The Correct Next Step In Immigration Reform [Reader Post]

Loading

Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce is on a roll. Pearce is the author of the Arizona of the recent Arizona immigration law that Democrats, led by Barack Obama, are wrongly and stupidly deriding. Eric Holder suggested that the law might be un-Constitutional, but I am still waiting for that shoe to drop. Not only does the law mirror current Federal law, a nearly identical law has existed in Prince William Country in Virgina for the last three years. So bring it on, Eric. Bring it on, Barry. I doubt that a challenge will ever see the light of day. If they dared to try, they’d likely have the heads handed to them on a platter. They’d rather demagogue the issue than resolve it. Not mounting a challenge allows them all the benefits of smearing the people of Arizona without having to bother with things like facts. That’s the Chicago way.

Now the good Senator Pearce wants to introduce legislation in Arizona to end the tradition that automatically convenes United States citizenship to a person born to a mother who is in this country illegally. Specifically, his bill would

“push for an Arizona bill that would refuse to accept or issue a birth certificate that recognizes citizenship to those born to illegal aliens, unless one parent is a citizen.”

This is another entirely sensible proposal. It is utterly ridiculous that illegals late in pregnancy get to sneak across the border with the sole intent of bearing a child in this country and gaining all the benefits of citizenship without any of the responsibilities. Both of my parents were immigrants but they came here legally. They followed the rules. My Dad was a WWII combat veteran. He married my mother overseas and was given a tough time bringing Mom in.

My office manager is from England and she is now a naturalized citizen. She had to go through a lengthy legal process in order to gain citizenship. I am very resentful of anything that smells of amnesty. It is loathsome that those from Europe and those from Asia must follow the rules for entry into this country and for gaining the benefits of being here but for there are no rules for those stealing into the country from the South.

The business of birthright citizenship is a loophole contrived out of the 14th Amendment, which says

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.

If one is here illegally, one is really not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. That’s the argument made by Rep. Steve King of Iowa recently, but this debate has taken place several times in the past. It came up in 2005 as well at the national level. It died without a vote. A spokesperson for La Raza said that the proposal was “whacko.” Roughly, La Raza can be translated into “you stole our land and we’re going to take it back from you.” One day we’ll get into what the Spaniards did to the Aztecs.

The Arizona immigration law was passed in part because the Federal government has been an utter failure at securing our borders. This is another expression of frustration but if the Feds aren’t going to do anything about the borders, the states have to act on their own. And it’s not just Mexicans who are stealing across the Southern border. There are all sorts of undesirables breaking in. Just think – a pregnant terrorist could sneak across the border and give birth to a US citizen. What a concept.

Democrats know that would be two more votes in their pockets.

So best of luck, Senator Pearce.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Not this is something we all need to get behind. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, doc. H.R. 1868 reads:

‘ Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is–

‘(1) a citizen or national of the United States;

‘(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or

‘(3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).’.

Not=Now

Its about time someone started pushing this issue. Anchor babies need to be outlawed across the board. Am for doing to La Raza what the Spaniards did to the Aztecs. They are nothing more than Spanish speaking Marxists and are enemies of the USA.

When I first read this, my immediate thought was this would never get past Court challenges…

But then… it hit me… the US Constitution gives the Legislature the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.

Naturalization is: 1. transitive and intransitive verb grant or acquire citizenship: to grant citizenship to somebody of foreign birth, or to acquire citizenship in an adopted country

So, since CITIZENSHIP rules and definitions do not really fall under the Congress, unless they are a citizen of another country wishing to become a US Citizen… and thus under the 10th become a STATE power…

Wow…. interesting…

Romeo13, you would then be looking at a SCOTUS ruling on the broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment at the very least as well as changes to US Code. Perhaps it is time for that but it will face very stiff opposition from Social Liberals as well as the Current Regime that treats the Constitution like an all you can eat Buffet. They pick and choose the flavor of the month and do not make the distinction of respecting it all, especially the 10th Amendment that places lawful limits on the powers of the Executive and Legislative branches.

Good luck on that. We are more becoming a Socialist State and less of a Constitutional Republic.
If ICE and DHS and DOJ followed their Oaths of Office and enforced existing Federal Law half of the problem would vanish overnight. Under the Current Regime, don’t hold your breath!

Until We get Our House in Order you will see clowns like Mexico’s Calderone being given standing ovations on the floor of Congress from Elected Idiots that have not read the Constitution or Federal Laws for wiping his backside on Our Laws. If you tried that in Mexico you would end up on charges.

People are finally beginning to say this all over the country. AZ poked a big pus-filled boil with a 3 inch mesquite thorn, it seems. Might as well go all out on all citizenship issues as long as we are finally talking about the illegal problem (oh, wait. What about the BC?) I was so happy to see that article about the Virginia law. Thank you VA for your three-year pilot program which worked!

Romeo, you lost me with this statement:

…since CITIZENSHIP rules and definitions do not really fall under the Congress…

…but on further research, you may be on to something. There’s no definition of “citizen” anywhere in the body of the U.S. Constitution that I can find.

What do you make of Article I, Section 9? Clearly, it was included as to mollify slave states, but I see that it’s not been repealed.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Doesn’t that imply that after 1868, Congress CAN prohibit the Migration of Importation of persons?

@John Cooper…

Reading that, it DOES look like States have some power over who they let in… Migration or importation of such persons… think proper to admit”? It looks like a defacto admission that States had the power to control “migration”, and Congress could not do anything about it until AFTER 1808? Soooo… for the first 10 years after ratification, Congress had no control over immigration?

Citizenship “morphed” or evolved from being a Citizen of a State, and thus a Citizen of the United States… to being a Citizen of the US, who just happened to reside in a State…

Hmmm… interesting enogh US Territories never got to vote in Presidential elections, as the Vote only goes through the State “Electors”… thus you can be a US Citizen and not get a vote…

And Voting law is all State Law… hmmm… wonder if you could stop Dual Citizens from voting, via a State Law?

“…thus you can be a US Citizen and not get a vote…”

Yep. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but any U.S. citizen (Puerto Rican or not) residing in Puerto Rico is ineligible to vote unless he or she is legally an absentee resident of one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia. How weird is that?

Again I will point out that IF the anchor baby is recognized by Mexico as being a Mexican citizen (as a result of being born of Mexican parents,) AND Mexican law thus automatically awards citizenship on that child (as does the naturalization laws of most nations,) THEN said baby is NOT a US citizen because the US does not allow dual citizenship.