Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100611/us_time/08599199606400

"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?)

But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave. (See pictures of the Great Wall of America.)

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.

But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.

Those who oppose the bill say it would lead to more discrimination and divide the community. Among them is Phoenix resident Susan Vie, who is leading a citizen group that's behind an opposing ballot initiative. She moved to the U.S. 30 years ago from Argentina, became a naturalized citizen and now works as a client-relations representative for a vaccine company. "I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create - and it's creating it now - a separation in our society." She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now." Vie's citizen initiative would prohibit SB 1070 from taking affect, place a three-year moratorium on all related laws - including the anchor baby bill - to buy more time for federal immigration reform. Her group is racing to collect 153,365 signatures by July 1 to qualify for the Nov. 2 general election.

Both sides expect the anchor baby bill to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court before it is enacted. "I think it would be struck down as facially unconstitutional. I can't imagine a federal judge saying this would be OK," says Dan Barr, a longtime Phoenix lawyer and constitutional litigator. Potentially joining the anchor baby bill at the Supreme Court may be SB 1070, which Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law in April. It is set to take effect July 29, but at least five courtroom challenges have been filed against it. Pearce says he will win them all.


so, all you 'living constitution' bullshit artists. Do you still believe that the constitution should be interpreted to exist within the current times? or would you now like it to mean what it actually says?

14th Amendment, 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.
 
as protectionist and anti-immigration i am, i still must admit that anyone born here is a citizen. we just need to enforce the law before we get into this situation, but creating a class of second class people is just wrong.
 
We should give Arizona back to Mexico. We can rid ourselves of their attempts to circumvent the constitution and Arpaio, while fixing their immigration problem, all at once.

to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens.

It's one thing to deny the children of parents who enter illegally, but to deny the children of parents who have a legal right to be here, that is extremely unjust.

Will these children have a right to be anywhere? That is, will they be citizens in their parents homeland? What if they have parents of different nationalities?

The right wingers in Arizona are making it quite obvious that they oppose immigration, not just illegal immigration.
 
as protectionist and anti-immigration i am, i still must admit that anyone born here is a citizen. we just need to enforce the law before we get into this situation, but creating a class of second class people is just wrong.

What about those who enter legally? I realize you don't want to allow any legal entry, but that is not likely to happen. So, there would still be "anchor babies" even if we prevented all illegal entry.
 
We should give Arizona back to Mexico. We can rid ourselves of their attempts to circumvent the constitution and Arpaio, while fixing their immigration problem, all at once.



It's one thing to deny the children of parents who enter illegally, but to deny the children of parents who have a legal right to be here, that is extremely unjust.

Will these children have a right to be anywhere? That is, will they be citizens in their parents homeland? What if they have parents of different nationalities?

The right wingers in Arizona are making it quite obvious that they oppose immigration, not just illegal immigration.

And you continue to make it obvious that you're an idiot.

No where was it suggested to deny citizenship to babies born of parents who are here legally.

You are so far into your "rant-du-jour", that the minute you see the word illegal you just go off on any tangent that fills that empty little cranium of yours.

You need to be assigned a caretaker, before you harm yourself or someone else.

By the way, this proposal will be shot down and found to be unconstitutional
 
And you continue to make it obvious that you're an idiot.

No where was it suggested to deny citizenship to babies born of parents who are here legally.

You are so far into your "rant-du-jour", that the minute you see the word illegal you just go off on any tangent that fills that empty little cranium of yours.

You need to be assigned a caretaker, before you harm yourself or someone else.

By the way, this proposal will be shot down and found to be unconstitutional

debating him is a fucking chore...he argues phantom points and makes BS claims about you or someone said....
 
And you continue to make it obvious that you're an idiot.

No where was it suggested to deny citizenship to babies born of parents who are here legally.

I quoted it. Here it is again, in context, for those with no reading comprehension.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens.
 
debating him is a fucking chore...he argues phantom points and makes BS claims about you or someone said....

Nonsense. I read the article and responded to it. Just as I read your stupid and inaccurate points on the 14th and responded. You guys apparently lack reading comprehension.
 
I quoted it. Here it is again, in context, for those with no reading comprehension.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Now you want to suggest that someones inclusion of their own opinion, into an article aboiut a proposed bill, is what this is really about and use it as a basis for your new "rant-du-jour", so you can continue to rant and rave.

It's time for you to put up or shut up. Show me in the bill where it suggests that children of legal residents will be denied or even where it suggests that that is the next step.

This is just the normal method of the Libetards to denigrate something they don't agree with. They want to make everyone believe that something else is going to occur.

WARNING: Don't paint the room blue; because someone might decide to paint it green.
 
Last edited:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Now you want to suggest that someones inclusion of their own opinion, into an article aboiut a proposed bill, is what this is really about and use it as a basis for your new "rant-du-jour", so you can continue to rant and rave.

LOL, another backpedal. You guys get your errors thrown in your face and then you attempt to retroactively change your comments. Here is what you said...

No where was it suggested to deny citizenship to babies born of parents who are here legally.

It was suggested in the article to which I was commenting, dumbfuck.

It's time for you to put up or shut up. Show me in the bill where it suggests that children of legal residents will be denied or even where it suggests that that is the next step.

Again, you display you clear inability to process information. The bill has not been introduced yet, dumbfuck.

Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall

If you wish to argue against the article and show that it is incorrect, go for it. I was commenting on the article. It is quite possible the author misspoke. I have not, since my comments are in reference to it.
 
Nonsense. I read the article and responded to it. Just as I read your stupid and inaccurate points on the 14th and responded. You guys apparently lack reading comprehension.

every single comment i made about the 14th amendment is 100% accurate

you are the dumbest person on the interwebs
 
LOL, another backpedal. You guys get your errors thrown in your face and then you attempt to retroactively change your comments. Here is what you said...



It was suggested in the article to which I was commenting, dumbfuck.



Again, you display you clear inability to process information. The bill has not been introduced yet, dumbfuck.



If you wish to argue against the article and show that it is incorrect, go for it. I was commenting on the article. It is quite possible the author misspoke. I have not, since my comments are in reference to it.

You need to decide which of your skills you're going to use and stop trying to juggle and back pedal at the same time.

It's obvious to anyone that has an IQ above yours, that you were using the writers opinion to make it look like what he was suggesting was the next step.

Then when you were outed as being a dumbass with an agenda, you tried to fall back and make it look like your comments were only addressing his opinion.
So now the author misspoke on his fucking opinion!!
Try reading, instead of guessing.
 
You need to decide which of your skills you're going to use and stop trying to juggle and back pedal at the same time.

It's obvious to anyone that has an IQ above yours, that you were using the writers opinion to make it look like what he was suggesting was the next step.

Then when you were outed as being a dumbass with an agenda, you tried to fall back and make it look like your comments were only addressing his opinion.
So now the author misspoke on his fucking opinion!!
Try reading, instead of guessing.

I was commenting on the article, which you have not shown to be in error, dumbfuck. You have outed nothing. I did not say he misspoke, dumbfuck, I said it was possible that he did.

It was not offered as opinion. It was a statement about what the prospective bill would be. If it is wrong, then it is wrong, but my comments are clearly in reference to it.

You claimed there was nothing to suggest what I stated and you are clearly in error.
 
I was commenting on the article, which you have not shown to be in error, dumbfuck. You have outed nothing. I did not say he misspoke, dumbfuck, I said it was possible that he did.

It was not offered as opinion. It was a statement about what the prospective bill would be. If it is wrong, then it is wrong, but my comments are clearly in reference to it.

You claimed there was nothing to suggest what I stated and you are clearly in error.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Here you are callimg me a dumbfuck; because I haven't shown why his asinine OPINION is in error.

OH-WAIT; anyone reading the bill would see that his OPINION isn't even suggested in it.

Now you're saying that you suggested that he misspoke; but wouldn't you have known he misspoke, if you had the slightest clue abouit the bill or even maybe had read it!!
*rhetorical question; because you couldn't get a clue, if they were free*.

You've hitched your latest "rant-du-jour" to a falling star, when you thought it was something that would stay in orbit.

Good job, dumbass. :good4u:

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
 
Here you are callimg me a dumbfuck; because I haven't shown why his asinine OPINION is in error.

It was not offered as opinion. It was a statement on what the prospective bill would be. It may have been in error, but you have not shown that.

OH-WAIT; anyone reading the bill would see that his OPINION isn't even suggested in it.

Now you're saying that you suggested that he misspoke; but wouldn't you have known he misspoke, if you had the slightest clue abouit the bill or even maybe had read it!!

What bill? There is no bill to read yet, according to the article and others I have found. And, no I have not read the bill, which seemingly does not yet exist, but apparently you have. Can you provide us a link to this bill that you imply you have read?

Again, I was commenting on the article. It is the first I have heard of it and there is, apparently, no bill to check the FACTS (not opinion), as stated by the article's author, against.

I have found other articles that make it appear that Pearce only intends to deny citizenship to illegal immigrants.

You are still wrong, because you clearly claimed that there was nothing to suggest what I said when there was. It is you who are attempting to backpedal. My comments were clearly in reference to the article which clearly suggested just what I said.

Now, tell us where is this bill which you have read and of which you know the contents?
 
It was not offered as opinion. It was a statement on what the prospective bill would be. It may have been in error, but you have not shown that.



What bill? There is no bill to read yet, according to the article and others I have found. And, no I have not read the bill, which seemingly does not yet exist, but apparently you have. Can you provide us a link to this bill that you imply you have read?

Again, I was commenting on the article. It is the first I have heard of it and there is, apparently, no bill to check the FACTS (not opinion), as stated by the article's author, against.

I have found other articles that make it appear that Pearce only intends to deny citizenship to illegal immigrants.

You are still wrong, because you clearly claimed that there was nothing to suggest what I said when there was. It is you who are attempting to backpedal. My comments were clearly in reference to the article which clearly suggested just what I said.

Now, tell us where is this bill which you have read and of which you know the contents?

Thanks for the admission that you're attempting to rail against something, when you don't even know what it's about.

Good job, dumbass. :good4u:

Did you try to do an internet search on this, or was it to much trouble to educate yourself??

 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100611/us_time/08599199606400




so, all you 'living constitution' bullshit artists. Do you still believe that the constitution should be interpreted to exist within the current times? or would you now like it to mean what it actually says?

14th Amendment, 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.

So, the 14th amendment to the Constitution needs to be amended since there was no such thing as "Illegal Alien" when it was passed.
 
basically, yes. AZ needs to petition the rest of the country and see if they can swing their ideology to amend the 14th. good luck with that.

I don't think luck has anything to do with it. The 14th amendment was passed to address blacks who had been emancipated by the 13th amendment. It was passed before the legal status of an immigrant became an issue. Literally every nation in western Europe have amended their immigration laws to deny the right of citizenship to anchor babies. If we had not been turned into an entitlement society like Europe, it would never have become an issue...the fact of the matter is we are and we can not economically sustain anchor babies. You want to see "illegal" immigration dry up? Amend the 14th amendment.
 
Back
Top