Arizona bill would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants

[ConHog]

Can state law not supersede that??

State Law can NEVER supersede Federal law. The only recourse Arizona would have is to provide evidence that no Federal Law actually grants citizenship to babies of Illegal aliens. Not saying that is impossible but highly unlikely.

Seems as noted earlier the only actual case involves a LEGAL Alien.

And it is the federal governments responsibility to protect the citizens of all the US states from invasion by a foreign power which they have failed to do. Calling it "immigration" does not excuse the federal government for failing to protect it's citizens.

That is another matter entirely. The feds failing to secure the border does not give the state a right to determine who is a US citizen and who is not.

 

[froggy]

(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

Can state law not supersede that??

State Law can NEVER supersede Federal law. The only recourse Arizona would have is to provide evidence that no Federal Law actually grants citizenship to babies of Illegal aliens. Not saying that is impossible but highly unlikely.

Seems as noted earlier the only actual case involves a LEGAL Alien.

Maybe they're just forcing the Govt to show it's hand on what it's policy about illegals.

 

[Biggles]

Woo-hoo!!!! Finally, a stop to the illegals, the criminals entering our nation, from using a horrible loophole to steal our tax funds and services.

Thank you Arizona!!! Now we need 49 states to follow.

 

[Beeirish1965]

Biggles,

We also need the top cop's in the federal government to do their jobs and enforce our illegal alien immgration laws. From my understanding of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Articles of Confederation, and so on. Our federal governments PRIMARY job is to PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS from foreign and domestic enemies.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

(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

Can state law not supersede that??

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.

You do realize that what is not stated in the Constitution is regulated to the states. Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall have the power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;..."

Which law are you referring to that was passed in 1790?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Hi Horysir:

... 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???

We agree that the new Arizona Immigration/Employment Law mirrors the Federal Law (Wiki). However, you are wrong in assuming that giving away U.S Citizenship to "Illegal Offspring" is somehow part of a Federal Law. No such thing exists! The Feds are 'misinterpreting' the Fourteenth Amendment that includes 'subject to' (Text) language (Wiki) recognizing 'slaves' of 'slave owners' as 'citizens' of these United States. The Illegal Offspring of "Illegal Alien Foreign Nationals" are 'subject to' the laws within jurisdictions where their parents 'are' citizens.

No country on earth hands out 'legal citizenship' to citizens of other countries for simply giving birth within their borders, because that kind of absolute STUPIDITY makes zero sense for those standing in line for their opportunity to become citizens 'legally.'

GL,

Terral

Yes, let's let a message board poster determine that, rather than the SCOTUS as is called for by the CON.

The Constitution doesn't address immigration, so how can the Supreme Court defer to it?

 

[Biggles]

Biggles,

We also need the top cop's in the federal government to do their jobs and enforce our illegal alien immgration laws. From my understanding of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Articles of Confederation, and so on. Our federal governments PRIMARY job is to PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS from foreign and domestic enemies.

Oh I know. I am just happy that Arizona is pursuing this law. It will be challenged, without a doubt. BUT, it draws attention, and hopefully, other states do the same, just to draw more attention and put pressure on the BO White House, so that eventually, someone in the Obama Administrations gets off of their butt and does their job. You are indeed correct, the federal governments PRIMARY job is to PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS from foreign and domestic enemies. Unfortunately, the Obamanation believe otherwise.

 

[ConHog]

Hi Horysir:



We agree that the new Arizona Immigration/Employment Law mirrors the Federal Law (Wiki). However, you are wrong in assuming that giving away U.S Citizenship to "Illegal Offspring" is somehow part of a Federal Law. No such thing exists! The Feds are 'misinterpreting' the Fourteenth Amendment that includes 'subject to' (Text) language (Wiki) recognizing 'slaves' of 'slave owners' as 'citizens' of these United States. The Illegal Offspring of "Illegal Alien Foreign Nationals" are 'subject to' the laws within jurisdictions where their parents 'are' citizens.

No country on earth hands out 'legal citizenship' to citizens of other countries for simply giving birth within their borders, because that kind of absolute STUPIDITY makes zero sense for those standing in line for their opportunity to become citizens 'legally.'

GL,

Terral

Yes, let's let a message board poster determine that, rather than the SCOTUS as is called for by the CON.

The Constitution doesn't address immigration, so how can the Supreme Court defer to it?

Actually the CON DOES address immigration, and here's how

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere in that Amendment does it say that the federal government can never have a say in anything not specifically mentioned in the CON, in fact it makes a very clear statement that unless the sates (plural) deny it such a power the USG can have the authority.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Biggles,

We also need the top cop's in the federal government to do their jobs and enforce our illegal alien immgration laws. From my understanding of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Articles of Confederation, and so on. Our federal governments PRIMARY job is to PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS from foreign and domestic enemies.

Oh I know. I am just happy that Arizona is pursuing this law. It will be challenged, without a doubt. BUT, it draws attention, and hopefully, other states do the same, just to draw more attention and put pressure on the BO White House, so that eventually, someone in the Obama Administrations gets off of their butt and does their job. You are indeed correct, the federal governments PRIMARY job is to PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS from foreign and domestic enemies. Unfortunately, the Obamanation believe otherwise.

Obama is President right now BUT he is following in ALL previous Presidents back as far as I can tell. This is not a Democrat or a Republican thing, BOTH parties want Illegals in the Country. For different reasons but both block attempts to put an end to it and both parties play lip service to the demands of the people on this issue.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, let's let a message board poster determine that, rather than the SCOTUS as is called for by the CON.

The Constitution doesn't address immigration, so how can the Supreme Court defer to it?

Actually the CON DOES address immigration, and here's how

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere in that Amendment does it say that the federal government can never have a say in anything not specifically mentioned in the CON, in fact it makes a very clear statement that unless the sates (plural) deny it such a power the USG can have the authority.

Immigration is mentioned in the Constitution and is granted to the Federal Government. However your view of when and how the Fed can assume power is wrong. The Constitution LIMITS to the Federal Government the powers it LISTS as belonging to the Federal Government. If the Fed wants more powers they must create an amendment and pass it granting them the power.

 

[Angelhair]

(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

Can state law not supersede that??

I guess the only way for states to find out is to try it just as AZ has done. States do have their OWN Constitution and I'm sure they go over it with a fine tooth comb just to make sure how far they can go against the Feds.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

(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

Can state law not supersede that??

I guess the only way for states to find out is to try it just as AZ has done. States do have their OWN Constitution and I'm sure they go over it with a fine tooth comb just to make sure how far they can go against the Feds.

State law NEVER supersedes Federal Law. As so stated in the Constitution.

 

[ConHog]

Can state law not supersede that??

I guess the only way for states to find out is to try it just as AZ has done. States do have their OWN Constitution and I'm sure they go over it with a fine tooth comb just to make sure how far they can go against the Feds.

State law NEVER supersedes Federal Law. As so stated in the Constitution.

and likewise they could not put something in their state CON that directly conflicted with federal law. States have in effect agreed to this by joining the union.

 

[Angelhair]

So I guess the anchor babies will continue.......

 

[Angelhair]

........to multiply at the expense of the citizens of the USA.

 

[Angelhair]

PHOENIX - Emboldened by passage of the nation's toughest law against illegal immigration, the Arizona politician who sponsored the measure now wants to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to undocumented parents.

Legal scholars laugh out loud at Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce's proposal and warn that it would be blatantly unconstitutional, because the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

But Pearce brushes aside such concerns. And given the charged political atmosphere in Arizona and public anger over what many regard as a failure by the federal government to secure the border, some politicians think the idea has a chance of passage.

"I think the time is right," said state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican from suburban Phoenix who is chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. "Federal inaction is unacceptable, so the states have to start the process."

Earlier this year, the Legislature set off a storm of protests around the country when it passed a law that obligates police enforcing other laws to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. The law also makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant.

The measure, which will take effect on July 29 unless blocked in court, has inflamed the national debate over immigration and led to boycotts against the state.

An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. as of January 2009, according to the Homeland Security Department. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as of 2008, there were 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country whose children are U.S. citizens.

Laughs, backing for AZ plan to end birthright citizenship

 

[froggy]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJslSRmUoZg]YouTube - AZ Governor to Illegals: Get Out & Take Your Anchor Babies With You![/ame]

 

[LilOlLady]

I believe Arizona can do it and that will open the way for others to follow. Anchor babies are not legally american citizens. A precedent have never been set.


Arizona law denying benefits to illegal aliens draws criticism

San Francisco Examiner
December 1, 2009

A new Arizona law that denies benefits to illegal aliens has drawn criticism for being too harsh and punitive, and that it may affect the children (anchor babies) of illegal immigrants as well.

House Bill 2008 (HB 2008) mandates that any employee of the state of Arizona must report undocumented immigrants to the proper immigration authorities. The law carries penalties of up to four months in jail for failing to properly file a report.

The new law also gives Arizona citizens the ability to sue the state or city municipality if the law is not properly enforced.

The reaction from pro illegal alien groups was swift. “This is a terrible change,” said Alfredo Gutiérrez, a retired senator and editor of La Frontera Times. “Since undocumented migrants don’t qualify for most state benefits this is a redundancy, and it’s children who would pay the price”

The fear is that this bill, which is part of the larger state budget process the legislature has been grappling with for almost a year, will help foster anti illegal immigrant sentiment that has been strengthening in Arizona for some time.

Despite assurances that the new law won’t affect federal benefits or necessary services, many advocates worry that state workers will be forced to report those attempting to access these benefits due to fear they will lose their own job if they don’t. In particular, state workers may be required to report illegal alien parents when they bring in their children to receive free health care or other services. As a result, parents may elect to avoid state social services altogether, potentially endangering their children.

“This is just unconstitutional, what they’re doing is penalizing children who are entitled to the services, but they’re going to take it away because they’re the children of immigrants,” said Luis Ibarra, director of Friendly House a non-profit agency that services Latinos and immigrants in Phoenix.

Naturally a lawsuit was quickly filed with the state Supreme Court by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns who claims that the law is unconstitutional because it was part of a state budget package, not a stand-alone bill. They believe that the bill was developed outside the parameters of the special joint legislative session where it was written.

The Joint Legislative Budget Committee’s staff recently reported that Arizona General Fund tax collections continued to drop by double-digits year over year, down by nearly 24% to 455 million in October. In all likelihood, this will result in an ever wider budget deficit than was originally projected.

In light of this continuing fiscal crisis, the state of Arizona has every right and moral obligation to eliminate benefits and services to anyone here illegally, and to use all legitimate means available to identify illegal aliens and deport them.

Arizona no longer has the resources to support these people, and it is time for them to return from wherever they came.

Arizona law denying benefits to illegal aliens draws criticism

 

[LilOlLady]

I'd bet my life on Arizona.

 

[Angelhair]

'I believe Arizona can do it and that will open the way for others to follow. Anchor babies are not legally american citizens. A precedent have never been set.'

I believe the below statement would mean a precedent HAS been set:

'The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as of 2008, there were 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country whose children are U.S. citizens.'