Bluegrass Lass

Did you all see this news story:

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.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/ari...ex.html?hpt=T2

Very interesting to say the least.

MikeyT

Despite what he says, such a law would be unconstitutional (check out the text of the 14th Amendment).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

Seneca21

He's quite right about the original drafters. The world has just changed too much and a lot of the Constitution is archaic. This particular rule is massively and easily abused by illegal immigrants. I know someone (British) who deliberately had a baby in the US for that exact purpose.

I support the change. If you are born in Australia you are only Australian if your parents are Australian or Permanent Residents, and I think the same goes for the UK. The US is well behind on this.

Seneca21

No reason why they can't add another amendment making this possible, of course that is a federal matter and would be much more complicated, but at least they're on the right track at last and finally asking the right questions.

Bob

It's just grandstanding, again, to look important.

It'll get junked.

GeoffM

My son has dual citizenship by virtue of jus soli of one country and jus sanguinis of the other. If jus soli is abolished in Arizona, as seems to be proposed here, then my son would - if I understand correctly - only have citizenship of one country which would be a bit unfair IMHO.

By all means solve the "anchor baby" issue, even when unintentional, but do it in a fair way.

Duncan Roberts

So what happens when the patents go to the feds with paperwork showing their child was born in the US? As far as I know, a birth certificate is handy proof of citizenship but without one the child is still a citizen if born in the US.

sir_eccles

Are they suggesting all the descendants of the pilgrims at Plymouth rock may have to be deported as well?

Bob

It's not really an issue though as the baby can't sponsor the folks for years and the parents can still be deported. The myth that won't disappear.

DeanUK2US

Why aren't the 49 other states not kicking up so much of a fuss over immigration? I know Arizona is on the Mexican border (IIRC), but they are not the only ones receiving immigrants.

Yes, illegal immigration needs to stop, but not at the expense of existing citizens. They may well be destroying lives that have been already established in the US that are positively contributing to the economy.

Manc

It is a lot of mouth and no trousers

Dan725

Your thread title is a bit harsh on this one sunflwrgrl - its to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. The one word makes all the difference - when I first saw your thread here, I thought it really was a bridge too far - but given the illegal connotation, I think its a good thing, and I don't see it as unconstitutional - as being illegal means just that - shouldn't be here in the first place.

CelticRover

The 'unintended' consequences might include all children of aliens without a green card or US citizenship.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...berts0616.html

Gingerert

Am I being a dumbass here? Surely Arizona can't deny someone citizenship - it's a federal issue? And if Arizona does create some ruling about this, won't parents be tempted to just cross the border into another state to have their baby? So yeah, there won't be any US citizens born to illegal immigrant parents in Arizona... but there sure as hell will be in California, etc!

Interesting, interesting...

Duncan Roberts

If this goes anywhere, how long will it be for

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

to be picked up and turned into

"If that's true, it was never the intent of the drafters for people to own automatic weapons and small arsenals"

Seems like a slippery slope when you start trying to figure out the original intent and applying it as law.