GOP on slippery slope with planned 'anchor baby' legislation

[pinboy3niner]

GOP state legislators in Arizona have declared that they will introduce legislation to deny U.S. citizenship to so-called "anchor babies"--children born here to undocumented immigrants. One state Senator said the 14th Amendment won't apply because "we will write it right."

Columnist Laurie Roberts reviews the issue and suggests that Republicans--normally Constitutional purists, strict constructionists who reject "judicial activism" and the view of the Constitution as a living document--may be dancing on a slippery slope here.

Denying babies citizenship won't fix issue

by Laurie Roberts - Jun. 16, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic


<snip>
The debate revolves around the 14th Amendment.

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon aliens," Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, told CNN this week.
<snip>

Apparently, the Supreme Court took the second interpretation because in 1898, it held that a baby born to Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen, noting that all children born here are citizens, even those whose parents live in the U.S. but are citizens of another country. The only exception to birthright citizenship thus far recognized by the court has been to the children of foreign diplomats.
<snip>

But if we are going down this road, if we're going to talk about how the framers of the 14th Amendment could never have envisioned the scope of the very real illegal-immigration problem we now face, perhaps we might also consider other modern-day problems. Perhaps we ought to consider whether the framers of the Second Amendment could have envisioned Uzis in an era of musket balls. Or maybe we ought to reconsider the First Amendment, given the rise of talk radio.


Read more:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/06/16/20100616roberts0616.html

[Catshrink]

1. Roberts has been relentless on this

Thanks for posting.

[pinboy3niner]

14. N o, thank you

You've been stalwart in support of this social justice/civil rights issue. Your contributions and insight are invaluable.

:yourock:

[Taitertots]

2. If you want to stop anchor babies you just....

Make the hospitals require parents prove immigration status before they can take the child home.

[Captain Hilts]

3. The 'everybody born here' law comes from the immediate post-civil war era....

and it's archaic now. A lot of countries now have residency requirements for children to be granted citizenship where they were born. Their parents must be legal/landed/or green carded for 5 years. Something like that.

We need to curtail 'instant' citizenship yet make it easier and less capricious to get greencards and citizenship.

[pinboy3niner]

7. It's the 14th Amendment to the Constitution

Changing it requires adoption of a constitutional amendment as spelled out in Article V.

If you want to deny citizenship to anyone, that's what it takes.

[KonaKane]

9. Are you seriously advocating the state holding a child hostage?

Wow.

[pinboy3niner]

10. Double Wow

It also violates the illegal search and seizure prohibition of the Constitution.

[tjwash]

4. Thanks...you reminded me just how much I don't miss living in the shithole that is Southern-AZ

Best decision I ever made was leaving that god forsaken armpit of a state.

Is there a way we can keep Flagstaff, the Grand Canyon, and the good parts in northern-AZ here, and just build a giant fucking wall around the rest of it? Maybe let all the enclave mentality, bigoted, union busting, white supremacist, gun toting, jeebus loving, free market randian-fruitcakes that would be left left there afterward to duke it out amongst each other for resources? Maybe turn it in to a reality show or something?

[Bitwit1234]

5. Getting a Constitutional amendment isn't as easy as it sounds

and AZ can pass a law all they want. If it contradicts the Constitution it AIN'T LEGAL.

[pinboy3niner]

6. They believe they don't need to change the Constitution

It looks like they intend to try to end-run the 14th Amendment

The first sentence of Section 1 reads:

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.

The jurisdiction issue has been raised before, and is likely to be used in this case to argue that so-called 'anchor babies' are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction in the first place, and that therefore the 14th Amendment does not apply to them.

Even if they are unlikely to prevail, it's not necessary for them to win to gain something from their efforts. The publicity about their intentions alone contributes to the intimidation already felt by Hispanics in the wake of recent anti-immigrant laws passed in Arizona. It's one part of a larger agenda, as one key anti-immigrant player acknowledged in an interview:

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."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/09/20100509immigration-law-momentum.html

Hispanics--including American citizens and legal residents--already are leaving the state that is making them feel increasingly unwelcome.

And it's no coincidence that fewer Hispanics also means fewer Democratic voters in Arizona.

[joeybee12]

8. It's simply meat for the jwols of their nutcase base...n/t

[pinboy3niner]

11. That, and suppression of the Democratic vote

BTW, what does "jwols" mean?

[Catshrink]

12. But if these children were to commit a crime

would Pearce, KKKobach, and the others still say that are NOT "subject to U.S. jurisdiction?"

[pinboy3niner]

13. Under 'Papers, please' law + an 'anchor baby' law, they'd be criminals the moment they're born

They wouldn't even have to "commit" a crime.

'Papers, please' (SB 1070) makes it a state crime in AZ to be "unlawfully present" in the U.S. Denying American citizenship at birth automatically would criminalize an infant upon delivery when the parents are undoc'd.

The OP column calls the 'anchor baby' proposal "the bill that goes after defenseless babies," and slams the proponents for reinforcing "the (incorrect) notion that we are some of the meanest people on the planet."