Arizona: Ratchets up the Illeg Alien Challenge

[JustRalph]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38489.html

Arizona is giving Obama the finger with this one.........taking on the 14th Amendment

Arizona targets 'anchor baby' citizenship

The author of Arizona’s controversial immigration law is considering a new proposal that would block the children of illegal immigrants from becoming citizens if they are born in the United States.

Critics of the bill Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce is weighing say it would fly in the face of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which grants citizenship to anyone born within the country.

Pearce has been hinting for months that he may introduce legislation targeting so-called “anchor babies” but had not detailed his plan until an interview last week with Time magazine.

“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 said of Hispanic immigrants.

Pearce contended that the bill would not violate the 14th Amendment, saying only that “we would write it right.”

Previous efforts to get around the citizenship provisions in the amendment, including one in the late 19th century challenging the citizenship of the children of Chinese immigrants, have been unsuccessful.

Still, Arizona Republicans — including Gov. Jan Brewer — have indicated support for the bill.

more at the link

[kenwoodall2]

What sent many Mexicans back in 1929 was the depression! work dried up!
I think illegal's babies shoiuld not automatically become citizens, but the reasoning (by just about all countries) is to make them citizens and they will assilimate better any be more loyal. We need satellite observsation oif borders and army-type outfitting of agents, not laws impossible to make and enforce.

[boxcar]

What sent many Mexicans back in 1929 was the depression! work dried up!
I think illegal's babies shoiuld not automatically become citizens, but the reasoning (by just about all countries) is to make them citizens and they will assilimate better any be more loyal. We need satellite observsation oif borders and army-type outfitting of agents, not laws impossible to make and enforce.

You say, "by just about all countries"? Does that apply to the children of law-breaking alien parents who shouldn't have been in the country in the first place and, therefore, had no legal standing in the country? I doubt it very seriously.

Boxcar

[kenwoodall2]

You say, "by just about all countries"? Does that apply to the children of law-breaking alien parents who shouldn't have been in the country in the first place and, therefore, had no legal standing in the country? I doubt it very seriously.

Boxcar
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli" There is a list of countries; perhaps you may be able to clarify for me if proper!

[boxcar]

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli" There is a list of countries; perhaps you may be able to clarify for me if proper!

I should clarify? You're the one who raised the issue. Most nations on this planet have pretty tough immigration laws. It's doubtful most of them would give legal standing to children of parents who had no legal right being in the country in the first place. Mexico, of course, immediately comes to mind as being such a country.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

From the Center For Immigration Studies:
______________________________________

The final category is citizenship by birth. The legal term for this type of citizenship is jus soli which refers to countries that grant citizenship to persons born on their "soil" regardless of the nationality of the parents. Of the 38 countries surveyed for this study, 12 grant automatic citizenship to those born on their soil while 26 do not (see chart on page 4). For the purposes of this chart, "birth" refers only to whether a person is guaranteed citizenship simply by being born in that country, regardless of the status of the parents. However, "birth" does not include children of diplomats or other persons performing official duties abroad, as most countries, including the United States, do not give citizenship to the children of foreign nationals in a country on official business of their home government.
__________________________________________________ _


[The 12 "automatic citizenship" countries for babies born on their soil are:]

1. Argentina
2. Brazil
3. Cameroon
4. Canada (if born there after 1977)
5. India
6. Jamaica
7. Mexico
8. New Zealand
9. Pakistan
10.Spain
11.United States
12.Venezuela

For the "no" countries, see the chart at the link below.

http://www.cis.org/articles/1993/back793.html (http://www.cis.org/articles/1993/back793.html)

[GaryG]

I doubt that any of those other countries have hordes of aliens breaching their border with the idea of dropping the foal in the their country. The parents are home free as well, because the courts would not break up a family. Best thing is to litter the border with dead mexicans. That might change a few minds.

[boxcar]

From the Center For Immigration Studies:
______________________________________

The final category is citizenship by birth. The legal term for this type of citizenship is jus soli which refers to countries that grant citizenship to persons born on their "soil" regardless of the nationality of the parents.

This begs the question; for it does not tell us if its also regardless of the legal immigration status of the parents. To say, "regardless of status" could just mean regardless of legal status, e.g. in country on different types of visas. Do more homework and get back to us on that, will ya? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[kenwoodall2]

Well, I see that I am incorrect- just most countries in the Western Hemisphere allow citizenship by birth, (including Mexico).
I just saw something that my county hospital, San Joaqion,(Stockton) has many anchor babies.

[DJofSD]

Good luck. The 14th amendment specifically prevents states from changing the conditions of citizenship.

Section 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.