Badmovies.org Forum

Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals  

"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. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?)

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. (See pictures of the Great Wall of America.)

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... 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100612/us_time/08599199606400 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100612/us_time/08599199606400)

I don't think that's much of a question.  I wouldn't want to have to try to defend that bill in front of a court.

How is sending their kids born here back to Mexico with their parents going to slow down or stop the Mexican drug gangs exactly?

Unquestionably unconstitutional.  Yet another law that will get thrown out if it passes and waste millions of tax payer dollars.  I wish so many voters weren't so stupid - passing blatantly illegal laws that waste huge amounts of money never seems to amount to lead to political fallout.  I tend to believe this is because voters are both ignorant and stupid. 

For a somewhat similar example, consider the numerous laws that are STILL trying to be passed to ban M and AO video game sales to minors - no matter that in every previous case they've been ruled unconstitutional on multiple grounds.  And in every case where they've been thrown out it cost tax payers hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. 

Do politicians get in trouble for this?  No.  They don't ever even bring it up in political attack ads, probably because it doesn't make good sound bites.

Sigh.

I would say probably, but not unquestionably, unconstitutional.  The Fourteenth Amendment does include the language "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens . . ."

Are illegals subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?  Have the courts ever ruled exactly what that term means?  Illegals cannot vote, cannot serve on juries, and cannot be drafted into the military - because they are here ILLEGALLY.  I think you COULD make the case that means that they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.

I don't know that I approve this, but as a resident of a border state, I will say that these "anchor babies" put a TREMENDOUS strain on our social services.  Their parents have no money and no legal status, which means that every penny of the expenses related to their birth is borne by the taxpayer.

I had twins 16 years ago.  It cost us about $12,000 dollars - our insurance picked up most of it, but still, that's a sizable chunk.  I'll admit I do somewhat resent my tax dollars funding services that will never be paid for, by people who are not citizens of this country.  At the same time, I don't think they should be dropping their offspring between the rows in the cornfield, either.

I guess what this whole thing boils down to is, do we have the right to control our borders or not?  It seems many on the left seem to want to let everyone in who wants to come, and many on the right want to stop anyone from coming in at all.  There really ought to be some middle ground somewhere.

Short answer:  illegal aliens are "persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."  See Plyler v. Doe, Sec. II (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0202_ZO.html) (1981). 

Even if the illegal alien parents weren't subject to US jurisdiction, it wouldn't matter, because this law is an attempt to deny birth certificates to those who are defined by the Constitution as American citizens. 

This law has virtually no chance to be declared Constitutional. 

Immigration reform is a completely different issue.  Personally I believe that the ridiculously low quotas for Mexicans who are allowed to legally immigrate should be raised significantly.  In my experience Mexicans make excellent citizens: they're hard working and tend to be very family oriented.

Yeah, I'd have to agree.  A lot of the illegals themselves work extremely hard.  And if we allowed in more Mexicans legally, it'd help stop them from undercutting other Americans by working for less than minimum wage.

(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/immigrant.gif)

No argument from me on that account.  I much prefer Hispanic immigration to Islamic immigration; Hispanics are more eager to assimilate and share the common heritage of Western civilization which many . . . although not all Islamic immigrants do not.  However, until the raging drug violence in northern Mexico settles down considerably, I still think getting some control of our border is a true imperative.

Then sort out what to do with those already here.

Then reform the laws to make it easier for people of honest intent to come here legally.

But none of that can happen when our southern borders are under a state of siege.