Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by pinoybaptist, Jun 12, 2010.
Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals
more from the link on Arizona's new immigration law in the making.
This is going to be interesting.
Its interesting as to the "headline".
Why are the children being called a target?
If the wife of the Ambassador from Germany has a child while in the US, we wound never even think of that child being an Americian, as he would be a German - just like Sen McCain was ie a citizen of the country of his parents.
Anyways thumbs up to Ariziona - they are doing what Washington should be doing.
You can thank Lincoln for this situation. It would take a constitutional amendment to change it. How come all you strict constitutionalists don't know what is in it?
I don't know, really, how to react to this bill.
On the other hand, a pregnant mexican woman from, say, Juarez, can simply give birth to a baby two yards into American soil and have an "anchor" baby already.
And really touchy because if they do not use wisdom then even those who are here legally and give birth to their children here could be affected.
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 question is if a person born of non-citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the State and US
Or of legal immigrants who are not yet citizens of the US.
Hats off to Arizona! They're taking on the tuff issues concerning them and the rest of us.
What a shame! There is a state denying rights to United States Citizens. I do not like the interpretation of our Constitution in regards to who is and is not a citizen. I actually disagree with the modern interpretation. However, it is law.
So, we either change the Constitution or we allow these citizens rights to include proof of their birth.
Last century was it the legislature of North Dakota that declared pi to be equal to 3 instead of 3.1415926535 . . . one of the northern plain states. Makes as much sense as Arizona unilaterally countermanding the Constitution - and a lot handier.
Seems pretty clear to me. This relates to American citizens. A non-citizen of the United States cannot make citzens of the United States by simply having babies here.
I agree with you on the interpretation, however this is not how it has been interpreted for quite some time as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. As a result, in order to clarify this amendment, you have to pass another amendment.
While I agree with you, I also agree that this is poorly worded.
The ambassador would not be "under the jurisdiction" of the US so the baby would not be a citizen.
>The ambassador would not be "under the jurisdiction" of the US so the baby would not be a citizen.
He has diplomatic immunity. Illegal and other legal aliens do not have immunity and therefore are under US jurisdiction.
Isn't the interpretation subject to the intent of the amendment?
Would anyone argue that it was the intent to reward foreign lawbreakers with automatic citizenship for their children which in turn becomes the excuse for allowing the same foreign lawbreakers to remain in the U.S.?
except they didn't do that.
That's correct. This proposal is so unconstitutional I can't fathom how someone could propose it.
You are off base a bit. Diplomatic immunity pertains to a foreign govt official being immune from arrest (in most situations) and from other legal obligations (be issued traffic citations, being subpoenaed as a witness, ect)
It has been the accepted interpretation of the law but it is not the intent of the law at all! The issues of the times - the context - have been removed from the interpretation and applied to different circumstances. Children born within our territory to parents here illegally should also be considered to be here illegally and removed along with their parents.
The context of the law were slaves born in the United States. They were not considered citizens because their parents were not citizens. The amendment was passed post-Civil War to say that since they were born in the United States, they are citizens.
I agree with you that the law needs to be changed, but we should not change the law by ignoring the law. We should change the law by making a new Constitutional amendment.
Yet, the Arizona law is a terrible law because it violates the Constitution like the other law they passed on immigration. Yes, we need to do something about illegal immigration but we should not violate our Constitution in the process.