Arizona governor to illegals: If your child is a U.S. citizen, take him back home with you

posted at 9:33 pm on June 11, 2010 by Allahpundit

Alternate headline: “Nervous looks now being exchanged in Republican corridors of power.” To listen to the media, you’d think opposition to birthright citizenship is the province of alleged fringe-dwellers like Rand Paul (and George Will!). Not so: Per a Rasmussen poll taken last week, 58 percent of likely voters oppose it. That’s not exactly what Brewer’s talking about, though. Her point is that even if a kid is an American citizen — and presumably, even if he was born and raised here and speaks only English — we don’t cut his parents a break on amnesty. If deporting them means breaking up the family, hey — that’s their call. That strikes me as a position … unlikely to be embraced by most prominent Republicans, including those who’d otherwise oppose a general amnesty, but I’m kind of intrigued that a conservative whose profile is as high as hers is pulling the pin and tossing this grenade out there. Exit question: What would Maverick say?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I’m OK with this.
The child is the citizen,
He’ll come back later.

Haiku Guy on June 12, 2010 at 8:58 AM

I am beginning to think that it just isn’t fair for Jan Brewer to be as smart as she is. Taking those anchor babies with the parents has been the natural course of events if you are truly a “family”. It makes no sense to leave them here for the state to raise. We can’t afford it anyway. The kid can come back to the USA when it is of age. Take a test on citizenship because they were not educated here and the are good to be American citizens.

However, citizenship wasn’t the goal of these illegals in the fist place. Sucking up all our money has been their goal and living off our tax money. The solution is so simple, but Dems and Pubbies can’t understand it with all of their so-called education. They always pick the wrong path. I don’t care what they think. I want someone with some common sense and is willing to be the real @ss-kicker. Not the wusses we have elected. Go Sarah, Go Jan!

BetseyRoss on June 12, 2010 at 9:03 AM

I thought by quoting the Fourteenth Amendment it was pretty clear. If you are born in America you are a citizen.

terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 11:04 PM

Only if you ignore the part of that amendment that states…’and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. If you are a citizen of another country you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and this is what everyone who uses the 14th Amendment to justify anchor baby citizenship ignores. If there were people on the Supreme Court who could read English, other than the conservatives, this would be the correct interpretation.

Anchor babies are unconstitutional.

Sporty1946 on June 12, 2010 at 9:13 AM

Right on ‘terryannonline’. More Americans are starting to read the Constitution and, for once in their life, understanding what the Founders really meant in setting up this magnificent system.

globalrambler on June 12, 2010 at 9:22 AM

I am not sure the rules of just being born in the U.S. is what Immigration Laws envisioned, and is being taken out of context.

To put this policy to a test is to bar a child from returning to the county of their parents because they do not have a U.S. Passport and Visa to enter the Country their parents are taking them.

If one would read the law they would find that a child born to foreign parents while in the country are not considered U.S. Citizens. They are citizens of the country of their parents.

However, if their parents are seeking citizenship and possess a “Green Card” indicating their intention of becoming a U.S. citizenship, any children born here are considered U.S. citizen.

MSGTAS on June 12, 2010 at 9:40 AM

The border problem requires strong positions and controversial positions and this lady is capable of all of this. Good for her. If the Feds are ever going to be forced to do something about it then hard, hard ball is the game. I give her credit for being willing to sacrifice herself on this issue. Brave and determined, that’s how I see her.

jeanie on June 12, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Only if you ignore the part of that amendment that states…’and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. If you are a citizen of another country you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and this is what everyone who uses the 14th Amendment to justify anchor baby citizenship ignores.

Sporty1946 on June 12, 2010 at 9:13 AM

Um, no.

Non-citizens within the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Are you arguing that non-citizens who reside in America can’t be sued here? Or can’t be subject to criminal liability?

crr6 on June 12, 2010 at 10:28 AM

I thought by quoting the Fourteenth Amendment it was pretty clear.
terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 11:04 PM

Don’t worry, it was perfectly clear. As usual, the posters here at HA are trying to distort the Constitution to support their political preferences.

crr6 on June 12, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Hey, you make CHOICES, you live with the CHOICES you made. Bye kid!

GarandFan on June 12, 2010 at 10:57 AM

It isn’t that surprising really. Duncan Hunter said the same thing not too long ago and had to clarify his comments under wails of ‘apartheid’. I say clarify the amendment so that it reads both parents must be here legally before the child is a citizen. There is no question of splitting up families, kids currently granted citizenship in this way should go home with their parents until such a time as they are considered adults and can reclaim their US citizenship and let’s plug *this* damn leak.

$.02
-G

GregoryNeilSmith on June 12, 2010 at 11:00 AM

The 14th Amendment was not written to give rights to people who are in this country illegally or to their children.

Really Right on June 12, 2010 at 11:18 AM

Lots of American citizens live elsewhere, even in Mexico. Illegals coming here know they are illegal, they intend to live “in the shadows.”

Why do we have to fix a problem that doesn’t exist? (Answer: because it helps political parties gain power.)

PattyJ on June 12, 2010 at 11:29 AM

The 14th Amendment was not written to give rights to people who are in this country illegally or to their children.

Really Right on June 12, 2010 at 11:18 AM

Actually, yeah…it was. The 14th amendment was drafted so as to give certain constitutional protections to persons residing within the United States. There’s a reason that the language speaks of “persons” and not “citizens” when it refers to due process and equal protection. Again, you may not like the Constitution, but that doesn’t give you a right to ignore its plain language.

crr6 on June 12, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Just because someone is born here, to an illegal alien, does not mean the illegal alien gets to stay too.

If your mom is illegal, you BOTH go home until mom is legal, too.

tx2654 on June 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM

crr6 on June 12, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Don’t be silly. The 14th Amendment was created to deal with the slavery issue, and the rights of such people.

Really Right on June 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM

As mch as it truly pains me to say it, crr6 is right. If you are physically present in the U.S. you are as a legal matter subject to its jurisdiction.

The drafters of the 14th clearly did not intend to cover millions of illegals pouring into the country and dropping babies here, but until you amend the plain language of the 14th, I’m afraid this is what you’ve got.

That of course has nothing to do with Brewer’s statement, which I completely agree with. You came here illegally and have no right to stay just because your child is a US citizen; take him/her with you.

And as to why she’s throwing a “grenade”‘ I don’t much care. There needs to be honest dialogue on these issues, and as with everything a compromise will be reached. If those on the ‘right’ — for lack of a better term — do not stake out their positions on this issue, the compromise will be center-’left.’

Firefly_76 on June 12, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Don’t be silly. The 14th Amendment was created to deal with the slavery issue, and the rights of such people.

Really Right on June 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Who cares what it was “created” to do, in this context? I’m concerned with what the language actually says.

crr6 on June 12, 2010 at 12:51 PM

crr6 on June 12, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Yeah, you are so into the language of the US Constitution! That’s the ticket.

“subject to…..” means “living here legally”.

Really Right on June 12, 2010 at 12:54 PM

“subject to…..” means “living here legally”.

Really Right on June 12, 2010 at 12:54 PM

….no. Non-citizens (even those who are here illegally) are still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Presumably you would agree that they can be arrested and charged with crimes ; )

crr6 on June 12, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Who cares what it was “created” to do, in this context? I’m concerned with what the language actually says.

crr6 on June 12, 2010 at 12:51 PM

I was a flight nurse in Phoenix for almost 15 years and I can”t tell you how many tines I accompanied the maternal and/or neonatal teams down to the border town of Douglas. We were going to pick a new born with no neonatal care who’s mother crossed the border while she was in labor. Her kid, being born in the US was by “policy” an Amercian citizen. The mother and her whole extended family get to stay in the US becuse she hurried across an international border to pop out her kid. I seriously doubt this is in the spirit of the 14th Amendment.

rotorjoe on June 12, 2010 at 2:10 PM

It’s about time that someone prominent pointed this out. The illegal alien parent is the one choosing to break up their own family if they don’t keep their children with them.

Who here would leave their children behind if forced to move back to their own country of origin?

DaMav on June 12, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Who here would leave their children behind if forced to move back to their own country of origin?

Me, me, me… but then my children are of age and I’d love to boot them outa the nest for good.

crashland on June 12, 2010 at 2:47 PM

So daring of her to play to her base like that…
crr6 on June 12, 2010 at 8:54 AM

Better than tuned out tone deaf un American nut cases ruining the country. Amazing what less than 400 nuts can do in DC.

Col.John Wm. Reed on June 12, 2010 at 2:50 PM

My relatives that came through Ellis Island came from and into very similar situations as many of today’s legal and illegal immigrants. I am glad America left its arms open for so long.

I rarely hear anybody complain about the myriad illegals from Asia, Africa, Europe and by way of Canada. The absence of any real ire directed towards non-Mexicans causes suspicions by many law-abiding Americans toward the border-security movement.

Border security is the primary national-security issue. Why handle it like a dunce-danceoff?

The Race Card on June 12, 2010 at 3:18 PM

The Arizona governor has the right idea:

The entire concept of “Anchor Babies” has GOT TO GO!!!

Citizenship for a child born in the USA should be turned into a LAST RESORT for unusual cases where the child has no other place to go. But using a child to pull in a horde of relatives not otherwise qualified for legal immigration is a clear abuse of the system and has GOT to STOP!!!

landlines on June 12, 2010 at 4:05 PM

If deporting them means breaking up the family, hey — that’s their call. That strikes me as a position … unlikely to be embraced by most prominent Republicans,

I was unaware that if someone were a parent they could not be sent to jail if they committed a crime.

When did this start?

Breaking up the family, isn’t that what happens when we send a criminal to jail?

Is Illegal immigration a crime?

Would they prefer to be jail than be deported?

DSchoen on June 12, 2010 at 4:11 PM

The absence of any real ire directed towards non-Mexicans causes suspicions by many law-abiding Americans toward the border-security movement.

Border security is the primary national-security issue. Why handle it like a dunce-danceoff?

The Race Card on June 12, 2010 at 3:18 PM

You’re looking to find racism here, but is it or is it not true that:

1. The number of illegal immigrants from Mexico (and Central America) is vastly larger than illegal immigrants from other places?

2. Illegals from Mexico and CA tend to come in across the same unsecured land border? Illegals from other countries tend to come in in other ways (plane, ship) and are more likely to come in through customs and be illegal because they have overstayed a visa; there is a greater ability to know who they are and track where they are. Can you demonstrate that a similar number of illegals come over the northern border? If yes, perhaps I would agree with you.

3. Large numbers of illegals coming over the southern border concentrate in the southwest and therefore tend to disrupt the economies and resources of local communities and of these states? Do these communities and states have a legitimate concern about being bankrupted by providing services for ever increasing numbers of illegals?

Now, reassess and acknowledge that the “ire” directed at illegal immigrants who happen to be Mexican does not stem from racial animus but all of the other factors listed.

Firefly_76 on June 12, 2010 at 4:20 PM

I thought by quoting the Fourteenth Amendment it was pretty clear.
terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 11:04 PM
Don’t worry, it was perfectly clear. As usual, the posters here at HA are trying to distort the Constitution to support their political preferences.
crr6 on June 12, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Just because the child is a citizen doesn’t give an illegal parent the right to stay in the country to take care of it. The choice belongs to the parent; leave the child with a legal citizen to raise it here, or take it home with you (to Mexico, Asia, Canada, or whereever).

LASue on June 12, 2010 at 6:42 PM

This gets me raging. I count the mere existence of anchor baby law as a slap in the face to not only citizens, but immigrants – both legal AND illegal. The message it sends is, “If you’re illegal and a woman, you can have a baby to stay in the country. If you’re an illegal man, though, you’re shit out of luck.”

Just . . . can someone else spot WTF IS WRONG WITH THAT PICTURE?!

Ryan Anthony on June 12, 2010 at 7:43 PM

1. Take the kid with you back to where you came from. When the child turns 18 he can enter the country and stay, sans Mom and Dad.

2. Kid stays and gets put up for adoption. Parents get tossed.

Your call . . . .

Bubba Redneck on June 13, 2010 at 1:28 AM

That strikes me as a position … unlikely to be embraced by most prominent Republicans, including those who’d otherwise oppose a general amnesty, but I’m kind of intrigued that a conservative whose profile is as high as hers is pulling the pin and tossing this grenade out there. Exit question: What would Maverick say?

I don’t even see why this would be controversial. Kids live with their parents, and go where their parents go.

When my husband got a job overseas, we took our kids. Even though our kids (all of us) are American citizens.
And where we went- Hong Kong- is full of kids with American citizenship whose parents are Hong Kong Chinese. They made a point to come to the US to get citizenship for their kids then went to live at home. Their kids have the right to live in the US, but their parents have them living with them in Hong Kong.

MayBee on June 13, 2010 at 10:34 AM

The 14th Amendment dealt with slaves…not with illegal immigrants born in the US. Like the “commerce” and “general welfare” clauses, this one has been misunderstood and misused for quite some time. This “anchor baby” precedent should be addressed and corrected now so there is no incentive for illegals to come here and have their children. Fix this loophole…and 20-30% of the illegal problem goes away. Start hammering businesses who hire illegals with jail for those who do the hiring or authorize the hiring…problem solved.

ScottiesRule on June 13, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Jan Brewer for President !

I rarely hear anybody complain about the myriad illegals from Asia, Africa, Europe and by way of Canada

got any stats on those, champ ?

runner on June 13, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Apparently this ugly crow doesn’t know that everyday American children are deported along with their illegal parents. It would be nice to actually have someone in the GOP who knows how immigration laws work instead of a bunch of ignorant jerks being the face of the party.

Chekote on June 13, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Since we don’t check for legal status, how in the hell do we even know that “anchor babies” are a problem? And you don’t have to reinterprent the Constitution. All you have to do is change the immigration law so that children can’t sponsor their parents. Against, the Republican party is for strict adherence to the Constitution until it permits Hispanics to enter the country.

Chekote on June 13, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Chekote…the use of ad hominem attacks is a sign someone doesn’t have a real argument to stand on. No one said the children have to go with the parents. They can technically stay with friends or family who are here legally or are already citizens. But using the children as a shield or anchor to let the parents stay makes no sense and is one reason illegals flock here.

ScottiesRule on June 13, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Actually, yeah…it was. The 14th amendment was drafted so as to give certain constitutional protections to persons residing within the United States. There’s a reason that the language speaks of “persons” and not “citizens” when it refers to due process and equal protection. Again, you may not like the Constitution, but that doesn’t give you a right to ignore its plain language.

crr6 on June 12, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Actually, no it wasn’t.

The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed in 1866 and ratified by the states in 1868. The sole purpose of the amendment was to grant citizenship and to protect the civil liberties of former male slaves.

Also, most Southern states refused to ratifiy the Fourteenth Amendment which then led to further legislation against those states. In 1867 the “Reconstruction Acts” was passed which divided up the South in five military zones. Each zone was commanded by a General. The South would rather be under military rule than to adhere to the rights granted former slaves under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The problem is that you’re just focusing in on one portion of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, there is more to the history of what was going on in bringing the country back together. Try looking at the whole history and not just that which you believe suits your needs.

As I pointed out earlier, this Amendment was passed during RECONSTRUCTION and had absolutely nothing to do with illegals crossing our borders.

Try enriching your knowledge and read books instead of just repeating talking points.

moonsbreath on June 13, 2010 at 11:47 AM

I LOVE this woman!

Hobbes on June 13, 2010 at 12:08 PM

I rarely hear anybody complain about the myriad illegals from Asia, Africa, Europe and by way of Canada

got any stats on those, champ ?

runner on June 13, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Nope…he’s just a race-victim, so everything looks like racial oppression to him. In Chicago, we have illegal Mexicans and South Americans, but also thousands of illegal Poles and Irish and Chinese. I cannot find a single study which claims to know how many and where, except the widely scoffed-at U.S. Census, which estimates under 7 million illegals nationwide and 432,000 in Illinois.

Others estimate 20 to 40 million.

I believe that all discussion focuses on Mexicans because every nationwide business and government phone system answers in Spanish, and every march for the “rights” of illegal aliens features Mexican flags. If the illegals and their apologists identify as Mexicans, then it’s sort of difficult to blame Poland.

But I don’t hear anyone calling for leniency toward one nationality and not another.

Jaibones on June 13, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Just because the child is a citizen doesn’t give an illegal parent the right to stay in the country to take care of it. The choice belongs to the parent; leave the child with a legal citizen to raise it here, or take it home with you (to Mexico, Asia, Canada, or whereever).

LASue on June 12, 2010 at 6:42 PM

Exactly ….well unless Crr or TerryAnn can pull that line out of their arses I mean out of the Constitution.

CWforFreedom on June 13, 2010 at 12:23 PM

I have always though that amnesty is crazy. I have had the opinion that the splitting of families argument is a not sequitur. As governor Brewer correctly says that argument is invalid. I have waited ten years for a senior politician to point out the obvious.

burt on June 13, 2010 at 12:27 PM

The answer to this is simple.
Birthright citizenship only to those born in the US with at least one parent who is a citizen or here legally.
Here illegally? Sorry, that doesn’t make you a citizen any more than breaking into a store makes you the owner.

Curmudgeon on June 13, 2010 at 12:29 PM

moonsbreath on June 13, 2010 at 11:47 AM

You don’t understand. Bleeding hearts don’t have to look at the times and context in which something was written. Not if they can twist it into their contemporary agenda to bankrupt the United States and turn it into the third world hell holes they so admire.

Shay on June 13, 2010 at 12:36 PM

I have had the opinion that the splitting of families argument is a not sequitur.
burt on June 13, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Yep

If the parents choose to leave the child THEY the parents are the ones splitting the family.

CWforFreedom on June 13, 2010 at 1:13 PM

I can stand against illegal immigration without embracing bitter prejudice. Some of you cannot or simply choose to use that prejudice as fuel for your justified frustrations.

Deny away. But I’m not the one you need to convince. That person is in your mirror. Go talk to him or her.

got any stats on those, champ ?

runner on June 13, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Stats on what I have not seen? What stats do you have on the number of illegal Mexican nationals? What’s your source? Why don’t you provide a citation to any one you admire calling for the cessation of illegal immigration from anywhere except Mexico?

Good day kind genius.

You’re looking to find racism here, but is it or is it not true that:

No. I didn’t mention “racism.” You did. I’m telling you why the “bigot” label sticks to the GOP.

Nope…he’s just a race-victim, so everything looks like racial oppression to him.

There is no racial or ethnic oppression. Employees hire willing illegal workers. They get paid. That’s not oppression, unless you’re an American teen or high school grad in need of a job and your local McDonald’s only hires illegals.

My views against racial and ethnic prejudice do not interfere with my advocacy on behalf of American workers in opposition to illegal immigration.

Thank you for a typical response.


Others estimate 20 to 40 million.

Who?

I believe that all discussion focuses on Mexicans because every nationwide business and government phone system answers in Spanish, …

Nope, no ethnic resentment there.

But I don’t hear anyone calling for leniency toward one nationality and not another.

Nor have I. If you can cite for the passage that I might have read here at HA or elsewhere railing against illegals from other countries, then I will excuse your insolence.

The Race Card on June 13, 2010 at 2:57 PM

No more Anchor babies? Is that what Governor Brewer is saying?

They will have to go to the Mexican consulate in Arizona Mexico won’t let their children in Mexico without papers. Mexico really Suxs, they send their unemployed to work in the U.S. and send Dollars home than they strand their citizens. Never mind the abuse they suffer getting into this country. I can’t understand why anyone would want to be illegal in the U.S. It must be really, really horrible to live in Mexico.

Dr Evil on June 13, 2010 at 3:23 PM

….no. Non-citizens (even those who are here illegally) are still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Presumably you would agree that they can be arrested and charged with crimes ; )

crr6 on June 12, 2010 at 12:58 PM

But if they are living here illegally, that would suggest that they haven’t been arrested an charged with that crime, so they aren’t really subject to the jurisdiction, are they?

Count to 10 on June 13, 2010 at 3:32 PM

But I don’t hear anyone calling for leniency toward one nationality and not another.
Jaibones on June 13, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Here’s one, although the guy making this most likely didn’t realize that he was “calling for leniency toward one nationality and not another”

Gil Cedillo, AKA One Bill Gil.

Cedillo authored SB 60, a Driver’s licenses for illegal aliens bill (one of many Driver’s licenses for illegal aliens bill he has written, hence the nickname One Bill Gil).

Under SB 60 an illegal alien could prove who they are by presenting their matrícula consular card as a valid legal ID.

The problem, and to your point “But I don’t hear anyone calling for leniency toward one nationality and not another”
The matrícula consular card, issued by the Mexican Government can only vouch for Mexican citizens, thereby calling for leniency toward Mexican and no one else.

DSchoen on June 13, 2010 at 3:40 PM

You don’t understand. Bleeding hearts don’t have to look at the times and context in which something was written.

Shay on June 13, 2010 at 12:36 PM

So we should ignore the amendment’s plain text, and interpret it based upon your subjective (and self-serving!) guess as to what the framers would have wanted in the context of the debate over illegal immigration in the 21st century?

Yep, you sound like a conservative to me!

crr6 on June 13, 2010 at 3:40 PM

But if they are living here illegally, that would suggest that they haven’t been arrested an charged with that crime, so they aren’t really subject to the jurisdiction, are they?

Count to 10 on June 13, 2010 at 3:32 PM

So a criminal who has yet to be charged with a crime for their illegal conduct, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.? LMAO. I guess murderers who have yet to be caught “aren’t really subject to the jurisdiction, are they”? Because they “haven’t been arrested and charged with that crime”?
Congrats, you win the “dumbest argument of the thread” award.

crr6 on June 13, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Leftist/progressives/race baiters heads are exploding.

reshas1 on June 13, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Send back them
/calderon

ted c on June 13, 2010 at 4:03 PM

So we should ignore the amendment’s plain text, and interpret it based upon your subjective (and self-serving!) guess as to what the framers would have wanted in the context of the debate over illegal immigration in the 21st century?

Yep, you sound like a conservative to me!

crr6 on June 13, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Are you really telling us that the framers knew illegals would someday come here to drop kids which would automatically entitle them to drain the treasury?

Come back and argue this one again after you’ve passed the bar and gotten a little experience, junior.

Shay on June 13, 2010 at 4:12 PM

cr6:

You are supposedly a law student. What part of the word “illegal” do you not understand? What makes the current influx of illegal immigrants exempt from the rules and regulations that every other generation of immigrants to this country had to abide by in order to become legal citizens of the greatest nation in the world? By being here illegally, you are not entitled to the same rights as natural-born or naturalized American citizens. You are no better than someone who breaks into someone’s home, does their dishes, cuts their yard, cleans their house, and then helps themselves to their food and drives their car without asking. This is in no way a human rights issue. Freedom is God-given. And with freedom comes responsibility. With citizenship comes responsibility, like paying taxes and making your own way. Illegal immigration reminds me of the amorous boyfriend who wants everything a young woman will give him, but will leave her at the first mention of marriage. Why should a burglar who has broken in to our home to stay and doesn’t even pay rent, be allowed to profit from breaking the law?

kingsjester on June 13, 2010 at 4:24 PM

No more Anchor babies?

Henceforth, the term “anchor baby” is a pejorative. US citizens are not the problem. Babies born here are citizens. Stop attacking them.

How about we deal with anchor-employers? Oh wait, I’ve never heard that term. They must not exist.

The Race Card on June 13, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Are you really telling us that the framers knew illegals would someday come here to drop kids which would automatically entitle them to drain the treasury?

Ellis Island.

The kids of immigrants have been draining the treasury since The New Deal.

The Race Card on June 13, 2010 at 4:26 PM

And as to why she’s throwing a “grenade”‘ I don’t much care. There needs to be honest dialogue on these issues, and as with everything a compromise will be reached. If those on the ‘right’ — for lack of a better term — do not stake out their positions on this issue, the compromise will be center-’left.’

Firefly_76 on June 12, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Nicely stated.

Also, Conservatives will always have to do the hard things, because Liberalism is the art of taking the easy way out. That is why there are so many of them.

scotash on June 13, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Don’t they get to bring in tom dick and harry in with them too.

reshas1 on June 13, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Just because the child is a citizen doesn’t give an illegal parent the right to stay in the country to take care of it. The choice belongs to the parent; leave the child with a legal citizen to raise it here, or take it home with you (to Mexico, Asia, Canada, or whereever).

LASue on June 12, 2010 at 6:42 PM

I agree with this statement 100%. Thank you for clearly stating the facts.

The Race Card on June 13, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Stats on what I have not seen? What stats do you have on the number of illegal Mexican nationals? What’s your source? Why don’t you provide a citation to any one you admire calling for the cessation of illegal immigration from anywhere except Mexico?

Given your insane statement that there is “The absence of any real ire directed towards non-Mexicans” , I thought my question was self explanatory. But I guess, if you are slow, I can explain what I am asking.
What supports your statement that there is ire directed at Mexicans, and not just illegal immigration by the immigration movement ? Now, if that massive chip on your shoulder about your skin color or anyone of color is obstructing your vision, you may want to fix that.

runner on June 13, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Sort of off-topic, but still relates: what about the stupidity of the rule about “automatic citizenship” for any Cuban making it onto the shores in Florida?

Which also makes me wonder about the oil spill–if it’s stemming the flow of what I would call “illegals” bombarding our shores in Florida to become instant citizens…

jedijson on June 13, 2010 at 5:25 PM

I have a friend who came here from Albania via. an Italian passport that wasn’t up to snuff. She has a college degree and was the CFO of a company in Albania. However at the time Albania was on some terrorist list and she couldn’t come here. Once here, she went to work, fulltime, met and married an American citizen, had a child and owns property and a business.

Apparently at some point, while applying for citizenship INS found out that her passport didn’t pass the smell test.

She actually had to leave this country, husband and baby and go back to Albania for a year and then reapply. She was basically told that if she had just crawled over the Mexican border she’d have been better off.

Now I don’t condone the Italian passport thingy, but she was doing all the right things once she got here, even applying for citizenship and you know….working. Never did she sponge off the government and she is an accomplished businesswoman. Yet, we just loooovvveeee all the uneducated, poorly skilled moochers streaming over the border from Mexico. Totally unbelievable.

jaimo on June 13, 2010 at 5:46 PM

runner on June 13, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Hey, thanks for clearing that up. Unfortunately the very next comment seems to support my initial refutation. Whoops.

Now I don’t condone the Italian passport thingy, but she was doing all the right things once she got here, even applying for citizenship and you know….working. Never did she sponge off the government and she is an accomplished businesswoman. Yet, we just loooovvveeee all the uneducated, poorly skilled moochers streaming over the border from Mexico. Totally unbelievable.

jaimo on June 13, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Here we have a perfect example of the ethnic-prejudice that is so common when discussing illegal immigration. This sap is actually going to defend a woman because she’s not Mexican even though her own circumstances are mirrored thousands of times over across the ethnic-illegal spectrum.

Albanian with an Italian passport is acceptable in his eyes. But Mexican with none is not. You figure it out.

The Race Card on June 13, 2010 at 6:54 PM

the very next comment

Bwahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaa!

The Race Card on June 13, 2010 at 6:54 PM

If you have any doubts about what the 14th Amendment was all about, here is a great site to visit:

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

In short, The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby. The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

InquiringMind on June 13, 2010 at 7:22 PM

The Race Card on June 13, 2010 at 4:25 PM
The Race Card on June 13, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Well said.

Bradky on June 13, 2010 at 7:23 PM

To any loving, rational parent, the thought of leaving a child born on foreign soil behind would be unthinkable….they’d take their child with them WHEREVER they go. For leftists to make the argument that it would be inhuman to force illegal invaders immigrants to go home while leaving children behind is ludicrous, preposterous, assinine, fill in the blank.

olesparkie on June 13, 2010 at 8:13 PM

its on! I will fight this in Texas. I won’t let the Republican party become a playground for FAIR and NumberUSA. This is not conservative, this is bigotry. The building up civic institutions and the affirmation of family as a building block is a major principle that is being traded in for short term political gain. Game on

conservador on June 13, 2010 at 8:24 PM

its on! I will fight this in Texas. I won’t let the Republican party become a playground for FAIR and NumberUSA. This is not conservative, this is bigotry. The building up civic institutions and the affirmation of family as a building block is a major principle that is being traded in for short term political gain. Game on

conservador on June 13, 2010 at 8:24 PM

What exactly are you fighting? The legal precedent saying that the child of MEXICAN parents is a MEXICAN CITIZEN and PARENTS are obligated to care for their children.

(Hint caring for you child is NOT scampering across the border, shoving the kid out of the womb, & then using him/her as a prop to stay in that other country. No matter how SH!TTY yours might be.)

I say that not to DENIGRATE Mexico, but it kinda makes some sense that if folks are running here in droves something about the place they currently reside must not be too hot?

Maybe its the drug cartels? Or the rampant violence? Or the corruption & complete LACK of GIVING A CRAP about their own people?

SgtSVJones on June 13, 2010 at 9:33 PM

conservador on June 13, 2010 at 8:24 PM

Since you feel so strongly about this issue, you (and those that feel like you) should open your home to several illegal families so the rest of us are not forced to support something we don’t agree with.

bw222 on June 13, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Christie/Brewer 2012

Animator Girl on June 13, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Unfortunately, the nativist, anti-immigrant Know-Nothings, facing political extinction, jumped aboard the fledgling GOP. Who would have thought that they were still here?
AshleyTKing on June 11, 2010 at 10:17 PM

The Know-Nothings.

I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].

A. Lincoln August 24, 1855

rukiddingme on June 13, 2010 at 10:30 PM

But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

The Republicans of 1860 foretold the issue eight years before the adoption of the 14th Amendment..

FOURTEENTH. That the republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws, or any state legislation by which the rights of citizenship hitherto accorded by emigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby. The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 followed the 14th Amendment and was the immigration law of the land when SCOTUS ruled in Ark, saying this:

It is conceded that, if he is a citizen of the United States, the acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him.

….

The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.

To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
InquiringMind on June 13, 2010 at 7:22 PM

Citizenship is acquired by birth on US soil, regardless of parental allegiance.

The child, being a citizen by birth, is subject to US jurisdiction.

As to the parents owing “direct and immediate allegiance and be “completely subject” to US jurisdiction:

First, The status of US jurisdiction pertaining to the parents is irrelevent to the child. Second, the non citizen parents are subject to US jurisdiction as well, regardless of their illegal status.

SCOTUS said this:

It is impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

rukiddingme on June 13, 2010 at 10:52 PM

They opened Pandora’s box with their “obnoxious” demands and now they don’t like what’s inside. Too bad, and this woman should run for president, she’d win in a landslide. She’s got more ‘nads than all the Metrosexual’s in liberally run congress combined, that’s including Hillary’s.

chicagoray on June 14, 2010 at 3:21 AM

What would Maverick say?

Who gives a $#!t what he has to say. The more I see what Obama does to this country the more I dispise the “Maverick” for not wanting to be president bad enough.

mechkiller_k on June 14, 2010 at 9:01 AM

Understand the law with more clarity. A child born in the U.S. to parents of another nation are not really automatically citizens of the U.S..

These children actually remain citizens of the country of their parents unless the child is able to seek legal citizenship in the U.S., and it is unlikely, due to their capacity as a new born, to pass a citizenship test.

The child therefore, remains an illegal citizen until old enough and capable to seek full functional citizenship.

MSGTAS on June 14, 2010 at 9:10 AM

Many of the “US born” are also registered as dual citizenship in Mexico. No proof required, you just go to the office and register the child in Mexico.

nor on June 14, 2010 at 9:50 AM

The parents are the adults, they make the decision for the family, not the baby.
If they want to keep the family together, then that is their choice, just do it “back home”.

right2bright on June 14, 2010 at 10:53 AM

Sort of off-topic, but still relates: what about the stupidity of the rule about “automatic citizenship” for any Cuban making it onto the shores in Florida?

Is it automatic citizenship, or asylum?

LASue on June 14, 2010 at 1:46 PM

I have maintained this position for years now. If you are a family, take the kids with you. I’m ok with them returning as adults. I don’t like it, nor do I believe in “Anchor” babies. It is, what it is right now.

IowaWoman on June 14, 2010 at 6:42 PM

I’ve posted this past.

Solution. Here you go.

1. Secure the border. And I mean secure the border. No virtual BS.
A. Solid wall. Anti vehicle ditch with a two tier section of chain link fence.
B. On top of the wall, motion detection sensors with flood lights and cameras.
C. Using existing automated technology, paintball type guns which shoot tear gas powder pellets
(so if you approach and climb over the first layer of fence guess what you get a face full of?)
(maybe mix a fluorescent paint pellet to make finding the person in the dark easier and safer)
D. Establish patrol command centers from which border agents can monitor a section of the border from safety
E. Fast action patrols from centralized helicopter pads to deal with people that don’t get the message.
F. For the green types, use of solar energy in the SW empty expanses
G. Expand size of legal border crossing points
H. Best of all, $1 per head coming AND going (huge revenue upside on holiday & spring break weekends)
(fines go in to a border maintenance fund…..in perpetuity. This way future politicians can’t raid the fund)
I. Hire a VISA/MasterCard type to establish an National ID checking system for tracking legal vistors/resident aliens
J. Hire a company to handle the visa requests
K.. ENFORCE THE LAW (no exceptions)
1st offense….fine
2nd offense…larger fine and some free negative advertising (The State of AZ does it to drunk drivers)
3rd offense….massive fine and continued random monitoring (The State of AZ does it bars to spot check the no smoking law)

L. Any illegal ALIENS apprehended get deported.

*This is my plan subject to add’l add on features since I did this in less than 10 minutes

I’m tired of hearing of about we can’t do this and we can’t do that. I say BS! If we put a guy on the moon then we can secure our borders. This makes it safer for our nation, our families and will create new job opportunities for legal residents. This will also decrease the massive amounts of amounts of social services and payments being paid out. “Anchor babies?” Will guess what? The child still retains their citizenship and can stay in the US but if mom/dad leave then the family has to make a choice. Sorry if that sounds harsh but the parents made a decision to break the law and hope we would be candy asses and allow them to stay. What do we do if the media shows a family “being torn apart?” How about running some clips of the degradation of schools, hospitals and the environment due to illegal ALIEN activity. If we have the courage of our convictions to enforce our borders and the law then this problem will sort it self out.

Return home, come through the front door when invited and I will be there with a smile and handshake to greet into this great nation.

Sorry for the long post but sometimes…………….

VikingGoneWild on June 14, 2010 at 7:18 PM

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this position. This way the family unit is not broken up and the kids are not left here to be raise by someone else. Makes perfect sense.

Mirimichi on June 14, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Mirimichi its utter hypocrisy to promote illegal immigration, I will link the federal documents that shows this, and then after the establishment of the most basic civic institution to uproot them. From 1986 to 2001 Illegal was not illegal. No one is against rule of law, re-institute it! But this bull of of targeting kids and actually allowing a state to make a move on a Congressional responsibility is idiotic. It will do the damage of 1964 with the Civil Rights Act. This is not conservatism, this is FAIR and NUMBERSusa propaganda… a little eugenics and zero population growth ideology mixed together. If this gets in the airwaves, the war within the Republican will begin. Our history and traditions within the party do not allow for this garbage.

conservador on June 14, 2010 at 8:07 PM

conservador, I am not promoting illegal immigration.

Mirimichi on June 14, 2010 at 10:14 PM

“It’s on”, indeed.

Arizona couldn’t get much more confrontational if they tried, short of measures that would bring more anger than useful results.

Dark-Star on June 15, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Late last month, Michael Savage spoke well of Brewer’s former record as Arizona Secretary of State, having achieved fiscal conservative prosperity for the state via spending AND tax cuts subsequent to Bayless’ former overspending that left AZ in the red prior to Brewer’s tenure. /His point was that Brewer’s experience makes her more qualified to be potus than Palin.

maverick muse on June 15, 2010 at 11:34 AM

11:32
Arizona has common sense which to you is “confrontational”.
You fail to note that the AZ law exactly replicates the federal law text. Therein, the only “difference” rests in the local demand that laws be enforced which federal law breakers via non-enforcement find to be “confrontational”.

maverick muse on June 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3