Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?

[NewWine]

According to a Time’s Magazine article, “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….He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070”.

The prospective bill is to complicate the process so much that illegal immigrants will not have an “anchor baby” in the state of Arizona. The article points out the results of a poll taken by Rasmussen which questioned on whether children born to illegal immigrants should receive U.S. citizenship “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”.

The major problem with this prospective bill is Amendment 14 which prohibits states from making or enforcing any law that hinders their U.S. citizenship. The 14th Amendment was a response to the emancipation of slaves. The question is; does such a law violate the 14th Amendment?

Do you all see this bill as a violation of the 14th Amendment?
Do you think that the 14th Amendment should be changed to exclude what this article refers to as “anchor babies”?

Here is where I stand on the issue:
1. I think the prospective bill for Arizona violates the 14th Amendment.
2. Yes, I do think that the 14th Amendment should be changed to not allow illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and bear their children here as a means to stay. I find it to be just another slap in the face to our nation to enter illegally and then have children here that gain automatic citizenship.

I’m sure that this will ultimately end up before the Supreme Court.

Here is the link to the article: “ Arizona’s Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals”

[Pressing-On]

The 14th Amendment does not need to be changed because it did not intend to allow illegal born immigrants immediate status. The Supreme Court will have to refer to ELK v. WILKINS, 112 U.S. 94:

The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them (U.S.) direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=112&invol=94

Testimony entered into Congressional Records (1866) by Jacob Howard.
http://www.14thamendment.us/articles...dment_1866.gif

The problem that will occur is that the original purpose and language was confused in Wong Kim Ark (1898) Supreme Court case:

“To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=169&invol=649

[SOUNWORTHY]

Originally Posted by

[COLOR=Purple

Here is where I stand on the issue:[/COLOR]
[COLOR=DarkOrchid]1. I think the prospective bill for Arizona violates the 14th Amendment.
2. Yes, I do think that the 14th Amendment should be changed to not allow illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and bear their children here as a means to stay. I find it to be just another slap in the face to our nation to enter illegally and then have children here that gain automatic citizenship.

I’m sure that this will ultimately end up before the Supreme Court.

I agree!

[Sam]

Originally Posted by NewWine

[COLOR=DarkOrchid]
...
I’m sure that this will ultimately end up before the Supreme Court.
...
”

If/when that does go to the Supreme Court it will be interesting to see what happens. In my opinion, the anchor baby thing will will. As long as the child is born within U.S. borders, regardless of the time here and regardless of the legal status of the mother, I think the child will legally be an American citizen. Not saying I agree but I think that is the way it will be.

It is also my opinion that if gay marriage or even multiple marriages go to the U.S. Supreme court, if an actual decision is rendered by the court, both gay and multiple marriages will be made legal. The GLBT folks are just too strong, vocal, and visible and right now have Political Correctness on their side.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sam

If/when that does go to the Supreme Court it will be interesting to see what happens. In my opinion, the anchor baby thing will will. As long as the child is born within U.S. borders, regardless of the time here and regardless of the legal status of the mother, I think the child will legally be an American citizen. Not saying I agree but I think that is the way it will be.

It is also my opinion that if gay marriage or even multiple marriages go to the U.S. Supreme court, if an actual decision is rendered by the court, both gay and multiple marriages will be made legal. The GLBT folks are just too strong, vocal, and visible and right now have Political Correctness on their side.

The GLBT folks may have all of that, but what they don't have at this time is a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court. I see "gay marriage" being bounced out, at least for now - if it even gets to the Supremes.

The question on the 14th Amendment is trickier. Are the illegal alien parents of the "anchor baby" "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? The President of Mexico doesn't appear to think so, so why should we?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The GLBT folks may have all of that, but what they don't have at this time is a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court. I see "gay marriage" being bounced out, at least for now - if it even gets to the Supremes.

The question on the 14th Amendment is trickier. Are the illegal alien parents of the "anchor baby" "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? The President of Mexico doesn't appear to think so, so why should we?

could be interesting if either of the two get to the Supreme Court.
In my opinion, if they do get that far, they will be bounced because of some technicality so the court does not have to actually act on the issue.

[NewWine]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The GLBT folks may have all of that, but what they don't have at this time is a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court. I see "gay marriage" being bounced out, at least for now - if it even gets to the Supremes.

The question on the 14th Amendment is trickier. Are the illegal alien parents of the "anchor baby" "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? The President of Mexico doesn't appear to think so, so why should we?

I think the first question is really a true issue in all the illegal immigration kerfuffle. From what I have seen on protest signs around the country, it seems to me that those that are here illegally believe that they are entitled to the same rights as U.S. citizens. Now when you think about this that would mean in their minds our U.S. Constitution applies to them as well.

Jurisdiction of the United States: If they commit a crime they are prosecuted here. But that one law which is a felony, the one about entering the country illegally, everyone has the worst case of glaucoma. That's a resounding you betcha they are.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by NewWine

I think the first question is really a true issue in all the illegal immigration kerfuffle. From what I have seen on protest signs around the country, it seems to me that those that are here illegally believe that they are entitled to the same rights as U.S. citizens. Now when you think about this that would mean in their minds our U.S. Constitution applies to them as well.

Jurisdiction of the United States: If they commit a crime they are prosecuted here. But that one law which is a felony, the one about entering the country illegally, everyone has the worst case of glaucoma. That's a resounding you betcha they are.

If anyone commits a crime anywhere, they are prosecuted there. That American girl who was convicted of murder in Italy recently isn't an Italian citizen suddenly because of the conviction. http://www.people.com/people/article...324839,00.html

Illegals are not subject to Federal income taxes, though they may end up having their earnings taxed any how because of fraudulent Social Security numbers and such. In any event, they are at least not subject to FICA taxation and are ineligible for SS benefits.

They do have many rights guaranteed them simply as human beings. If someone were to murder an illegal they would face the same level of prosecution that the murder of a US citizen would entail; but this would not confer nor imply citizenship. It's just the just thing to do.

Frankly, most people turned a blind eye to the illegals because it was often in our best interests to do so. When their numbers increase to a point that it's no longer in our best interests to tolerate the illegality, we change our attitudes.

That strikes many illegals and their descendants as unfair, but it's really a whole lot more fair than the treatment they receive back in Mexico and certainly many magnitudes of "more fair" than the treatment an American citizen would find in Mexico if the roles were reversed.

[NewWine]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Frankly, most people turned a blind eye to the illegals because it was often in our best interests to do so. When their numbers increase to a point that it's no longer in our best interests to tolerate the illegality, we change our attitudes.

I don't disagree that over the decades many people have turned a blind eye. However, I don't feel that many people have changed their attitudes on illegal immigration. What has actually happened is that for decades many people have been frustrated with the manner in which our government has dealt with illegal immigration, and now what has always been a tense situation has erupted. When you have border patrol agents being sentenced to prison for doing their job, Arizona's new law and prospective law, the two recent people being killed, amongst all the other immigration issues; this is the result. Needless to say, I don't think the fact that people have turned a blind eye is an excuse for those that are here illegally to be given a free pass in any way. It is what it is, they came here illegally so they need to go. Our government goes to great lengths to keep people from Haiti coming on rafts; they get turned around. The same thing should be applicable to everyone coming illegally. Bottom line everything is just one big mess.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by NewWine

I don't disagree that over the decades many people have turned a blind eye. However, I don't feel that many people have changed their attitudes on illegal immigration. What has actually happened is that for decades many people have been frustrated with the manner in which our government has dealt with illegal immigration, and now what has always been a tense situation has erupted. When you have border patrol agents being sentenced to prison for doing their job, Arizona's new law and prospective law, the two recent people being killed, amongst all the other immigration issues; this is the result. Needless to say, I don't think the fact that people have turned a blind eye is an excuse for those that are here illegally to be given a free pass in any way. It is what it is, they came here illegally so they need to go. Our government goes to great lengths to keep people from Haiti coming on rafts; they get turned around. The same thing should be applicable to everyone coming illegally. Bottom line everything is just one big mess.

Yeah, that's the bottom line. Unfortunately.

What I don't like as well is the political game that is played. When someone speaks out for our laws to be observed they are often painted as "racist." Yet most of the people I know who happen to have Hispanic surnames are also very much against illegal immigration.

My earlier point was that the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" clause doesn't mean just subject to the common criminal laws of the state and nation. It has a finer distinction in mind - the sort of jurisdiction that comes up when we talk about where "home" is and which community we feel we need to contribute our taxes to and to support.