Arizona makes a move towards eliminating “anchor babies”
The state of Arizona is no stranger to controversial immigration laws and they are in the process of passing yet another law that will not gain them favor with the federal government. As part of a much broader law, Arizona’s Senate Appropriations Committee took the first steps toward outlawing “anchor babies” in the state of Arizona.
This is just the first step as the bill will have to be passed by the full state Senate, and if the state Senate passes the legislation it will go before the House before it makes it to Jan Brewer’s desk. This is still many months away from becoming the law of the state of Arizona but it is great to see the state not backing down in the face of the federal government. Even while the controversial immigration law that Jan Brewer signed last year is making its way to the Supreme Court the state is busy trying to protect its citizens against the illegal invasion from her southern borders.
If this bill ever becomes law we can rest assured that the federal government will challenge the legislation based on the 14th amendment. As everyone who cares about the republic knows, the 14th amendment reads in part:
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
And commands the states:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
First, the constitution states that all persons born in the United States are citizens and then it tells the states that they cannot infringe on the rights of citizens. However there is one condition in the first sentence to the 14th amendment before citizenship is granted to a person born on American soil: the person must be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Mexico considers all persons born to parents of Mexican citizens to be Mexican citizens also and doesn’t this mean that the children born to illegal aliens from Mexico are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico? This is what the whole argument will hinge on when this makes it to the Supreme Court.
The 14th amendment had a very limited intent when it was adopted; the 14th amendment was written and passed in order to assure that the children of the recently freed slaves at the conclusion of the Civil War were granted citizenship. But over time its meaning has been expanded to include the children of illegal aliens–a meaning which the authors of the amendment, and the states when they passed it, never intended.
I believe that if this bill ever becomes law and a challenge makes it to the Supreme Court that the court will strike down the law as unconstitutional. I think in the end, if we want to see the children of illegal aliens stripped of birthright citizenship it will take a repeal of the 14th amendment. But at least the conversation is beginning to take place.
America's Watchtower 
If the 14th Amendment had been meant to address a single problem that would disappear over time, they’d have addressed it in legislation. These people know all too well how constitutional language drafted in one century could haunt the people of the next. I happen to think that the 14th Amendment wasn’t limited to a particular timeframe, and the argument that it was poses a dangerous precedent when considering other amendments. For example, “Oh, well, in those days an armed citizenry could, in the last resort, visit the county board en masse with pitchforks, etc., and effect real change, but since that’s no longer possible, we don’t have to pay attention to the 2nd Amendment.”
The Constitution is meant to be timeless, and to toss off an amendment because it’s thought to have outlived its usefulness is dangerous.
Otherwise, there’s no doubt you’ve done your homework, and I agree that the jurisdiction clause will be all-important in evaluating this legislation.
By the way, we consider children born to our citizens overseas to be American citizens as well, regardless of whatever the other nation might think. This often leads to dual citizenship, but in most cases I’m aware of, the child must make a decision upon reaching his or her majority. I’d think this is the way we should approach children born to foreign nationals, regardless of their status.
Take good care, and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments combined were written and passed to abolish slavery, ensure that the slaves and their children were considered citizens (remember many abolishionists wanted to sent the freed slaves back to Africa–Lincoln himself even supported this notioin) and grant them the right to vote, that was the intent of these amendments.
I think that instead of using the word “repeal” I should have said that the 14th amendment should be amended itself to eliminate the anchor babies.
LikeLike
About Lincoln, I think he underwent a constant evolution of ideas regarding the slaves – I think at the end of his life he realized that they had every right not only to freedom, but also to remain in the US as citizens. There’s no doubt, though, that at one point he felt not only that slavery was an abolmination but also that blacks and whites couldn’t exist together in society.
As to amending the 14th Amendment, it doesn’t really matter if I agree or disagree, you’re proposing to change the system using tools the system provides. How could I possibly object? I’d vote against you, of course, but that’s the way our system works – peacefully and orderly. What I object to is advocating new interpretations of the amendment based on what some say its authors really meant to say.
Have a great day and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
Yes, Lincoln did look at several options on what to do about the freed slaves, including giving them a western portion of the US just for them to settle as their own country. When he died I am not sure what he was thinking on the issue.
On the 14th amendment–as in all issues–it is the process which is used to affect change that is the most important. As long as the proper process is followed then I do not have a problem even if it is an issue that I do not agree with, for is we do not have the law what are we left with?
LikeLike
Actually the precedence is the “Supremacy Clause” Article VI, Clause 2 which states in part;
asserts and establishes the Constitution, the federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties made by the United States with foreign nations as “the Supreme Law of the Land”
It’s funny that the left would invoke Supremacy in the case of immigration but ignore it in the case of the Second Amendment? Kind of makes you wonder if they really care about the rights given by this great document or do they just use it as a tool for their own ends? You either believe in it or you don’t. I have serious issues with gray areas and those that skirt our Constitution using gray logic.
LikeLike
I don’t think that TGY was condoning the abolishment of the second amendment but was using it to make a point by contrasting the two issues. However I do agree with you that there are many who feel as if the constitution is a hindrance to their goals and are all too willing to pretend the document doesn’t exist when it gets in the way.
LikeLike
Exactly right – my point was that saying that an amendment was good only for a certain time and situation can backfire when the approach is applied to other amendments, and I used the 2nd Amendment as an example.
A darned good example, by the way – there’s no way an armed civilian insurrection could ever succeed in this country by force of arms.
Hope the day’s one of the best! And may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
Good for Arizona. But one state out of 50 won’t cut it. There better be 49 other states getting behind them. Well, 48, California is already lost.
LikeLike
One state won’t cut it but it will get this issue back to the Supreme Court. This is just a start and I think that other border states will move on this as well.
LikeLike
Out pure ignorance let me ask a question. Why does it matter if a child born to and illegal invader is considered a citizen by the US government or not? If you take a job assignment for say six months in Enland and while you are there your wife gives birth, when it’s time to come home , that baby goes home with you even though the child is deemed by the British government to be a Brittish citizen. Using Mexico as an example, when Mexican citizens are visiting the US either legally or illegally, and a child is born them, that child is a Mexican citizen and must be allowed to return to Mexico with its parent(s) when they return of their own volition or because they are deported. At 18 the child would have the right to declare him/herself an American citizen if he/her so chose. So send them home!
LikeLike
I know this may kick up some dust, but I honestly believe the answer to your question is xenophobia. If these were Englishmen or Canadians traipsing over our border there’d be far less concern.
Have a great day and may God bless us all!
Dale
LikeLike
I disagree. The National Council of La Raza, MALDEF, MECHa, Nation of Aztlan would be having a fit. Xenophobia indeed.
LikeLike
The reason people are focused on the Mexicans is because of the drugs and violence at the Mexican border. It is a more pressing problem than other ethnic groups coming over the border right now.
Of course, I am against anyone coming here illegally and I would think that all of the people who are trying to come here legally only to see people sneak and and get no punishment would be more upset than anyone else.
LikeLike
In most countries, you receive the citizenship of the origin country of your parents, not the country you are born in. To use your example: 2 Americans have a child in London. That child is considered American by both the UK and the US. The US and Canada are I believe the only 2 industrialized nations to have a different law.
LikeLike
I’ll take that as a vote against the concept of American exceptionalism.
As to the baby born of American parents in London, that child is not considered a “natural born citizen,” although the definition certainly does seem to be murky.
LikeLike
The problem is that the parents aren’t leaving; they come to this country to have the baby and then they use that baby to stay here because the liberals always argue that we can’t separate the child from his parents so we allow the parents to stay illegally.
LikeLike
Abraham was not always correct in his interpretations in my opinion, especially when he decided to but Native born Native American Indians on reservations and turn the slaves loose, not that I do not agree with eliminating slavery, bondage, etc. However, illegals crossing our borders for the past 60 years and birthing immediately at tax payer’s expense are really citizens of Mexico because mother and fathers of these illegal babies are Mexican citizens…They can not be both..However Vincente Fox and Calderone are big enemies of America and Vincente has worked hard to promote illegals and tell them they own all the states of the Southwest…Now the US paid millions of dollars to the Mexican government so they did not steal the land …if the land was stolen, the victims were Native American Indians when Spain, France and others began moving across the territories of America. I pose this question. If an American woman crosses into Mexico illegally, is the baby an instant citizen? No way Hosea! Only American politicians in their greedy grasp to hold on to their congressional seats until they are babbling old men and women perpetuate the Anchor Baby Myth…Time for citizens to stand up and demand and end as the Mexicans are taking over by this silent invasion the past 50 years(thank you Ronald Reagan who flung open the borders). An example of Mexicans taking over a city…look up Bell California, pop. 5000 controlled by elected Mexicans…totally corrupt and bankrupt with the officials paying themselves half million a year in salaries and gold mine pensions.
LikeLike
You paint a picture of hordes of pregnant young Mexican women streaming across the border for the purpose of having a baby in the US at taxpayers’ expense; I don’t believe it’s at all accurate.
Here in Georgia, new legislation has been enacted making this state far less attractive to illegal aliens with respect to their employment, and the business community is starting to howl because so many fewer people, especially in agriculture, are applying for work.
Anti-immigrant fervor is legitimately satisfying to those who’ve followed the rules and managed to get their green card or citizenship, but the cards in that deck are stacked against Latinos. Those who emigrate to the US from northern Europe don’t find the obstacles the Mexicans and South Americans do.
Anti-immigrant fervot is also satisfying to some natural-born US citizens who look at the American birthright as a treasurer to be hoarded rather than a gift to be shared. They will become more and more frantic as time passes, especially when the white population in the US slips below 50% of the total.
I hope everyone’s enjoying a glorious summer, and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike