Arizona bill would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants

[brooklynite]

Source: 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.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/arizona.immigration.children/index.html?hpt=C1

---

I'd like to believe this is just cynical pandering to the Tea Party / Minuteman crowd, but I think they really believe in this stuff...

[melm00se]

1. Citizenship

the conferring and revocation of is purely a federal matter.

Federal courts will kill this almost immediately

[customerserviceguy]

2. It is posturing

But if they wanted to do something within their power, they could make wages non-deductable on Arizona income tax forms for businesses and farmers who do not submit an e-Verify form corresponding to each SSN that they attempt to deduct wages for.

[happygoluckytoyou]

3. MARRY AN ILLEGAL---> f' up the TEABIRTHERS

[ET Awful]

4. Sorry Arizona, you can't deny a provision of the Constitution of the US.

You kind of agreed to that when you became a state.

[louis-t]

8. Go ahead AZ, secede!

[caseymoz]

5. Why don't they just look at the Constitution and see this is illegal?

Maybe they do, and maybe the point is to cash in on ignorance while it's predominant. Unfortunately, if they do, ignorance will never be post-dominant.

Any court will shoot this law with a shotgun as soon as it crosses the threshold. Yet, if the purpose is simply to inflame Nazis and insult Hispanics, it will succeed.

Is Arizona today going to become "bleeding Kansas?" Comparisons now are still in the metaphorical stage.

[Winterblues]

15. Not necessarily the Extreme Court with it's gang of five..

I would not put it past them to "interpret" the Constitution to whatever Arizona wants them to.

[caseymoz]

20. I would put it past them to interpret it that way.

As low as I think five members of this court are, the Constitution makes it very clear who should be considered citizens. Let's say, it's as close to bedrock solid as words could ever be. You'd have to have even more radical members of the Supreme Court than we have now to go against it.

[Winterblues]

21. So are the words about Writ of Habeas Corpus

In fact it is the absolute rock of the Constitution but this particular gang of five has no problem jettisoning it..

[caseymoz]

22. The Constitution does not say habeus corpus applies to non-citizens

Nor does it name habeus corpus as a right, but in an unfortunate bit of wording, calls it a "privilege." Read the wording. I'm not saying I like it, I'm just saying it gave them just enough wiggle room to grant further executive powers.

However, you fail to understand, really, that there are divisions within conservatism. The conservatives on the Supreme Court don't cater to the interests of the conservative blockheads agitating against illegal immigrants in Arizona. If it were corporations agitating against immigrants, the court might be with them. As it is, though, it's just the ignorant stooges and useful idiots doing agitating instead of doing something useful corporately, like de-regulating, opposing unions, or getting the government to lower taxes. These people aren't serving corporate interests, so the court will have no qualms about dismissing their complaints.

[Winterblues]

23. The constitution does not say citizens ONLY.

It says all persons..I am surprised at how many people believe the Constitution is for citizens ONLY. It is obvious they have never read it..

[caseymoz]

24. That's NOT what I think, that's what conservatives' opinion is.

True, the Constitution does not eliminate the possibility that it applies universally. My thought is that the Founders wrote it with little regard to what it meant internationally. The world was much larger then. However, if rights are inalienable, as Jefferson said when he originated the idea, then they do apply to everyone. My opinion is that they should, and if you try to limit them to some people, the entire foundation of rights comes unraveled.

[krispos42]

6. Jus soli, replublican assholes. Suck on it n/t

[Xithras]

7. Are they trying to exploit the "jurisdictional" issue?

Some of the teabagger groups have been pushing the idea that they can exploit the "jurisdiction" loophole at the federal level. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that they're trying it at the state level too.

For those not familiar with it, there's actually an exception to citizenship in the 14th: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

This was intended to eliminate conflicts for foreign dignitaries in the United States. As an example, the children of foreign ambassadors born on U.S. soil do not automatically gain U.S. citizenship, because they are considered to be under the jurisdiction of their home nation.

Some teabaggers have recently started raising the meme that illegal immigrants are not under the "jurisdiction" of the United States because they crossed the border without permission. If they're not under our jurisdiction, their kids don't get citizenship.

Of course, it's a stupid position. There are more than a hundred citable examples of our governments extending services, licenses, and civil and criminal legal requirements onto illegal immigrants in the U.S., which is more than enough to prove that our government considers them to be under U.S. jurisdiction.

It IS theoretically possible for the federal government to pass federal legislation withdrawing that jurisdiction, but that could ONLY be done at the federal level.

[pinboy3niner]

13. That seems to be exactly what they're trying to do

State Sen. Russell Pearce was quoted in another news report:

Pearce contended that the bill would not violate the 14th Amendment, saying only that "we would write it right."

Arizona targets 'anchor baby' citizenship
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/14/20100614arizona-anchor-baby-citizenship-bill-politico.html

[Hosnon]

9. Surely this is just grandstanding. It just doesn't seem possible that any state representative

would be so ignorant of how federalism works.

[Towlie]

10. Oh, we can refer to "original intent" now? Good! Let's make guns illegal then.

I'll bet they'd backpedal on that "original intent" argument then! The Second Amendment's reference to a "well-regulated militia" makes it obvious that the current application to gun laws was not the original intent.

The fact is that this proposed Arizona law denying citizenship to persons born here is clearly and obviously unconstitutional.

What bugs me is that the Constitution is regarded as the highest law of the land; it's directed at lawmakers and places restrictions on what they can do; yet it provides no punishment for violations. At worst the lawmakers' actions are eventually overturned, generally at considerable effort and expense.

Imagine if lesser laws worked like that. Imagine if laws against burglary only provided that the convicted burglar had to return the stolen merchandise and then he could go about his business.

Lawmakers who participate in violations of our Constitution are breakers of the highest law of the land and they deserve prison time, yet they don't even receive the wholly inadequate remedy of mere removal from office. It just doesn't make sense.

[24601]

18. You need to read the USSC decision in the "Heller" case - it

doesn't agree with your view on original intent.

The court doesn't always agree with me either; however, the last time I looked, I don't get a vote and they don't call me up for my opinion.

Many of the Bill of Rights weren't creating them for the 1st time, but documenting the state of rights at the time the Constitution was written & ratified, specifically (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Heller_Opinion)

"- that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;

- that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with, but does not detract from, the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;"

References at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

[reggie the dog]

11. according to federal law anyone born on US territory is

AUTOMATICALLY an american citizen. your mom can be an illega, here on vacation, or just passing through on their way somewhere else. Why is the Arizona legislature so un American????

[pinboy3niner]

12. The groups behind it have been planning this for years

Another proponent is State Sen. Russell Pearce, author of Arizona's "Papers, please" law (SB 1070) who also has declared his intent to introduce "anchor baby" legislation. The national groups pushing this are FAIR (the Federation for American Immigration Reform) and its Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI).

IRLI had a key role in SB 1070, which is just one part of its grander vision:

Kris Kobach, the immigration attorney for
the Immigration Reform Law Institute who
helped Pearce craft the law and worked with
him on previous efforts, said SB 1070 is just
the latest piece in a larger effort.

"This law represents turning it up one more
click," Kobach said. "Increase the level a
notch at a time, and people will deport
themselves."


Momentum built up over
years led to new
immigration law
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/09/20100509immigration-law-momentum.html

The Southern Poverty Law Center has documented these groups' connections to nativist, racist white power organizations:


The Teflon Nativists
FAIR Marked by Ties to White Supremacy
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/winter/the-teflon-nativists


No need for tin foil hats here. These groups are very real, they have a history, and they have an agenda. They've been preparing the groundwork carefully for years in advance of getting anti-immigrant laws passed by the states.

[alp227]

14. There was a Supreme Court case from 1898 defending birthright citizenship

It was United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

"All person 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."

In 2007, Texas proposed a similar law, HB 28.

US Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) has proposed three bills trying to revise the 14th Amendment to be similar to the UK birthright citizenship provision that one parent has to be a citizen or permanent resident. Those are the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005 and the Birthright Citizenship Act (of 2007 and 2009).

When the 14th Amendment was being drafted, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (R-MI) that Native Americans and the children of illegal aliens were excluded from the 14th Amendment. Howard's testimony has been quoted on white supremacist websites, as I googled the passages to find an actual text version of this congressional debate. Pearce must've been inspired by Howard.

[classysassy]

16. Jan the hag

and her republican gang searching for votes among the worst element in our state.

[pinboy3niner]

17. Preserving the power of the GOP in Arizona

The ban on ethnic studies, the "Papers, please" law and now the proposed "anchor baby" law have the effect of targeting not just the unducumented--they also cause Hispanics who are full-fledged American citizens to leave the state. Greg Palast shows why this is important to Brewer and her GOP cronies:

Behind the Arizona Immigration Law:
GOP Game to Swipe the November Election

Monday, April 26, 2010
by Greg Palast for Truthout.org

Don't be fooled. The way the media plays the story, it was a wave of racist, anti-immigrant hysteria that moved Arizona Republicans to pass a sick little law, signed last week, requiring every person in the state to carry papers proving they are US citizens.

I don't buy it. Anti-Hispanic hysteria has always been as much a part of Arizona as the Saguaro cactus and excessive air-conditioning.

What's new here is not the politicians' fear of a xenophobic "Teabag" uprising.
<snip>

What moved GOP Governor Jan Brewer to sign the Soviet-style show-me-your-papers law is the exploding number of legal Hispanics, US citizens all, who are daring to vote -- and daring to vote Democratic by more than two-to-one. Unless this demographic locomotive is halted, Arizona Republicans know their party will soon be electoral toast. Or, if you like, tortillas.
<snip>

But that's the point, isn't it? Not to stop non-citizens from entering Arizona -- after all, who else would care for the country club lawn? -- but to harass folks of the wrong color: Democratic blue.

http://www.gregpalast.com/behind-the-arizona-immigration-lawgop-game-to-swipe-the-november-election

[superconnected]

19. We'll I'm glad we don't have to make them wear symbols to identify themselves - saves money to

build the camps. We can just arrest everyone that has brown skin and speaks spanish and sort them out later. If we get too many, well heck, fire up the ovens.

The arrests are the next step right? I figure we have a few years before it's a crime to be Spanish.
But, back to the current facism and terror effort, must keep spewing the hate, removing rights from everyone to attack this group and must keep them afraid. If they are too afraid to speak, we have them where we want them. Gotta wonder where all this is going and if it will spread to more groups - perhaps deemed Anti-America...

Okay, I know we haven't talked about this since, well GW Bush... but it looks like the mentality is coming back in style.