Arizona bill would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants

[EpyonXero]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/ari...ildren/?hpt=C1

(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.

Under federal law, children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' residency status.

Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative, strongly opposes the bill.

"Unlike (Senate Bill) 1070, it is clear this bill runs immediately afoul of the U.S. Constitution," she said.

"While I understand that folks in Arizona and across the country support S.B. 1070, they do so because we have seen no action from the federal government," said Sinema. "Unfortunately, the so-called 'anchor baby' bill does nothing to solve the real problems we are facing in Arizona."

Share your thoughts on immigration

Arizona Republicans are expected to introduce the legislation this fall.

[Homeslice]

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens,"

Proof?

[RACER X]

Anchors away for anchor babies

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by RACER X

Anchors away for anchor babies

course, plenty of southeast asians have them as well...

[Smittie61984]

I can't agree with this law. But if someone comes across the U.S. illegally and downloads a kid then the kid can either become the state's kid and the mother/father go home or they can take their kid back to Mexico/Canada/Mordor/etc if they denounce their child's citizenship.

That would make things interesting.

[Mikey]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

I can't agree with this law. But if someone comes across the U.S. illegally and downloads a kid then the kid can either become the state's kid and the mother/father go home or they can take their kid back to Mexico/Canada/Mordor/etc if they denounce their child's citizenship.

That would make things interesting.

This. I don't think it's necessary to deny the kid citizenship, but I do think that kid is absolutely NOT an excuse for the parents to stay. The kid is a citizen, so he/she can stay here, but the parents need to GTFO and come in the legal way. If the parents don't want to be separated from the baby, that's cool- they can take it with them.

Of course, I also think it's high time the US starts billing the Mexican government for all the hospital bills racked up by its citizens.

[EpyonXero]

constitutionality aside, if this passes hospitals will now be responsible for verifying the citizenship of all new parents before birth certificates can be issued.

[shmike]

Originally Posted by EpyonXero

constitutionality aside, if this passes hospitals will now be responsible for verifying the citizenship of all new parents before birth certificates can be issued.

Sounds like a win to me.

[defector]

Those of us who live here knew this was coming. Just not this fast.

[pauldun170]

John Kavanagh is an asshole and a idiot.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. 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.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

So what Kavanagh is saying is that we should ignore Constitutional amendments as they are not what the Framers intended. Since the 14th amendment establishes that the bill of rights applies to citizens of the state (prior to the 14th amendment the states could bitch slap you all they wanted and it was only Federal law that had to respect the bill of rights...not state law) what Kavanagh proposes is that states now have the right to ignore th ebill of rights since the Framers only intended the Federal government to acknowledge them....

Damn...idiots suck

Therefore, Blacks should lose full citizenship and return to the status the framers originally intended as the compromise made with the southern states established that Blacks should not be treated as equals and should get full representation.