State legislators: Deny citizenship to illegal immigrants children

[Bullfighter]

PHOENIX (AP) -- The state senator in Arizona who wrote the nation's toughest law against illegal immigrants said Tuesday he's collecting support across the country from legislators to challenge automatic U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce's target is the 14th Amendment, but it is unclear how the state lawmaker can or will influence a federal statue.
"This is a battle of epic proportions," Pearce said Tuesday during a news conference at the Arizona Capitol. "We've allowed the hijacking of the 14th Amendment."

Pearce declined to say how the legislation will differ from similar measures that have been introduced in each two-year congressional session since 2005. None of them made it out of committee.

He and another Arizona lawmaker did argue that wording in the amendment that guarantees citizenship to people born in the U.S. who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of this country does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants because such families don't owe sole allegiance to the U.S.

The efforts by Pearce and the other lawmakers come amid calls to change the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Supporters cite costs to taxpayers for services provided to illegal immigrants and their children.

Read the full article:
Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

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

It about time somebody threw the third world and their spawn out of the United States!

 

[kyzr]

Good for AZ. The sooner we stop the illegal anchor dropping making anchor babies the sooner we get wages up and unemployment down.

 

[Bullfighter]

Good for AZ. The sooner we stop the illegal anchor dropping making anchor babies the sooner we get wages up and unemployment down.

And get Mexico to pay the bill for the tourists that were here!

 

[topspin]

no the freedom hating Jesus freaks will not succeed at this or overturning the first amendment.

 

[Seawytch]

Gee, can we make it retroactive and get rid of anchor baby Michelle Malkin?

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah, these Conservatives, they so love the Constitution of the United States of America, provided that they can change it on a moments notice.

The process is there for amending the Constitution. If you can convince enough people, it can be amended, as the existing number of amendments demonstrate. If you cannot convince enough people to do it legally, don't start that damned nonsense of doing it illegally.

 

[Claudette]

Good for AZ. The sooner we stop the illegal anchor dropping making anchor babies the sooner we get wages up and unemployment down.

Amen Brother.

Seems to me that Harry Reid tried to do this once??

Good idea. No anchor baby, no US citizenship, no social services. Mayby they will stay home.

 

[topspin]

I'm going to guess you assclowns are getting zero progress on this, along with reversing abortion and the first amendment. But please keep beating your head on the brick wall, it's hillarious.

 

[bodecea]

Excellent idea, altering the 14th amendment. Now...all you need is 2/3rds of both houses to pass such an alteration as another amendment and get 75% of the states (38) to sign off on it as a vote. Get Crackin'.

 

[martybegan]

Excellent idea, altering the 14th amendment. Now...all you need is 2/3rds of both houses to pass such an alteration as another amendment and get 75% of the states (38) to sign off on it as a vote. Get Crackin'.

I agree it would require amending the amendment, which would require a new amendment. I'm wondering how much support it would get if attempted.

 

[bodecea]

Excellent idea, altering the 14th amendment. Now...all you need is 2/3rds of both houses to pass such an alteration as another amendment and get 75% of the states (38) to sign off on it as a vote. Get Crackin'.

I agree it would require amending the amendment, which would require a new amendment. I'm wondering how much support it would get if attempted.

Well, I read somewhere once that in the history of the Constitution, amendments have been attempted over 9000 times and we only have the 27 with the first 10 in one lump.

 

[martybegan]

Excellent idea, altering the 14th amendment. Now...all you need is 2/3rds of both houses to pass such an alteration as another amendment and get 75% of the states (38) to sign off on it as a vote. Get Crackin'.

I agree it would require amending the amendment, which would require a new amendment. I'm wondering how much support it would get if attempted.

Well, I read somewhere once that in the history of the Constitution, amendments have been attempted over 9000 times and we only have the 27 with the first 10 in one lump.

Lets look at the wording of section 1 and see what can be changed about it.

"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."

The original intent was to prevent states from denying citizenship to slaves born here or brought here after the civil war had ended. It had the added effect of making anyone born here in general a citizen.

The original intent of the wording in question (the first sentance) has long since passed. I would suggest this modification.

"All persons born of at least one citizen, or naturalized, and subject to the juristiction therof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherin the reside."

 

[bodecea]

I agree it would require amending the amendment, which would require a new amendment. I'm wondering how much support it would get if attempted.

Well, I read somewhere once that in the history of the Constitution, amendments have been attempted over 9000 times and we only have the 27 with the first 10 in one lump.

Lets look at the wording of section 1 and see what can be changed about it.

"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."

The original intent was to prevent states from denying citizenship to slaves born here or brought here after the civil war had ended. It had the added effect of making anyone born here in general a citizen.

The original intent of the wording in question (the first sentance) has long since passed. I would suggest this modification.

"All persons born of at least one citizen, or naturalized, and subject to the juristiction therof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherin the reside."

Still requires the Amendment process.

 

[martybegan]

Well, I read somewhere once that in the history of the Constitution, amendments have been attempted over 9000 times and we only have the 27 with the first 10 in one lump.

Lets look at the wording of section 1 and see what can be changed about it.

"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."

The original intent was to prevent states from denying citizenship to slaves born here or brought here after the civil war had ended. It had the added effect of making anyone born here in general a citizen.

The original intent of the wording in question (the first sentance) has long since passed. I would suggest this modification.

"All persons born of at least one citizen, or naturalized, and subject to the juristiction therof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherin the reside."

Still requires the Amendment process.

Not disagreeing with you, just trying to get a feel for the wording.

I always say people who are against the 2nd amendment should do the proper thing and get rid of it via the amendment process. People against "anchor babies" should do the same thing. Trying to half ass it via the courts is chickenshit IMO.

 

[Bullfighter]

[Well, I read somewhere once that in the history of the Constitution, amendments have been attempted over 9000 times and we only have the 27 with the first 10 in one lump.

But not one written in Spanish. Anyone who can't speak ENGLISH should be considered not welcome.

 

[topspin]

[Well, I read somewhere once that in the history of the Constitution, amendments have been attempted over 9000 times and we only have the 27 with the first 10 in one lump.

But not one written in Spanish. Anyone who can't speak ENGLISH should be considered not welcome.

chant that in your project and let us know how it goes.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Why don't we just secure the border?

Politicians are like people who never lock their car doors and always complain about people stealing shit from them. We need to lock our damn car doors.

 

[Bullfighter]

[
chant that in your project and let us know how it goes.

Press #38 to head and pull trigger if Mexican.

 

[beowolfe]

PHOENIX (AP) -- The state senator in Arizona who wrote the nation's toughest law against illegal immigrants said Tuesday he's collecting support across the country from legislators to challenge automatic U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce's target is the 14th Amendment, but it is unclear how the state lawmaker can or will influence a federal statue.
"This is a battle of epic proportions," Pearce said Tuesday during a news conference at the Arizona Capitol. "We've allowed the hijacking of the 14th Amendment."

Pearce declined to say how the legislation will differ from similar measures that have been introduced in each two-year congressional session since 2005. None of them made it out of committee.

He and another Arizona lawmaker did argue that wording in the amendment that guarantees citizenship to people born in the U.S. who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of this country does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants because such families don't owe sole allegiance to the U.S.

The efforts by Pearce and the other lawmakers come amid calls to change the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Supporters cite costs to taxpayers for services provided to illegal immigrants and their children.

Read the full article:
Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

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

It about time somebody threw the third world and their spawn out of the United States!

It's a good thing that who is and isn't allowed to become a citizen isn't left up to the states nor their legislatures.

 

[ForestGirl]

@WYTCH

Gee, can we make it retroactive and get rid of anchor baby Michelle Malkin?

Oh please! You wouldn't know what class is if it hit you in the head! Michelle is a voice of reason and morals - the kind of morals this country USED to exercise. Thank goodness we have her genuine, honest and well educated leadership. Have yet to see ONE female libturd of her calibur and intelligence who even comes close to her following. Get with it WYTCH!