New Arizona law against illegals : no automatic citizenship for children born of illegals

I am not pro-illegal immigration. In fact, I support increased border security and much, much more vigilant enforcement and prosecution of employers who take advantage of the situation. I think anyone who is illegal should be deported, period and if our country needs a labor pool, reasonable legal means to accomplish such should be devised.

Nevertheless, whoever has proposed this ridiculous law is clearly seeking to incite the most militant elements of his constituency. And let's be real here, you and I know damned well that a good number of the most militant are fundamentally opposed to latino immigration for ethnic and cultural reasons. Just like racism against blacks, it exists and if you argue it does not, you have confirmed your own bigotry (or delusional state).

It is simply not constructive to raise the passions of those on the fringe.

Originally posted by broahes
When did we get rid of section 1 of the 14th amendment?

I was waiting for someone to bring up the 14th amendment into this argument. The 14th amendment was passed, not passed with the thought that a foriegn national to come and give birth here, giving their child automatic citizenship, but was to allow for those who were born of former slaves to be citizens of the United States of America. That is all it was suppose to do, and to prevent the deportation of citizens to other countries, or the denial of rights to those who were of African descent.
For far too long this has been exploited and abused by foriegn nationals to get into the country and it is time that this loophole be closed. If they want to be citizens, come through the front door, like all of the other legal immigrants, not sneak in and break the laws.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


More than one way to accomplish this. How about the refusal to release a newborn into the custody of a criminal? The mother, should she be illegal and certainly showing up at the hospital is a reasonable interaction in which to require proof of citizenship.

She shows up without papers. She has the child. The child is kept in state custody or given to the mother in Mexico.

Or, upon determing that the mother is illegal deportation procedures are immediately initiated. As soon as the child and mother are in condition to leave the hospital they are immediately transported to an ICE facility and the feds can deal with them.

Further, there are some burdens of being a citizen of the US. Notably selective service and the obligation to pay taxes, regardless of which country you work in for the rest of your life. They can request an affirmation that the parents want the child to be granted US citizenship. Most will, but a few might opt out.

I believe the anchor baby law should be repealed. IMO coming over the border for the express purpose to have a child on US soil amounts to a criminal act. Fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud and the crime should be dealt with as such.

As it has been said 100s of times on these illegal immigration threads, the key is to deny services to illegals. Certainly if a women comes into the hospital in labor, the hospital needs to admit her and give her the care. That care could perhaps be given in a different manner, e.g. midwife rather than doctor, but she needs to be given care.

There is no requirement to educate or provide any assistance to an illegal. To the extent that the parents are not legal, the state can find that out when the child registers for school and then immediately institute deportation procedures for the parents. The child is a citizen, but the parents get deported. They want him to stay, he can go into foster care.

The incentives need to be removed. Being illegal in the US needs to provide the same quality of life as being legal in Mexico. No work, no free housing, no government assistance what so ever. Remove the incentive and they will stop coming over or at least a lot of them will stop coming over.

reply to post by broahes


Show me in the Constitution where it says that illegal aliens can drop an anchor baby in America. I'll wait.

Never mind. I found it. Looks like it is pretty cut and dried too. So it seems that anchor babies are indeed meant to be citizens according to the Constitution.

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.

[edit on 5-28-2010 by groingrinder]

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Do me a favor.. get out a law dictionary.. get out a copy of the 14th amendment and go through the first section and read the legal definition of all of those words.. then tell me that it only applies to slaves..

I don't care what was intended by those words..

Everyone is quick to spout off that this is a Republic. That is correct. A nation founded on laws.. and the rule of those laws. Not of men, of law.

Words play a big role in this, see?

Listen, I personally don't care. I am only pointing out what is very clear, and for the most part, I side with the idea that something should be done about illegal immigration, our government.. employers.. all of it, BUT.. those that are quick to jump up and use the basis of law can always be bitten in the ass by it.

reply to post by Grumble


So you are saying we should let our country turn into a third world country just so borderline racists will not be able to get satisfaction? That makes sense.

reply to post by groingrinder


Show me a constitutional amendment that overrides the 14th amendment.. I'll wait..

Originally posted by Grumble
I am not pro-illegal immigration. In fact, I support increased border security and much, much more vigilant enforcement and prosecution of employers who take advantage of the situation. I think anyone who is illegal should be deported, period and if our country needs a labor pool, reasonable legal means to accomplish such should be devised.

Nevertheless, whoever has proposed this ridiculous law is clearly seeking to incite the most militant elements of his constituency. And let's be real here, you and I know damned well that a good number of the most militant are fundamentally opposed to latino immigration for ethnic and cultural reasons. Just like racism against blacks, it exists and if you argue it does not, you have confirmed your own bigotry (or delusional state).

It is simply not constructive to raise the passions of those on the fringe.

I'm really glad to read your against illegals, open boarders and employers use of illegals.

But this crap you spouted about Bigotry and Racism towards the Latino Race. BITE ME!
The people I know that are against illegals and employers use of illegals and the illegals not caring enough to learn our language. Those people who you classified as Bigots and Racist are against any race of peoples who come into our country illegally.

The state of Arizona has more people from south of our boarder here illegally than from other countries. BUT, we do have other peoples from other countries here also illegally. They also have babies and get that child a new SSN#.
The problem with the person trying to get this bill passed, is this, Like most of the people in Politics, like our POTUS and others, they have not read our Constitution.
As much as I'd like to see this bill pass, I know it can't.

BUT, just because I'd like the Bill to Pass, Does Not Make ME, A Racist and or Bigot against LATINOS or better known MEXICANS..

[edit on 28-5-2010 by guohua]

reply to post by broahes


You are correct. I have amended my post to show that.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
That way their kid becomes a US citizen and then the whole family can come in the country.

Um, no. An "anchor baby" does NOT make the family legal.

IMO this is awesome.

"Awesome" to toss aside the Constitution?

I would actually support an amendment to change the 14th Amendment to prevent "anchor babies", but as long as it's there, worded as it is, a state cannot go rogue and start making it's own laws that go against the Constitution.

This law will get NOWHERE. And it shouldn't. AZ is showing its ass. Someone else said these laws are being made to show the voters that the politicians support their racism and bigotry. I must agree. The people's bigotry is being used for their votes. And unfortunately, as illustrated in this thread, many people are falling for the trick. :shk:

reply to post by groingrinder


Listen, I wasn't trying to come across as mean spirited, and my hostility was not aimed at you alone. I commend you for admitting where you are wrong, or at least where I think you were wrong. It takes a bigger person to do that than just ignore a post that points out a flaw in your logic. A star for that, and I hope you get many more.. it is a dying quality.

Now, my point was only to point out the hypocrisy of those that scream obey they law, only when it suits them. Laws are written by men. They are weak because we are weak. They are broken because we are broken.

The human spirit does not recognize law, only moral justification.

This is why I do not believe in authority. I am the only authority I need, as I know morally what is right. People can disagree with that all they want, but for as far as my mind's eye can see.. nothing will ever change that about me. I live with other people's opinions dictating what I can or cannot do, with absolutely no moral grounds, so people can at least afford me my opinion that they are wrong when I do not deprive them of anything.

Resistance IS Peace.

Peace.

Illegals don't come here just for the Jobs, they come here to drop as many anchors as possible.

I am glad to see such an action being instituted by a state, now others need to get on board with this measure.

Illegals are taking advantage of Laws that were meant only for the slaves during the Civil war. Not meant for modern day criminals.

Originally posted by broahes
reply to post by sdcigarpig

 

Do me a favor.. get out a law dictionary.. get out a copy of the 14th amendment and go through the first section and read the legal definition of all of those words.. then tell me that it only applies to slaves..

I don't care what was intended by those words..

Everyone is quick to spout off that this is a Republic. That is correct. A nation founded on laws.. and the rule of those laws. Not of men, of law.

Words play a big role in this, see?

Listen, I personally don't care. I am only pointing out what is very clear, and for the most part, I side with the idea that something should be done about illegal immigration, our government.. employers.. all of it, BUT.. those that are quick to jump up and use the basis of law can always be bitten in the ass by it.

I will do you one better, from the government web site itself and by people who have studied this amendment:
Primary Documents in American History
As quoted in the document:
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.


As you can see it was specifically for those who were slave, and the descendent of slaves, not for foriegn nationals who come here to drop a baby and then demand citizenship cause their child would be considered a citizen of the country. Tell me, if a woman, who is pregnant, breaks the law and is sent to prison, what happens to the child? The child is immediately taken from the mother and sent to either live with relatives or is placed into foster care. Illegale immigrants, should not be granted special rights under any circumstances, they have broken the laws of the country and are criminials.
It is more than just words, it is the intention behind those words, it is how the courts determine if a law is fair and equal, or not. If you do not agree that this loophole should be closed, well then would you care if we did not prosecute say Bernie Madoff, after all he did not kill anyone, just stole billions in a ponzi scheme. How about your taxes, think they are bad now, what do you think is driving them, or when you have to go to the hospital, what do you think is going to happen when they look at you and say, your bill is not 10 to 15% higher for costs. Or anything that you purchase, would it matter then. Got a better one for you, would you be happy if they reinstated the draft and you or your son, or your brother got called to duty, but the family down the street, who are not here legally, manage to skip out, going back home and then when you have to bury those realatives, would it really matter to you then?

[edit on 28-5-2010 by sdcigarpig]

reply to post by sdcigarpig


That's all well and good.. I am not disputing what was intended. I am disputing the false interpretation of legal definitions. I have no doubt that is what was intended. I do not dispute that. However, living under a rule of law, you live under legal definition of a bunch of words essentially that can bite you just as fast as they feed you.


EDITED just to add:

I do not believe in law, the rule of law, the interpretation of laws, or the legal definition of legal terms.. I figured you should clearly know that about me before we carry this on all day.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by broahes]

reply to post by broahes


It's obvious to me that Arizona isn't trying to take away Constitutional rights. I think the state is trying to force the government's hand at taking some kind of stand on illegal immigration. Although section 1 clearly states in the first sentence, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" it is followed by this - "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Arizona might be playing that as their loophole.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
...“all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed.

As you can see it was specifically for those who were slave, and the descendent of slaves, not for foriegn nationals who come here to drop a baby and then demand citizenship cause their child would be considered a citizen of the country. Tell me, if a woman, who is pregnant, breaks the law and is sent to prison, what happens to the child? The child is immediately taken from the mother and sent to either live with relatives or is placed into foster care. Illegale immigrants, should not be granted special rights under any circumstances, they have broken the laws of the country and are criminials.

The quote above says "all persons born or naturalized" this would include a baby born in the US to a foreign national.

One thing is true (in the US) and that is that the SCOTUS is the one that decides what the meaning is and so far they have allowed this to be the interpretation of the law.

reply to post by black cat


I don't see where there can be a loophole in that.

Anchor babies are born in the state, giving them citizenship of the state as well as the union, and placing them under the jurisdiction thereof.

Reply to post by black cat

The child becomes a Ward of the state. The mother gets deported. Plain and simple.

What is the issue here?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I must say that while I do not agree with you in some of your posts around ATS, I can't help but commend you for your well rounded logic and thought that you put into every post you make. You always give me something to think about with your post, and I always enjoy your input.

You are correct, this won't go anywhere, as it shouldn't if we truly are a nation of laws and lady justice truly is blind.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by black cat

 

The child becomes a Ward of the state. The mother gets deported. Plain and simple.

What is the issue here?

Actually being illegal in the US is an infraction much like a traffic ticket. Mothers who get traffic tickets don't get their children taken away. The only reason illegals are detained is to make sure they leave the country. They even get a chance to leave voluntarily so that they are not affected in case they wish to file the paperwork and return legally.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by daskakik]