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

Originally posted by AllIsOne
Let's say I come into your house illegally, but before you can kick me out (or shoot me) I manage to leave my newborn in your bedroom. Now, by law, you have to share your house with the baby ...

Would you really want to support that?

Did you read the rest of the post that you quoted???

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.

What part of that don't you understand?

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
White people are DEEPLY afraid of anyone who doesn't speak english. "This is AMURRRIKKAAAA!!! SPEAK ENGLISHSHSHHS!"

There is a great fear among some white people of being in the minority. They're afraid that they will be treated as they have treated minorities in the past. I am not afraid. People are people. I think it will be very interesting to see what the country is like with whites in the minority. I suspect it will be a much nicer place.

reply to post by AceWombat04


But it really isn't about leaving the union or changing the constitution. Just politics as usual.

Why else would you even talk about a law that is obviously unconstitutional?

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

That was my first thought when I saw the headlines -- when did states get the right to decide who was a citizen of the country? And what would happen if one state (say, Pennsylvania) recognized children of Canadians born in the US as US citizens but another (New York, for example) didn't?

It's a federal matter. I think he's just grandstanding so he can use it in his next election campaign.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

"I think it will be very interesting to see what the country is like with whites in the minority. I suspect it will be a much nicer place."




You don't have to wait to see what it will be like, just get in your car and go drive around downtown Detroit for an hour or so, see for yourself how "nice" it is.




[edit on 28-5-2010 by BlackOps719]

Originally posted by broahes
Amendments have to be ratified by 3 quarters of the states to pass.. the 14th amendment was ratified by the needed number, so it did indeed become an amendment for all of the states.

Nope, sorry.

1. The Joint Resolution that proposed said amendment was not submitted to nor adopted by a Constitutional Congress as per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the Constitution.

2. The Joint Resolution was also not submitted to the President for his approval as it is required by Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution.

3. The proposed 14th Amendment was summarily rejected by more than 1/4th of all the States in the Union at that time, and it was never ratified by 3/4ths of all the States of the Union as required by Article V of the Constitution.

For those that think the 14th amendment should protect illegal immigrants remember this quote from one of america's founding father's. "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
~James Madison

While I'm a HUGE supporter of SB 1070 in its amended form; there's no way a state law is going to over-power the 14th amendment; especially, since this issue has been ruled on, more than once, by the SCOTUS.

This proposed legislation will unfortunately; however, most certainly be deemed as unconstitutional by a federal judge. However, it will send a clear message that enough is enough. Illegal is illegal and laws must be obeyed and breaking them cannot be rewarded.

Here are links to some more information regarding prior SCOTUS rulings regarding the matter.

In the cases:

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94

Elk v. Wilkins - supreme.justia.com

The clause's meaning was tested regarding whether it meant that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the children of Native Americans were not citizens, despite the fact that they were born in the United States

(Wikipedia).


UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649

UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK -supreme.justia.com

The meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) regarding children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants born in United States. The court ruled that the children were U.S. citizens

(Wikipedia).


(Wikipedia Fourteenth Amendment)

-CosmicClearance

Hm. This is a tough on but this is my opinion:

1). I do not think it is right for 'border jumpers' to come across, give birth, and get citizenship for their child and themselves. This is a loophole.

---On the other hand---

2). A possible violation of the 14th amendment.



SOLUTION

The 14th amendment was created due to a social issue: Ensuring citizen status to slaves and their offspring.

Of course, this is now a non issue as we abolished slavery.

However, we now find ourselves in the middle of another social issue: 'Anchor babies.'

As much as I support states rights, I do NOT believe they can conflict with our constitution. As in, I wouldn't want to see a state outlaw gun ownership on a state level and conflict with our national right to bear arms.

On the same token, I do not agree with Arizona on this one because I don't want a state law to interfere with our constitution.

So the solution is, just like when we amended the constitution for post-slavery America, we need to amend it again to now face this issue before enforcing it.

I don't see any other way. I don't want to toss out the constitution when it's convenient but I understand something needs to be done about this loophole.

So I agree that Arizona should not do this until [if] the Constitution is amended. I understand their reasoning for wanting to do such but this is not legally sound.

[edit on 5/28/2010 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD

I do not think it is right for 'border jumpers' to come across, give birth, and get citizenship for their child and themselves. This is a loophole.

Can you explain to me how illegal parents get citizenship for themselves by having a child?

In e-mails obtained by CBS 5 News, Pearce said he intends to push for a bill that would enable Arizona to no longer grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil.

One itsy bitsy problem here.

Arizona doesn't grant citizenship to ANYONE...that is the federal governments job.

But continue on...get all giddy about it. That is what they want...so you will vote for them.


Amazing that people think a STATE has the right to not grant citizenship to the NATION.

"I think it will be very interesting to see what the country is like with whites in the minority. I suspect it will be a much nicer place."-Benevolent Heretic

Well how but we take a look at an article from a newspaper in Houston, Texas.

Actual Article



Now what was that about a nicer country with whites as minorities?


Edit: Also in Mexico whites are minorities. If it would be a much nicer place why do they come to the U.S.? Why is Mexico in the middle of a huge drug war? Why does Ciudad Juarez, Mexico have the highest murder rate IN THE WORLD? While I do believe that that race doesn't define who we are as a person your statement is ignorant and stupid.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by rebtex]

[edit on 28-5-2010 by rebtex]

reply to post by jam321


It's not 'auto granted' for the parents like it is for the child. It just happens to make it a lot easier. To deny that is to deny fact.

Sorry if my point came across as confusing on that tidbit. I meant to say the child automatically is granted citizenship [and then according to immigration laws, the parents have a lot easier journey to citizenship].

awww
i want to hug this law.

insensitive or not...its about damn time they started doing something about the borders that america and AMERICANS insist on keeping.

if you whiny ones don't like it...try to get legislation passed to eradicate borders as that is the only solution besides what they are now doing in arizona.

In my opinion, if immigrants weren't abusing America's Welcome Mat, this whole issue would be a non-issue for either side of the argument.

It's unfortunate, but I think that [the abuse] is the real issue here.

We try to stop people from abusing our hospitality, and we're nothing but racist jerks.

We do nothing about the abuse, and everyone hates us, and we're giving our sovreignty away in exchange for votes.

We can't win this one folks, regardless of your stance.

Just my opinion.

I don't consider myself an anchor baby. My father was born in Mexico and his mother was born in Wyoming (of all places lol); he became a legal resident naturally. My mother was also born in Mexico but became a legal resident in the seventies without a previous illegal status as well.

I do NOT support illegal immigration; I support stricter laws as a solution for illegal
immigration.

I do NOT support this law for its literal translation, but for its symbolic importance. I understand what Arizona is trying to do, really, I get it. State laws are great because they are tailored to the citizens of a particular state; I get that Arizona is fed up with drug-related crime, crime in general, unemployment, the economic recession, etc. These are all influenced by the impact of illegal immigration. Yes, it kind of sucks for illegal immigrants who already reside in Arizona, I empathize with them, I do. However, a great thing about this country is that if you don’t like what state you live in and its laws, you can leave for another.

These laws are meant for nothing more than for bullying illegals out of Arizona and making them someone else’s problem; that’s only if illegals let themselves be bullied. These laws are just growing unnecessary tension between the Latino communities in general and the proponents of these laws. You might argue that this is a good thing and that if all border-ish states did this, the illegals would just have to leave. I guarantee you this would not be allowed to happen peacefully. This would just waste more time, effort, and money.

This being said, these types of state laws are hopefully increasing the awareness of the immigration problem of the federal government. People, even collectively, have little power in affecting decisions the government makes. However states can successfully pressure the government to act. So yes, I am contradicting myself, I am saying Arizona is both servicing and threatening the well-being of the country.

Now here’s the bad (worse) part: No matter how the government acts, every law passed on their part will be created to TRY to appease the disgruntled citizens and not to create a useful solution to the problem. Illegal immigrants are too beneficial too the government; the pros vastly outweigh the cons to them. It’s obvious that they don’t care that cheap labor is taking jobs that citizens could do. From about 4 million dollars during the Clinton days to just about 189,000 dollars in 2004, the Bush administration heavily decreased the amount of fines that were collected from employers who employed illegals. Cheap labor equals more profits for big corporations equals a stronger US business community. Also, contrary to popular belief, many illegals do work using fake social security numbers that will never be checked or checked and not reported. Why? Because these fake social security numbers give social security 7 billion dollars a year. "For illegal immigrants, Social Security numbers are simply a tool needed to work on this side of the border. Retirement does not enter the picture" (New York Times). Basically, illegals will never collect social security benefits. That’s too good a deal for the government to pass up.

Now a personal bone to pick, I read most of the comments on these boards, I like to give proponents of these laws the benefit of the doubt; they are the disgruntled citizens, everyone deserves to be heard. However, the more I read defensive remarks saying these laws and opinions aren’t fueled by racism or intolerance, the more I lose respect for posters. Let’s be honest, if all immigrants had light skin, spoke perfect English, and were perfectly assimilated to act like you, but were still illegal and undercutting jobs, would you be as offended? Yes, I understand that all illegals are criminals and that is at root the problem; however some of these posts/responses show another other side. I am not targeting all posters and I’m not protecting those against the Arizona laws or those hardcore liberals everyone keeps blaming. I would feel like would be better educated to formulate a solution to the problem if all feelings and sentiments were laid out. I commend a certain poster whose name I can’t remember who announced and admitted his racist attitudes to the community, at least he was being honest. Everyone has biases and preferences, you would be a liar in saying that race and culture does not affect your attitude towards a person/people.

To those who are closet bigots or to those who are openly offended by other cultures: chill out, assimilation takes time. Although we are a stubborn culture, we’ll come around. Yes, the first generation comes to leech off the system and escape hell. The second generation will mostly likely be misguided and turn to a life of crime and low paying jobs, some of us may go to college and get an ATS account. The third generation is where it’s at: most will learn English over Spanish and will lean toward American values and attitudes and that is where the shift begins. There are already a lot productive 2nd generation and 3rd generation citizens out there, it just takes time.

Lastly: Secure the damn borders already! We have enough illegal immigrants to keep the country running on cheap labor for a while. This would decrease so much of the problem. (That wasn’t directed to anyone in particular, just a sentiment)

One more question, if jobs and economy are a major reason why people cry for immigration reform, why aren’t we boycotting/fighting every damn corporation that outsources millions of jobs outside this country? Is it because those people aren’t here to fight? Just economically speaking, that sort of this disgusts me a million times more than a thousand immigrants doing jobs that most won’t do anyway.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
You don't have to wait to see what it will be like, just get in your car and go drive around downtown Detroit for an hour or so, see for yourself how "nice" it is.

I can see the Mexican border on a clear day from where I live. I don't have to go anywhere to know what it's like to live in a diverse community. My town is 52% Hispanic. I am in the minority. And it's no different than when I was in the majority. Don't be afraid.

reply to post by AshleyD

I meant to say the child automatically is granted citizenship [and then according to immigration laws, the parents have a lot easier journey to citizenship].

Thanks for the clarification. thought had missed a new law.

Yes, it makes it easier in a way. But first the child will have to be 18 to put in the legal paper work. Then the parents would have to wait for many more years to wade through the process. Even then there is no guarantee.

Thank you for reply.

Actually the 14th amendement has been challenged a couple of times with varying results.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether it meant that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the children of Native Americans were not citizens, despite the fact that they were born in the United States.

The meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) regarding children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants born in United States. The court ruled that the children were U.S. citizens.[10]

The difference between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[11] The Heritage Foundation, a Conservative think tank, has opined that Congress possesses the power to pass legislation that would exclude from citizenship children who are born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. Neither in Wing Kim Ark nor any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether such children are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment,[12] although such birthright is generally assumed to be the case.[13] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)[14] and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).[15]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


So native american children born in the US weren't automatic US citizens. THe intent of the "Citizenship Clause" was to make all children born in the US citizens of the US. Pearce doesn't think it will violate the constitution, I beg to differ. That being said, I think its a great law. But they are going to have to deal with constitutionality of it.

You know, I must say ... I LOVE ARIZONA! They got elected official's who are actually doing their job. And so many states are following their lead. I agree that children born to illegal immigrants shouldn't be given automatic citizenship.

Where do I send flowers? I want to give the Arizona governess some! This is AWESOME.