Immigration law

[GRH]

"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 Sen. 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 SB 1070 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 here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...#ixzz0qgECrHZS

I saw this posted at another forum I visit. Personally, I'm a BIG fan of amending the Constitution so that citizenship is conferred by birth to citizens of America and not by birth on American soil.

These "anchor babies" allow many illegal immigrants to stay here illegally and suck at the welfare tit. If we can't amend the Constitution to do away with "birth by soil" than I propose that we make it VERY unattractive for these "citizen babies." In short, the legal citizen child of illegal immigrants shall be IMMEDIATELY confiscated as a ward of the state and treated as a ward until they reach 18. The illegal parents lose ALL custody rights and are immediately deported back to their country of origin.

[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

I saw this posted at another forum I visit. Personally, I'm a BIG fan of amending the Constitution so that citizenship is conferred by birth to citizens of America and not by birth on American soil.

These "anchor babies" allow many illegal immigrants to stay here illegally and suck at the welfare tit. If we can't amend the Constitution to do away with "birth by soil" than I propose that we make it VERY unattractive for these "citizen babies." In short, the legal citizen child of illegal immigrants shall be IMMEDIATELY confiscated as a ward of the state and treated as a ward until they reach 18. The illegal parents lose ALL custody rights and are immediately deported back to their country of origin.

Current efforts to abolish birthright citizenship in the United States are as much folly as they have been in the past. More important, they are yet another example of how quick so many are to jump to facile solutions that are based on emotional reactions to difficult issues, but that fail to address the fundamental, underlying issues behind complex social problems.

The most obvious problem with what GRH proposes is that it would punish children, for 18 years, for the actions of their parents. Think about it: independent of the merit of your proposal, children -- completely innocent in that they were not the perpetrators of the violation of the law -- would be turned into victims. You can argue that they are being victimized by their irresponsible parents, but do you want to have, on your hands, the responsibility for having taken them from mom and dad, having them be raised in the tenuous uncertainty of being a ward of the state (and thus subject to all the exigencies that affect state-run programs), and so on?

The rest of my argument, I want to make clear, is general about the proposal. I do not believe that GRH has specifically stated any of these things, only that the proposal -- and the movement against birthright citizenship provided by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- has these elements.

So, to begin, let's debunk any notion that this represents a "simple reform" -- as George Will claimed in a Washington Post op-ed some time ago on the subject. It is much, much more, and would have significant consequences for the United States. For instance, it would place a burden on every American, who would potentially have to document her or his own claim to citizenship. There is considerable research to suggest that it would, in fact, increase the number of stateless individuals without legal status who reside in the United States. Where would these people be deported to, if caught? What happens when countries of the world say that they are unwilling to accept deportees from the United States, because they are not citizens of the country to which the United States wants to send them? Prisons? Workhouses? Detention camps?

The idea that repealing the 14th Amendment is a cure to a broken immigration system is folly. It is yet another reaction, built on emotion by those who seem unwilling to have a complex discussion about a complex problem that transcends the relatively straightforward issue of citizenship. It ignores the root causes of our immigration problems (see my posts earlier). Doctors will tell you that treatment is infinitely more effective when you can treat the disease itself, not the symptoms. The plethora of undocumented immigrants in our country is a symptom, not the disease.

The calls for repeal of the 14th Amendment have a long history in nativism and racism. I am not accusing anyone on this forum who supports the repeal as nativists or racists. Nevertheless, it is instructive to look at the history of the arguments over the period since Reconstruction, when the 14th Amendment was enacted. Studying this history, and the arguments on both sides, is quite revealing. It is unfortunate when those who support repeal today fail to dissociate themselves explicitly from the tradition of this movement, which is a very ugly one indeed.