constitution goes, their kids are US citizens.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Misinterpretations of it can be challenged by the states. IF enough states AND THE PEOPLE decalre anchor babies are NOT citizens, then the feds will be reigned in. This applies to a helluva lot of topics, inclcluding the grotesquely misinterpreted Commerce clause as well as Article 1, Section 8, clause 4.
Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries, not ours. We just send them back.
The link doesn’t work?
I will give credit where credit is due, on this thread ... :-)
And, in case you've missed it before, this has been argued "into the ground" (so to speak) on birther threads where this is a big point of contention for the "natural born status" issue ... [not trying to start that here, but just to say it's shown up so many times, I don't know how someone could miss it ... :-) ...])
Section 1401 in Title 8 of the US Code is not tested as per “-Anyone born inside the United States *” no? If the second amendment is not a blank check, why would a fed statute be?
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Misinterpretations of it can be challenged by the states. IF enough states AND THE PEOPLE decalre anchor babies are NOT citizens, then the feds will be reigned in. This applies to a helluva lot of topics, inclcluding the grotesquely misinterpreted Commerce clause as well as Article 1, Section 8, clause 4.
There's nothing about the Constitution that is necessarily "sacred" in that it can't be changed at any time. In fact, it's been changed many times, so that it's not the same Constitution that the Founding Fathers originally created.
The first series of changes is what we call the Bill of Rights. And then, from that point forward, there have been multitudes of changes from that original document.
There's nothing that says that we can't remake the Constitution, and in fact, we do remake it every time there is some Constitutional Amendment put forth and passed by the people (the various states ratifying it).
And really, there's nothing that says that a particular way that the Supreme Court says is the way the Constitution intends for something to be done (legally) is necessarily wrong. The Supreme Court may be perfectly right in their interpretation, and yet -- the people of this country may want to change the Constitution from what it originally meant.
The Supreme Court never did change their decision on slavery. It was a Constitutional Amendment that changed it, so the people changed what the Constitution meant, in regards to slavery.
So, I really don't think it helps one way or another to indicate that the Constitution is something that is supposed to remain the same, because it never has remained the same, since it was first created. And it's not necessarily a "wrong decision" if the Supreme Court interprets something the "right way" (that is according to what the Constituion means) -- just because someone doesn't like the "outcome" of such a decision. That's what the Constitutional Amendment process is for -- to change the Constitution to fit the "will of the people" and not the "will of the courts".
The people do have that ability -- so it pays to think about how to change the Constitution, rather than argue about a "wrong decision". Changing the Constitution is much more productive in terms of getting done what you want done.
I don't think that is settled. Those kids belong to their parents, who don't belong here. And that is a far cry from freed slaves who were born here of parents who were born here or brought aginst there will. Those people were certainly "under the jurisdiction of" the US. First as property and then as free men.
A person born in the United States is NOT an illegal alien. He or she is a citizen.
My goal in live is to hang out here with you so that I won't miss anything.
I cant imagine how anyone in their right mind can possibly think a state can pass a law denying US Citizenship to anyone.
Its idiot ideas like this that make conservatives also look like idiots..
Me too.
What makes you think anyone born in the USA is automatically a citizen?
That’s what I’m saying - the several States have the basis for a legal challenge to accepted law based on the 14th Amendment’s “jurisdiction thereof” statement.
As anyone can see from the discussion we’ve had on this thread, elections are incredibly important as they have consequences such as judicial appointments. A justice on SCOTUS can affect our laws for decades.
Elana Kagan is unfit to be an associate Justice - ethically and morally unfit. She committed a crime while in the Clinton administration and Clinton’s DOJ did nothing about it. She is no more fit to sit on the Supreme Court than Abe Fortas or Harriet Miers. More to come - must go cook supper.
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.