Monday, June 21, 2010

Arizona at it again; targets "anchor babies"

This has to be my favorite part:

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said [John] Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.

Read the rest of the article here.

In summary:

A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in
the United States to illegal immigrant parents...

John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.

Under federal law, children born in the United States are automatically
granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' residency status...

Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative, strongly opposes the bill.

"Unlike (Senate Bill) 1070, it is clear this bill runs immediately afoul of
the U.S. Constitution," she said.

"While I understand that folks in Arizona and across the country
support S.B. 1070, they do so because we have seen no action from the federal
government," said Sinema. "Unfortunately, the so-called 'anchor baby' bill does
nothing to solve the real problems we are facing in Arizona."

The founding fathers were illegal aliens. In fact, the first few presidents weren't born here. James Madison was the first president born in the nation known as the United States. We are a nation made of immigrants (unless you are Native American Indian). If children born here, even to illegals, are not citizens, then what exactly would qualify as citizenship? Do infants now need to apply for citizenship?

I don't agree with illegal immigration. It's illegal. And we have to do something about it. But not this. Children born here have always been, and always should be, United States citizens. Arizona is seeking to directly punish children for the crimes of their parents. And that just isn't right.

What further angers me is that this bill is being pushed by Republicans. Republicans, the party of Abraham Lincoln. Republicans, the party that pushed for the end of Slavery. The party that has expoused patriotism so fiercly, is now pushing yet another unpatriotic law, built upon unpatriotic ideas.

If this passes, can the Union recover? Probably. But we'll definitely be a little further away from the Constitution than we were yesterday.

Crossposted to Republicans United


Patrick M said...

The founding fathers were illegal aliens.

That would be a stretch. Since they were almost all born in the colonies that became the United states (and our first three Presidents definitely were), and the Constitution was clear on who was eligible as a citizen to become President, it's the kind of misinformation that adds nothing to this debate except stupid statements.

As for the "original intent" the Founding Fathers did have an expectation of an orderly process for bringing in people who added to America. They wouldn't have tolerated the lax enforcement and amnesty crap that made eliminating anchor babies a potential necessary evil.

Nevertheless, this is another attempt by Arizona to cut down on the flow of illegals due to federal negligence. I see the logic, because it makes it harder to be an illegal in Arizona. And while I can see this law going down in a federal court, it might be interesting to see its effects. I'm guessing pregnant illegals will be heading for California fast.

James' Muse said...

even if they were born in the colonies, they were still illegal aliens thinking they had a right to be here - at best, they would have been anchor babies themselves, born to those who came to this country that was not theirs.

Like I said, I can understand the other law...but this one crosses the line. Denying citizenship to "anchor babies" is akin to putting Japanese citizens in camps. It just isn't right, and it shouldn't be.

bluepitbull said...

James, the founding fathers were all born on American soil, except Hamilton who was born in the West Indies.

There is nothing in the constitution that directly says that you cross the border and squeeze out a kid and they become a citizen. Comprehensive reform is not an option unless you want an even larger welfare state which the democrat do.

I think that if taken to court, we have enough constructionist justices to define the fourteenth amendment as it should be. This attempt to populate the US with a democrat voting class is becoming more and more transparent everyday, and using "THE CHILDREN" as an shield against criticism is becoming more and more evident everyday.

We are moving into a new era where average citizens are becoming educated in politics and are starting to question the government and the polarization of the country.

Dave Miller said...

BPB, you are correct when you say There is nothing in the constitution that directly says that you cross the border and squeeze out a kid and they become a citizen.

But unless I am reading something wrong, and admittedly, I am no legal scholar, does not Section 1 of the 14th Amendment address that?

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.

James' Muse said...

Dave hits it exactly. The first line, right there. "All persons born..."

Blue: My point is, the founding fathers were anchor babies, in a sense. They were born here, but their families weren''s the same thing. Children born here, to illegals, are still americans. Their parents aren't, but we should not punish and take away citizenship from children because their parents broke the law.

Dave Miller said...

Thanks for the shout out James, but I didn't say it... our amended constitution said it best...

bluepitbull said...

It's a legal loophole, and I'm sure the constructionists will prove this. If they meant it the way you want them to (which I don't understand why you want extra tax burdens here) then everyone would be running here to dump a kid. This is certainly not what the constitution intended. Even the Federalists wouldn't have wanted this.

This is a welfare population plain and simple, and the minute this sham of an administration gets it's way under that scum Hilda Solis, and illegals get equal pay, they will stop hiring them. Then the administration will have to pass legislation stating that they get preference over skilled workers which you guys think need more's a vicious circle.

Stop while your ahead. Think with your head and not your heart.

bluepitbull said...

By the way, the founding fathers weren't anchor babies. Show me how they were. They were born here under legal English corporations and royal colonies and proprietary colonies.

Dave Miller said...

BPB, I don't think I've ever heard anyone call a simple reading of an amendment, a loophole.

Constructionist logic has always held that a simple reading of the words, which in this case say, "All persons born or naturalized in the US... are citizens", is best.

For years conservatives have lamented liberals trying to interpret the words differently then a simple reading renders.

Besides, as for interpretations, this has already been challenged a few times in the SCOTUS, and been found to mean exactly what it says.

You are born here, you are a citizen.

bluepitbull said...

Thats mostly opinion on your part.

And, even if the current interpretation is that being born on US soil makes you a citizen, all AZ needs to do is deport the parents. This will discourage further forays into our country.

I'm done discussing this because you are only answering one point. The fact is that there are border problems and both parties have refused to solve them. A governor gets tired of the status quo of a giant central government doing nothing and does what she has to do. The borders are combat zones, and that's a perfectly logical depiction of them. People crossing the border are also trashing the desert and taking money away from us.

The first commenter is absolutely correct: ...the Constitution was clear on who was eligible as a citizen to become President, it's the kind of misinformation that adds nothing to this debate except stupid statements.

Dave Miller said...

BPB, your response is typical. When you don't agree, you take the "I am done discussing this" attitude and conclude that others who don't agree with you are making stupid comments.

I think it is safe to say that my understanding of the 14th amendment, while maybe incorrect, has been affirmed for over a century by numerous legal decisions.

One can disagree with this interpretation, but it is hardly a stupid interpretation.

Also, if you've ever read what I've written on the immigration issue, you would know, and both James and Patrick can attest, I take a pretty comprehensive stance on how to deal with it.

Enjoy your day... for me, it's back to the World Cup... Go USA...

bluepitbull said...

Nowhere in the form did I call you or your comments stupid.

We are at an impasse, so why discuss further? I see no point.

If you took my comments as rude, well, that's on you.

James' Muse said...

Patrick and Blue:

By "illegal aliens" I mean from the point of view of those that were here before them: the native americans. They would view the colonists as anchor babies-they may have been born here, but they weren't supposed to be.

Blue, I have no problem with deporting the parents. As I said, illegal immigration is just that: illegal. But their children are not, and we would be actively and directly punishing the children for their parents' crimes. And that is a problem.

bluepitbull said...

I agree with you on that principle. The parents need to leave, the children can stay. The problem with this is that opens up another can of worms that the left can harvest upon people's bleeding heart sympathy.

James' Muse said...

We are a nation of laws and principles. One of which is citizenship. For the last hundred years, that meant anyone born here. Arizona is trying to change that...the children and "anchor babies" are not the real issue. I like the new version of their other immigration law-the police can't stop someone because of race, but they can now ask immigration status during traffic stops and other crimes. A bank robber can now be asked their immigration status, and the police now can check the databases to see if this bank robber, or drunk driver, etc., is legally here or not.

That law is a lot better suited to stem the real problem: illegal immigrants getting away with it.

But punishing their citizen children is not the way to do it. If we want a compromise, make the illegal parents pay a fine and get in line (back of the line) for citizenship. If I'm speeding, I risk paying a fine. If you're illegal, it should be the same. There should be resitution for their crime. If they can't pay or jump through the hoops, see ya!

While that would leave the citizen children here, at least this way it would not be directly punishing the children-it would be indirectly. Just as if you or I go to jail, our children pay the price of our absence.

bluepitbull said...

Illegal is Illegal, James. Stop hiring illegals and they go away. Stop giving them handouts, they move on.

One of the largest parts of the Mexican economy is remittances, and that's the truth. I detailed it in an earlier post. The government of Mexico counts on us as part of their economy. So, Calderon has no incentive to see his people not cross the border.

I told you, the findings aren't in yet regardless of what your buddy says. Incidentally Dave Miller, I like you much better when you're a thorn in the side of that talking points hack, "tha malcontent". At least it's entertaining. Here you just come off as Hamiltonian.

Dave Miller said...

bpb, thanks for the encouragement...

And you're right, you did not use the term stupid, as I saw when I went back and reread all the comments.

Practically speaking, I would love for someone to tell me how we are going to deport 11 million people.

And I agree with you that a lack of jobs will surely help curtail immigration. Have you seen the news from New York today and da mayors views on this?

I think remittances to Mexico from the USare the number 2 or 3 income item in the budget, right behind Pemex income...

bluepitbull said...

Then that seems to answer the argument that we need to stop encouraging the illegal immigration cold.

It's dangerous all around and seems to be encouraging crime.

James' Muse said...

Blue, you are right. We need to stop encouraging illegal immigration. My point here is that punishing normally US citizen children isn't the way to go. It's making sure illegals can't find a job.

Michael said...

Obviously, children born here are citizens-there is no question the Constitution says that.

Want to end illegal immigration? REALLY want to end it? Simple.

Starting January 1, 2011, any corporation that employs an illegal immigrant, or has as a contractor an illegal immigrant, has its CEO imprisoned for one year. Period. End of story.

You can be dang sure corporations start checking people's papers after that.