Thread: Arizona citizenship bill targets children

Arizona citizenship bill targets children
By Ruben Navarrette Jr., Special to CNN June 17, 2010 6:13 p.m. EDT
San Diego, California (CNN) -- And then they came for the children.

Just when you thought Arizona lawmakers couldn't stoop any lower, these cowardly and shameful politicians grab a shovel and put in a basement.

This fall, the Arizona legislature is expected to debate a bill that would deny birth certificates to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants -- the "anchor babies" that some Republicans have been trying to marginalize for years.

The lawmakers are cowards because, first, they go after illegal immigrants who don't vote, lobby or contribute to political campaigns. And now they're going after children who don't vote, lobby or contribute to political campaigns.

Whom are they not going after? Employers of illegal immigrants. You know why? Because they vote, lobby and contribute to political campaigns.

By the way, the term "anchor babies," which refers to the tots that supposedly increase the chances that mommy and daddy can stay in the United States even if mommy and daddy are in the country illegally, isn't just offensive and crude. It's also misleading.

The fact that Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who was famously holed up in a Chicago, Illinois, church, had a U.S.-born son didn't stop federal officials from deporting her in 2007. Some anchor.

The real anchor is a job, the kind eagerly provided by U.S. employers who thumb their noses at federal law prohibiting the hiring of illegal immigrants.

In fact, right-wingers acknowledge as much when they argue that if we dry up the jobs, illegal immigrants will self-deport.

What about their kids, some of which were born in the United States? Why not stay for them? Simple: Employment takes precedence. Thus, according to conservatives' own arguments, there aren't anchor babies -- only anchor jobs.

Also, you can bet that some of the same people who oppose citizenship for the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants also oppose the idea of granting a pathway to earned legalization -- what they call "amnesty" -- to illegal immigrants. Why?

Because, they say, you can't willy-nilly convert those who are illegal to legal. Then how can those folks be so cavalier about making that conversion in the opposite direction by changing legal to illegal?

Lastly, one of the things you hear from amnesty opponents is that illegal immigrants should certainly not be given U.S. citizenship. It's just too valuable, they say. Agreed. But if it's so valuable, then why are some on the right so quick to strip it away from the children of illegal immigrants? Don't U.S. citizens deserve more respect than that? Apparently not.

In the late 1990s, the member of Congress leading the crusade against "birthright citizenship" was Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-California.

The San Diego-area congressman proposed a bill to limit the privilege to the children of U.S. citizens. The legislation didn't go anywhere. It couldn't even get a hearing from some of Bilbray's fellow Republicans, who cringed at the idea of visiting the sins of the parents onto the children.

The same was true for another failed attempt by Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Georgia, who, in 2005, proposed a bill that explicitly denied citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. The bill didn't go anywhere either, in part because not enough Republicans would even agree to give it a hearing.

That same year, I discussed the idea with Rep. James Sensenbrenner, who was then chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the author of a sweeping piece of legislation called "The Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism, and Immigration Control Act of 2005." Among other things, the bill would have made unauthorized presence in the United States a felony. Yet even Sensenbrenner, not exactly a softhearted liberal, wouldn't touch the idea of denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. When fellow Republicans tried to insert such language into his bill, he was careful to keep it out.

There was a time when Republicans knew better than to handle radioactive material. My, how times have changed.

And now all the opponents of birthright citizenship have to do is change the Constitution. The 14th Amendment makes clear that anyone born in the United States, with the possible exception of the children of foreign diplomats, is a U.S. citizen.

"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."

Grasping at straws, restrictionists and nativists claim that illegal immigrants aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

So what? My concern isn't that critics don't know how to read the law. It's that they don't know how to read -- period.

Jurisdiction applies not to the parents, but to the children. As U.S. citizens, they're subject to U.S. laws, but they also enjoy the protection of the U.S. Constitution. The closed border / closed mind crowd may not like it, but that's the way it is.

I'm not surprised that this escapes the state of Arizona.

Given all that's happened in recent weeks in its jihad against not illegal immigrants but Hispanics in general, the Grand Canyon State seems to have more than its share of people who slept through high school civics, and they're being advised by lawyers who were obviously absent the day they taught "law" in law school. That's not a good look.

The U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are legally entitled to U.S. citizenship. What part of "legal" don't the critics understand?

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ruben Navarrette Jr.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/17/n ... ml?hpt=Mid

You go AZ - this is what every state needs.

Europe learned this lesson years ago - they have not given "automatic" citizenship to babies born there for ever.

At least one parent needs to be an American in order to apply for citizenship.

Navarette Is a sorry excuse for an AMERICAN citizen..... Just another reverse racist that nobody listens to. He was fired from the San Diego Tribune,and now he Is reduced to writing his garbage for the FAR,FAR LEFT CNN.... I have not watched CNN since Lou Dobbs left. They are a pathetic news (spin) organization. TS

...the term "anchor babies," ... isn't just offensive and crude. It's also misleading.

Tough, if you feel that way. It is a very apt term and is not misleading at all.

The fact that Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who was famously holed up in a Chicago, Illinois, church, had a U.S.-born son didn't stop federal officials from deporting her in 2007. Some anchor.

She made the mistake of getting in the public eye, that does not happen to most illegal parents and their kids. She got what she deserved.

What about their kids, some of which were born in the United States? Why not stay for them? Simple: Employment takes precedence. Thus, according to conservatives' own arguments, there aren't anchor babies -- only anchor jobs.

This is a very poor attempt to redirect attention away from anchor babies.

Also, you can bet that some of the same people who oppose citizenship for the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants also oppose the idea of granting a pathway to earned legalization -- what they call "amnesty" -- to illegal immigrants. Why?

Because, they say, you can't willy-nilly convert those who are illegal to legal. Then how can those folks be so cavalier about making that conversion in the opposite direction by changing legal to illegal?

This just plain makes no sense - very stupid statement...

Lastly, one of the things you hear from amnesty opponents is that illegal immigrants should certainly not be given U.S. citizenship. It's just too valuable, they say. Agreed. But if it's so valuable, then why are some on the right so quick to strip it away from the children of illegal immigrants? Don't U.S. citizens deserve more respect than that? Apparently not.

Good point! YES, US CITIZENS... deserve more respect... NOT illegal immigrants attempt to anchor themselves here with ANCHOR babies.

So what? My concern isn't that critics don't know how to read the law. It's that they don't know how to read -- period

And ... who... is grasping at straws?

Jurisdiction applies not to the parents, but to the children. As U.S. citizens, they're subject to U.S. laws, but they also enjoy the protection of the U.S. Constitution. The closed border / closed mind crowd may not like it, but that's the way it is.

I'm not surprised that this escapes the state of Arizona.

Lawmakers are trying to make it so that illegal immigrants babies born here aren't automatically given the privilege of US citizenship just because these illegals were able to sneak across a border and give birth. They know jobs are scare here but they keep crossing the border illegally to give birth and having as many anchor babies as they can to get free goodies.

Given all that's happened in recent weeks in its jihad against not illegal immigrants but Hispanics in general, the Grand Canyon State seems to have more than its share of people who slept through high school civics, and they're being advised by lawyers who were obviously absent the day they taught "law" in law school. That's not a good look.

The U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are legally entitled to U.S. citizenship. What part of "legal" don't the critics understand?

NO Navarrette. It is you who were asleep and are grasping at straws and trying to make illegall legal. Your arguments for your kind (hispanics) just doesn't cut it anymore. We are wise to you!

This was printed one month ago.

The 14th was NEVER meant to include children of diplomats or ALIENS

Yes Ruben , some of us cracker hick rednecks CAN read

Illegal aliens are foreign nationals in this country without status and subject to the jurisdiction of THEIR HOME COUNTRIES ,

Otherwise they WOULD NOT have the protection of their consulates once arrested.

Of course they are subject to punishment for laws broken here , its not the same as under the jurisdiction as meant in the 14th.

What an idiot this guy is - he's playing to the hostile thugs so he's not targeting when they turn deadly.

Incidentally, where's the TOLERANCE from the illegal aliens, and those who support them, as they roam at will among us and become more and more hostile each day they're allowed to continue their hate fest as "boots on the ground", usually for their beloved homeland of mexico?

It's passed time for Americans to end their tolerance for any form of illegal alien and anchor baby stealing every aspect of "we the people's" life, survival, and nation our from under us.

Only when illegal aliens reach the rich and powerful homes, neighborhoods, and families will the hostile illegal alien reign invasion end forever.

Originally Posted by cjbl2929

You go AZ - this is what every state needs.

Europe learned this lesson years ago - they have not given "automatic" citizenship to babies born there for ever.

At least one parent needs to be an American in order to apply for citizenship.

This is what is so tragic about the illegal alien invasion, being spearheaded primarily by mexico, and the USA governments who encourage such hostile and deadly behaviors.

We could blame mexico, and other nations, for being backward and ignorant of what has and hasn't worked for many millenniums.

Then again, this only proves how ill equipped, and how literally uneducated, unaware, and shamefully unwise too many in The USA's government offices are as well.

Originally Posted by topsecret10

Navarette Is a sorry excuse for an AMERICAN citizen..... Just another reverse racist that nobody listens to. He was fired from the San Diego Tribune,and now he Is reduced to writing his garbage for the FAR,FAR LEFT CNN.... I have not watched CNN since Lou Dobbs left. They are a pathetic news (spin) organization TS

"Racist" is "Racist" - there is nothing reversed about racism in all forms.

I too left CNN in my dust when the master of economics, Lou Dobbs, for left CNN in his dust as he walked away from their failing numbers.

Thankfully, Lou is not the only anchor who has left CNN for better brighter newsworthy pro-American television media and other venues.

Originally Posted by forest

...the term "anchor babies," ... isn't just offensive and crude. It's also misleading.

Tough, if you feel that way. It is a very apt term and is not misleading at all.

ANCHOR BABIES - ANCHOR BABIES - ANCHOR BABIES - ANCHOR BABIES - ANCHOR BABIES - ANCHOR BABIES.

It's a legal term in the legal dictionary stupid (not you forest - the other idiot).

If illegal aliens don't want their babies to be called ANCHOR BABIES, then they need to arrive LEGALLY into The United States of America and quit stealing from America's tax dollars base for her ANCHOR BABY'S entire extended family.

No matter how long ANCHOR BABIES and their extneded families are inside America ILLEGALLY, they will NEVER be welcomed until they do the right legal thing and "become legal Americans" ALL OF THEM - and then DENOUNCE THEIR BIRTH NATION and "BE" law abiding American citizens for 100% of the rest of their collective lives.

Until then they will be known by their actions against "we the people's" will for OUR nation that ALL OF YOU are stealing from.

Which is against all nation's laws and God's Ten Commandments.

Originally Posted by Justthefacts

The 14th was NEVER meant to include children of diplomats or ALIENS

Yes Ruben , some of us cracker hick rednecks CAN read

Illegal aliens are foreign nationals in this country without status and subject to the jurisdiction of THEIR HOME COUNTRIES ,

Otherwise they WOULD NOT have the protection of their consulates once arrested.

Of course they are subject to punishment for laws broken here , its not the same as under the jurisdiction as meant in the 14th.

I figure anyone who collects enough money to pay for a high priced escort to aid them to enter America ILLEGALLY, as one or many, have earned the wrath of EVERY American citizen.

Further wrath by EVERY American citizen is earned when these same lawless find their way (or their collective ways) to a place where they can pick up their many fraudulent identifications, so that they can APPEAR to be legal Americans, when in reality they are nothing more than sad imitations of USA citizens and actual lawless illegal aliens and anchor babies.

No illegal alien will allow their homeland to be invaded - AND their home to be invaded in the way they have invaded OUR homeland, and many times OUR literal homes.

About a month ago I saw Michele Obama comforting a child on TV because she was crying and terrified she would be separated from her mommy if her illegal mommy were deported. Not too offensive for one side to use children as anchors and arguments, but those against illegals getting amnesty can't?

A well-staged tear jerking moment using a well-prepped child to appeal to emotion and bypass thinking.

Originally Posted by Watson

About a month ago I saw Michele Obama comforting a child on TV because she was crying and terrified she would be separated from her mommy if her illegal mommy were deported. Not too offensive for one side to use children as anchors and arguments, but those against illegals getting amnesty can't?

A well-staged tear jerking moment using a well-prepped child to appeal to emotion and bypass thinking.

Well maybe someone should explain to the crying child that her illegal mommy broke the law when she was pregnant and climbed the fence to come over here. And how it isnt our fault that mommy broke the law. I feel for children who are suffering because of their parents bad choices, but we cant just coddle everyone who comes here illegally and then has a family.

Originally Posted by busybee

Originally Posted by Watson

About a month ago I saw Michele Obama comforting a child on TV because she was crying and terrified she would be separated from her mommy if her illegal mommy were deported. Not too offensive for one side to use children as anchors and arguments, but those against illegals getting amnesty can't?

A well-staged tear jerking moment using a well-prepped child to appeal to emotion and bypass thinking.

Well maybe someone should explain to the crying child that her illegal mommy broke the law when she was pregnant and climbed the fence to come over here. And how it isnt our fault that mommy broke the law. I feel for children who are suffering because of their parents bad choices, but we cant just coddle everyone who comes here illegally and then has a family.

if there was a thumbs up feature i would so give you one!