Jump to content

Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals


Statick
 Share

Recommended Posts

Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals

By Adam Klawonn / Phoenix Friday, Jun. 11, 2010

Anchor babies isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots — the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. — for their next move.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona — and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution — to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state senator Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law-enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists — things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop.

But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the anchor and leave.

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the Federal Government's control over citizenship.

But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born in the U.S. should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.

Those who oppose the bill say it would lead to more discrimination and divide the community. Among them is Phoenix resident Susan Vie, who is leading a citizen group that's behind an opposing ballot initiative. She moved to the U.S. 30 years ago from Argentina, became a naturalized citizen and now works as a client-relations representative for a vaccine company. "I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create — and it's creating it now — a separation in our society." She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now." Vie's citizen initiative would prohibit SB1070 from taking effect and place a three-year moratorium on all related laws — including the anchor-baby bill — to buy more time for federal immigration reform. Her group is racing to collect 153,365 signatures by July 1 to qualify for the Nov. 2 general election.

Both sides expect the anchor-baby bill to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court before it is enacted. "I think it would be struck down as facially unconstitutional. I can't imagine a federal judge saying this would be O.K.," says Dan Barr, a longtime Phoenix lawyer and constitutional litigator. Potentially joining the anchor-baby bill at the Supreme Court may be SB1070, which Republican Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law in April. It is set to take effect July 29, but at least five courtroom challenges have been filed against it. Pearce says he will win them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

So the babies are criminals also? SMGDMFH!!!!! :angry:

well Arizona doesn't want to have women having babies just to have an anchor in this country. I would guess that in the majority of those situations they end up on social programs for support as well

unless you think our resources are unlimited and we can support everyone in Mexico and Central America?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well Arizona doesn't want to have women having babies just to have an anchor in this country. I would guess that in the majority of those situations they end up on social programs for support as well

unless you think our resources are unlimited and we can support everyone in Mexico and Central America?

:lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let the babies stay and deport the parents. The parents are illegal. And don't even think about countering my illogical proposal with morals and ethics - intentionally having a child in another country to grant them citizenship in said country when you are there illegally is immoral and unethical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let the babies stay and deport the parents. The parents are illegal. And don't even think about countering my illogical proposal with morals and ethics - intentionally having a child in another country to grant them citizenship in said country when you are there illegally is immoral and unethical.

So we create a couple of million or so additional wards of the state? Who is going to raise these children? The foster system is already overloaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let the babies stay and deport the parents. The parents are illegal. And don't even think about countering my illogical proposal with morals and ethics - intentionally having a child in another country to grant them citizenship in said country when you are there illegally is immoral and unethical.

My sarcasm senses are tingling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how would you change it?

I believe that times have changed and we should no longer extend citizenship to a the child of an illegal just because they managed to cross our border illegally for that express purpose. I know it sounds harsh, but a country that is experiencing economic turmoil and double digit unemployment does not need to take on thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions of illegal people looking for unskilled work who will potentially be preventing an out of work American from getting work by working for less. Not to mention the drain on our medical facilities etc etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that times have changed and we should no longer extend citizenship to a the child of an illegal just because they managed to cross our border illegally for that express purpose. I know it sounds harsh, but a country that is experiencing economic turmoil and double digit unemployment does not need to take on thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions of illegal people looking for unskilled work who will potentially be preventing an out of work American from getting work by working for less. Not to mention the drain on our medical facilities etc etc etc

agree with the bolded. so do you think we should get rid of the qualifier that if you are born here you are a citizen? i assume that goes for everyone, not just mexicans. so then, how does a person become a citizen? born to a US citizen? doesn't seem like a method that is in line with our history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agree with the bolded. so do you think we should get rid of the qualifier that if you are born here you are a citizen? i assume that goes for everyone, not just mexicans. so then, how does a person become a citizen? born to a US citizen? doesn't seem like a method that is in line with our history.

good point. so we need a solution that would be in line with our history but also take into account that times have changed since then

while we are at it, let's cure cancer :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good point. so we need a solution that would be in line with our history but also take into account that times have changed since then

while we are at it, let's cure cancer :lol:

i would guess that at least 99% of us citizens are citizens b/c of birth. seems real convenient to remove that method after we have all benefited from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would guess that at least 99% of us citizens are citizens b/c of birth. seems real convenient to remove that method after we have all benefited from it.

but you have to agree that for most of this country's history there was room to expand in land as well as population. an economy based on agriculture and manufacturing without modern technology provided plenty of jobs through most of our history. that is not so much the case now and I don't see that trend reversing. I don't agree with keeping something just because it worked in the past which seems to be the best reason most people can come up with for not making moves to stop illegal immigration

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agree with the bolded. so do you think we should get rid of the qualifier that if you are born here you are a citizen? i assume that goes for everyone, not just mexicans. so then, how does a person become a citizen? born to a US citizen? doesn't seem like a method that is in line with our history.

Why can't we make the law state if your parents immigrated here LEGALLY and you are born in the U.S. you ARE a citizen. Then if your parents immigrated here ILLEGALLY and you are born in the U.S. you are NOT a citizen.

Edited by JHav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't we make the law state if your parents immigrated here LEGALLY and you are born in the US you ARE a citizen. Then if your parents immigrated here ILLEGALLY and you are born in the US you are NOT a citizen.

That would make too much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bogus marriage for citizenship is on the same level as a women sneaking across the border to have an anchor baby. In the bogus marriage case, an American citizen could be jailed up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. For the immigrant, its deportation and a lifetime ban. How is this any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bogus marriage for citizenship is on the same level as a women sneaking across the border to have an anchor baby. In the bogus marriage case, an American citizen could be jailed up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. For the immigrant, its deportation and a lifetime ban. How is this any different?

? so we are going to jail people who get divorces?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...