Thread: 14 States Craft Bill to Deny Citizenship to 'Anchor Babies'

Originally Posted by jamesw62

i never thought there would be this many illegals from Canada

SOURCE
[b]DHS “2009 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,â€

Lawmakers in several states, including AZ, draft plans

Efforts to bar citizenship to migrants' kids growing

Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services Arizona Daily Star
October 20, 2010 12:00 am | Comments

Related: Poll: Do you agree with Russell Pearce that citizenship to children of illegal immigrants should be denied?

PHOENIX - Legislators in more than a dozen states across the nation are launching efforts to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, with Arizona to be ground zero.

Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said Tuesday that the failure of Congress to statutorily "clarify" the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to those born in this country, makes it necessary for states to take the lead.

Pearce, the author of two other Arizona laws aimed at curbing illegal immigration, said details have not yet been finalized. But he said one place Arizona can make its views heard would be to deny state-issued birth certificates - the necessary precursor of proof of citizenship - to children of those not in the country legally.

Lydia Guzman, president of Somos America, an immigrants rights group, said any such measure will wind up in court. "Expect plenty of lawsuits. Expect plenty of legal fees in this," she said. "This is nothing but a political ploy for political posturing."

Pearce said he's not concerned. "We'll be sued on no matter what you do by the left, who continue to refuse to accept the laws of this land or the rights of lawful, legal citizens of this country," he said. In fact, Pearce said a legal challenge is exactly what he wants.

He said courts that have ruled in the past that citizenship can be a matter of the geography of birth have gotten it wrong. He said he believes a new lawsuit challenging an Arizona law on citizenship will have a different result.

"With this Supreme Court, we'll win that battle," he said, saying that's why those who want citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants want to kill the legislation before it ever gets on the books. "They know I have a 5-4 states' rights court."

Pearce said he also is weighing whether to require proof of legal presence in this country before a child can be enrolled in public schools at state expense. That, too, is a direct challenge to a different Supreme Court ruling that makes such a requirement illegal.

He said lawmakers in 13 states unveiled their own plans on Tuesday to pursue legislation.

"You can't have laws that say you can't enter; you can't remain here in violation of federal law, but then provide inducements … to break those laws," Pearce said. Providing automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to people who are not citizens, he said, is one such inducement.

Some details are lacking. One is whether a child would have to have both parents be U.S. citizens to get that right or whether a single parent would qualify. Pearce said, though, any change would be prospective only and would not seek to revoke the citizenship of any child of illegal immigrants already born.

Central to the legal fight is the constitutional amendment adopted just after the Civil War that says anyone born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen of both the U.S. and the state where the person lives. That was aimed to provide legal protection to blacks born as slaves. Courts have since interpreted that to entitle someone to claim citizenship regardless of the legal status of one or both parents.

Pearce said the judges ignored language requiring not just birth in the United States but also that the parent is "subject to the jurisdiction" of this country.

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, has argued that foreigners are subject to U.S. jurisdiction: With the exception of diplomats, someone who commits a crime here can be prosecuted in Arizona courts.

Pearce said there are companies that offer "birthing packages" designed for pregnant women so they can come to the United States to have their babies. Pressed for specifics, Pearce said two websites where he saw that information "have been pulled down."

Gov. Jan Brewer sidestepped repeated questions Tuesday about her views, saying any comment she would have is "based on speculation" of exactly what would be in the measure.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/ ... 32aed.html

"Lydia Guzman, president of Somos America"


Somos America...translation, we are America. If so, how come you aren't saying it in ENGLISH...the language of America?

Originally Posted by LadyStClaire

Originally Posted by marquis

you guys should read the comments at HUF PO about this , their foaming at the mouth ... screams of racism are loud and frequent ..

yeah we're racist , just like the rest of the world ... we're one of the few countries left that rewards people for sneeking in and having children ...

absoutely riciduilous and i hope to see an end to it soon ...

I GUESS THOSE FOLKS ON THE HUFFINGTON POST DON'T MIND TAKING CARE OF ILLEGALS AND THEIR JACKPOT BABIES WHILE A LOT OF THEIR OWN GO TO BED HUNGRY. AND ALSO WHILE THEIR OWN ARE HOMELESS WHILE ILLEGAS ARE THE REASON THE WAIT FOR SECTION 8 HOUSING IS ABOUT 2yrs. RACE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, AND THEY KNOW IT.

If the illegal immigrants were taking lawyers, bankers, doctors, government officials jobs/livelihoods these people would never have made it past the border.

Lawmaker Blasts 'Anchor Baby' Industry, Says 14th Amendment Misconstrued

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 at 2:44PM
Benny Martinez in Quick News

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, released a statement today blasting the country’s practice of the 14th Amendment. King refers to birthright citizenship being granted to children of undocumented citizens a “misinterpretation of the Constitution.â€

POLL

Do you agree with Russell Pearce that citizenship to children of illegal immigrants should be denied?

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-215670.html

Paul Bender, a constitutional law professor at Arizona State University, said if the lawmakers focus their argument on the "subject to jurisdiction" wording, they won't get very far because the founders only meant it to apply to the children of foreign diplomats born in the U.S.

The 14th Amendment "could have easily have said you're a citizen if you owe your allegiance, but our Constitution doesn't say that," he said. "It says if you're born here, and you're not a diplomat's child, then you become a citizen, and that's the way its been for 100 years."

If Professor Bender feels that the 14th Amendment, as it is presently worded, makes anchor-babies citizens, how would he have constructed the Amendment differently to exclude anchor-babies? In other words, let's say that we could magically transport Prof Bender to the year 1868 (when the 14th Amendment was first adopted). Let's say he's right there at the Constitutional Convention. How exactly do you word it and phrase it to exclude the offspring of illegal alien parents?

Let's try some sample modifications:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, unless they are born of foreign parents who are uninvited guests to the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No...wait...that doesn't quite sound right.

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, provided that their parents also owe their allegiance to the United States, and to no other country.

I think I'm getting closer, but nowhere near putting it in the correct legal language. This is where we need Professor Bender to instruct us how to correctly and legally phrase it to exclude anchor-babies.

(By the way, I still believe the phrase "under the jurisdiction" is sufficient to exclude anchor-babies from US Citizenship).

"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"


The commentary on the amend should have been added to the amend

"this will of course not include children of diplomats or aliens"

Easy deal