Arizona bill would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants

Discussion in 'Immigration/Illegal Immigration' started by Angelhair, Jun 15, 2010.

  1. Angelhair
    Offline

    Angelhair Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,597
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +153
    (CNN) -- A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents.

    The bill comes on the heels of Arizona passing the nation's toughest immigration law.

    John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

    "If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.

    Under federal law, children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' residency status.

    Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative, strongly opposes the bill.

    "Unlike (Senate Bill) 1070, it is clear this bill runs immediately afoul of the U.S. Constitution," she said.

    "While I understand that folks in Arizona and across the country support S.B. 1070, they do so because we have seen no action from the federal government," said Sinema. "Unfortunately, the so-called 'anchor baby' bill does nothing to solve the real problems we are facing in Arizona."

    Arizona Republicans are expected to introduce the legislation this fall.

    Arizona bill would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants - CNN.com
     
  2. LilOlLady
    Offline

    LilOlLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    7,841
    Thanks Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Ratings:
    +762
    If the Constituion were perfect, there would not have been needs admendments.

    Article 5 details the method of amending, or changing, the Constitution. Please see The Amendments Page for more information.

    List of amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    “when international diplomats are here in the US and they have children, they are not given citizenship.”
     
  3. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    22,929
    Thanks Received:
    5,117
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,754
    I think that would be an excellent thing to do. If you're parents are not in this country legally, then you have no right to be born an American citizen. I think you should be immediately deported along with your illegal mother straight from the hospital. There would be two less dregs upon society.
     
  4. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,952
    Thanks Received:
    15,712
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,080

    It’s interesting to find that situations seemingly decided in the past, may, in fact have a questionable provenance. Accepted today as a fait accompli is the assumed citizenship of any child born in territorial United States.

    There is no Supreme Court decision squarely holding that children of illegal aliens are automatically citizens of the U.S. An 1898 decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, held by a vote of 5-4 that a child of legal resident aliens is entitled to birthright citizenship.

    "In 1894, Wong Kim Ark, born and raised in the United States, visited China. His parents who had worked in San Francisco, had returned to China to live, and when Wong Kim Ark returned to California, he was“denied permission to enter the country "...because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the state of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China."
    United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    “Citizenship, of course, does not exist by nature; it is created by law, and the identification of citizens has always been considered an essential aspect of sovereignty. Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “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.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.”

    So, not only being born within the geographical limits of the US is required: the definition of ‘jurisdiction’ is critical!
    a. Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment excluded Indians as citizens, as they “were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rose to support his colleague, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
    b. The Expatriation Act of 1868 allows Americans to renounce their citizenship. “Like the idea of citizenship, this right of expatriation is wholly incompatible with the common law understanding of perpetual allegiance and subjectship…In sum, this legacy of feudalism—which we today call birthright citizenship—was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868. It is absurd, then, to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizenship on the children of illegal aliens.”
    c. Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance—or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing.
    https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=07
     
  5. froggy
    Offline

    froggy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,309
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,632
    Yeah!:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:
     
  6. Lonestar_logic
    Offline

    Lonestar_logic Republic of Texas

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    24,318
    Thanks Received:
    2,193
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,505
    That law should be effective in all 50 states immediately!
     
  7. Middleman
    Offline

    Middleman Defender of the month

    Joined:
    May 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,907
    Thanks Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northwestern United States
    Ratings:
    +289
    I feel strongly that there is something grossly wrong in giving citizenship to the children of illegals. It's disrespectful to those who play by the rules, and to legitimate citizens.

    I don't think the founding fathers envisioned this problem. The Constitution was written in a simpler time, when the nation was largely undeveloped and unpopulated, and travel was difficult and time-consuming.

    Now, with the large Hispanic lobby, and other sympathizers, it'll be difficult to close this loophole, unfortunately. Our nation has had a generous streak regarding immigration, and now it's biting us in the rear.
     
  8. hortysir
    Offline

    hortysir In Memorial of 47

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    20,459
    Thanks Received:
    4,027
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Lakeland, FL
    Ratings:
    +6,296
    Can state law not supersede that??
    :confused:
     
  9. ConHog
    Offline

    ConHog BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Thanks Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +897
    Are you being serious?


    This bill would be patently unconstitutional because it directly challenges a US CON Amendment

    As for those that say anchor babies becoming citizens is unconstitutional, well that's just nonsense. In their time there were no checkpoints for entering this nation, you just simply showed up and said "hey I want to be a US Citizen" . It wasn't until 1790, that the USG passed its first law concerning naturalized citizens. This really was an issue the founding fathers gave no consideration to, and so to address it a CON amendment will be necessary. I would love to see it happen, but a state can not do so.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. hortysir
    Offline

    hortysir In Memorial of 47

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    20,459
    Thanks Received:
    4,027
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Lakeland, FL
    Ratings:
    +6,296
    Yes, it was a serious question.
    I don't claim to know everything about everything, by any stretch of the imagination :D


    The whole mess just makes me scratch my head.

    Some people don't like the fact that AZ passed a law that is nothing more than a mirror image of the federal law.

    Now they don't like it that AZ is considering a law that contradicts federal law.


    What the fuck, man???


    :eusa_eh:
     

Share This Page