Posted on 06/15/2010 12:53:36 PM PDT by SmithL
PHOENIX -- Emboldened by passage of the nation's toughest law against illegal immigration, the Arizona politician who sponsored the measure now wants to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to undocumented parents.
Legal scholars laugh out loud at Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce's proposal and warn that it would be blatantly unconstitutional, since the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.
But Pearce brushes aside such concerns. And given the charged political atmosphere in Arizona, and public anger over what many regard as a failure by the federal government to secure the border, some politicians think the idea has a chance of passage.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
“Legal scholars laugh out loud at Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce’s proposal and warn that it would be blatantly unconstitutional, since the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.”
A flat lie.
He's right!
"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.
Actually, I stopped reading when I got to the word “undocumented”....undocumented is when you’re in the backwoods of Tennessee, Kentucky, etc. and it takes a few weeks to get into town and register that baby you delivered at home. It doesn’t mean a goddam illegal Mexican and the baby factory heifer he’s hooked up with to grab the bennies via an “American-baby”.
FINALLY! Someone to take on the common sense fight! If foreigners come to Disney Land with their families... any children born during their holiday are not citizens of our country!! That goes for ambassadors, illegal aliens, et al!
A blatant lie.
But does it really? The 14th amendment says:
Section. 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...It seems a resolution or legislation that begins with a challenge to the notion of anchor baby citizenship by asserting "WHEREAS undocumented persons illegally present in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would have a reasonable standing. Since the courts have not defined "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (not that they have the constitutional authority to define it anyway) Congress would certainly have the constitutional power to define by statute that unlawful presence in the US of undocumented aliens does not place them or their offspring under the jurisdiction thereof and therefore does not affort their anchor babies citizenship.
“A flat lie.”
Flat, not in this case. Their lies are usually large and dirigible shaped because they contain large volumes of foul smelling gas.
Ping!
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Based upon Section 1, I don't see how the good Senator can deny the children US Citizenship. Now, saying that the parents have to leave, and they are welcome to take their American children with them, is another matter altogether.
It was idiot Kennedy who first passed the “anchor baby” concept. Most likely he was thinking of getting cheap help and creating an underclass that would always vote Dem. This legislation should be reversed - no other country has such ridiculous laws on the books. Even back in the 60’s the Dems were determined to ruin this country simply to make their own lives easier.
You assertion would have merit, if we deleted the first 2 words of Section 1. “All persons” is pretty defitive. IMHO, the term “All persons” means everyone, legal, illegal, blind, dead, living, left-handed, blonde, fast, slow, short, tall, fat, skinny .... pretty much everyone.
I agree. No anchor babies.
So, does “All Persons” apply to a couple from, say, Canada on a weekend holiday into NYC... and she has a baby at a Manhattan hospital?
Multiculturalism is destroying our country. They want us to respect their culture while pissing on ours. I've had enough. No other country allows this type invasion. We need to stop it NOW.
According to your assertion that all persons means EVERYBODY regardless of whether or not they are subject to its jurisdiction means that if a family is vacationing in the US and the mother gives birth, then the baby is a US citizen, or if a diplomat present in the US has a baby in the US it is a US citizen rather than a citizen of the country of which the diplomate is a citizen. The author of the citizenship clause argued that this is clearly not the case.
I am going to guess that the states cannot decide who is an American citizen but they do make the rules on what goes on birth certificates which are used to prove citizenship. (Beyong the claim that the 14th amendment makes them citizens.)
Arent children of Mexican illegals automatically given Mexican citizenship too? dual citizenship? This makes no sense for us to allow this.
where you cut off your emphasis can have a slight change in the meaning.
Someone explain to me about this ‘anchor baby’????
So, if you are illegal and you come to USA and have a child- MAYBE th child is legal but YOU still are not- so... go home and take your baby? Or leave the US citizend here and go home...
I think the US constitution DOES NOT automatically make someone a citizen just because they are born her because hey are NOT under the “jusrisdictions” part of the clause...
Yup, jurisdiction is the key. If AZ passes this, it WILL go all the way to SCOTUS. That’s why we can’t have pigs like Kagan on it.
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.