Ariz. lawmaker takes aim at automatic citizenship

Ariz. lawmaker takes aim at automatic citizenship

PHOENIX (AP) – Emboldened by passage of the nation’s toughest law against illegal immigration, the Arizona politician who sponsored the measure now wants to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to undocumented parents.

Legal scholars laugh out loud at Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce’s proposal and warn that it would be blatantly unconstitutional, since the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.

But Pearce brushes aside such concerns. And given the charged political atmosphere in Arizona, and public anger over what many regard as a failure by the federal government to secure the border, some politicians think the idea has a chance of passage.

“I think the time is right,” said state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican from suburban Phoenix who is chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. “Federal inaction is unacceptable, so the states have to start the process.”

Full Story Here:
Ariz. lawmaker takes aim at automatic citizenship

Legal scholars may indeed be laughing, but the 14th Amendment is an antiquated writing that has far outlived it’s usefulness.

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. SOURCE

Life in America was much different at the time the 14th Amendment was written.

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. 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.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

Full opinion can be read here: SOURCE

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to offer protection to the recently freed slaves and their children. It was NOT written with the express intent of giving citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens.

At the time the 14th Amendment was written, the Blacks that it protected were NOT in this nation illegally. Most weren’t here by their own choice. The same can’t be said for the hordes of invaders that cross our borders to birth their spawn on OUR shores.

Blacks that fell under the protection of the 14th Amendment, for the most part, assimilated to the American way of life and they became Americans.

For the most part, the illegal invaders that come to America today do not.

The illegals spend generations making it apparent that they are NOT Americans. They celebrate their culture, speak their language and live as an entirely different culture in this nation. A culture that is NOT American, in any way.

They take ALL that this nation offers, and give very little in return. They cost legal Americans billions of dollars in healthcare and education, housing, subsidies of every kind, and the part that makes me sick is, they, in many cases, take until they have enough American dollars to live in some degree of luxury in their native land, and they leave America.

But the door remains open to their return because of the *anchor babies* that the 14th Amendment makes possible due to it’s gross misinterpretation.

I’m NOT a legal scholar, maybe that’s why I can see the urgent need to address the 14th Amendment and to seriously look at the need to repeal it.

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, reads: “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.” But Pearce argues that the amendment was meant to protect black people.

“It’s been hijacked and abused,” he said. “There is no provision in the 14th Amendment for the declaration of citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens.”

America can’t continue being everything to everyone. We don’t have limitless financial resources, regardless of what the man-child in the Oval Office believes.

We are no longer ‘the melting pot’ of the world. We are used, abused and confused. Our leaders believe that we can save the world. We can’t even keep America above water with the leadership we have and with the way this nation has been bled out and given away piecemeal.

Senate candidate Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and darling of the tea party movement, made headlines last month after he told a Russian TV station that he favors denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

I have to agree with ‘Son of Moonbat‘ on this one, every so often even a blind hog finds an acorn. But I truly wish the MSM would stop calling him ‘the darling of the TEA Party’. He may be popular with some factions of the TEA Party but he is NOT representative OF the TEA Party as a whole. Just sayin’…

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, based in Washington, said Pearce’s idea would stop immigrants from traveling to the U.S. to give birth.

“Essentially we are talking about people who have absolutely no connection whatever with this country,” spokesman Ira Mehlman said. “The whole idea of citizenship means that you have some connection other than mere happenstance that you were born on U.S. soil.”

Born on U.S. soil to an illegal mother and/or father I might add.

Of course the bleeding hearts are going to cry foul, but they are, after all, the ones that have allowed these illegals to over-run America and have provided said illegals with everything needed to become moderately successful in America.

Right up until the time the illegals take it all back to whatever dung heap they call home that is.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This entry was posted in America 1st and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Ariz. lawmaker takes aim at automatic citizenship

  1. ng4779 says:

    I am tired of women running to cross the border in order to anchor that kid. Squatting on US soil to birth a child does not create a US citizen, it creates entitlement.

    Take a look at this kid. He’s an anchor baby. He goes to Harvard on full scholarship but uses a Mexican passport??? These people have learned how to scam the system.

    Harvard Sophomore Facing Deportation After Living In US Illegally for Sixteen Years

  2. Vigilante says:

    I’m all for children born here to automatically be American citizens, but they better belong to immigrants that have come here “LEGALLY” and want to become Americans. All other can just get their scaley asses back where they came from and take their little anchor brats with’em .

  3. I’m with Fred and all of you. This would be a good starting place to legitimately reform immigration laws. Another good start would be to support Arizona in their effort to stem the flow!

  4. minuteman26 says:

    Fred – Don’t have to repeal the ammendment, just modify it to state that both parents have to be US citizens. Problem solved. Would like to see all previous anchor babies citizenship revoked though. We have too many parisites.

  5. txhillcountry says:

    This to me is easy-if you are here illegally and have a child, you have 2 choices; take the child back to your country and apply for a visa or since the child is a US citizen, put it up for adoption. It would appear to me neither of these options would violate the 14th. These illegal aliens that have babies here have overwhelmed and bankrupted our economic system. The bottom line is the same, if you violate our laws, there is accountability, you go home; man, woman, mother, father, or child.

  6. johnko1 says:

    It’s apparent that the only politicians with any hair on their testicles are in Arizona. It’s about time that someone other than we peons is taking a stand and trying to do something. I used to be in law enforcement, and trust me, as long as 35 years ago we were told to back off of the illegals due to overcrowding our jails and the fact that INS would not pick them up unless they had a serious criminal charge to go along with the hold for INS. I’d like to see that amendment done away with and although it can’t be done, wouldn’t it be nice if it were retro? Now all we need is a president with that same hair to ensure that all of this is enforced. I’m not holding my breath on that one.

  7. The BoBo says:

    Excellent analysis and idea there, Fred. I’m with you and the senator on this – it is time to either repeal the 14th Amendment or to amend it in a way that makes anchor babies a thing of the past.

    But, without a doubt – those of us who support this will be called racists. I’m to the point where I wear that as a badge of honor. If being pro-American, pro-LEGAL immigration means being a racist – then – by all means call me a racist.

  8. daddontsk8 says:

    Fred,

    It is the 14th that extends the Bill of Rights to the states. Without the 14th, the protections of the Bill of Rights only extend to the interactions between citizens and the Federal government. The states would still have the ability to pass laws that violate the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights.

  9. TexasFred says:

    @daddontsk8 – Well, as I said, not being a constitutional scholar

    This *anchor babies* bullshit has got to go, through the 14th being repealed, revised, amended, edited, whatever it takes…

    The 14th is terribly abused as is, and it MUST be changed…

    Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

    1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    At the very least, it MUST be re-written… Specifically section 1.

  10. extex_cop says:

    It’s a shame this Amendment can’t be written off the books. It was supposed to be ratified on July 9, 1868 by 28 of the 37 states. Some tried to drop out and resend their vote…only to be told they couldn’t. Therefore this law should never have been enforce..at least not until the moonbats voted to ratify it in 2003. All those anchor babies up until that time were really not citizens…and if the letter of the law were enforced as it is in the 14th Amend….then none of the illegals babies are citizens.

    We need to stop giving free passes to these law breakers and their spawn that put so much hardships on the rest of us trying to care for them. They don’t give a sh*t about us…all they want is our jobs and our money so they can breed more and more welfare babies.

  11. BobF says:

    If the parents are here legally and the child is born on US soil, then he/she should be considered an American Citizen. That child should hold duel citizenship until its 18th birthday to where it then declares its allegiance.

    My oldest son was born under the conditions above. I was stationed in England, under NATO orders, and my wife was there with me on her passport. My son who was born there has both a British Birth Certificate and a Certificate of Birth of an American Citizen abroad issued by the US Embassy in London. He’s had to present both birth certificates when getting certain clearances for his job but only lists his citizenship as American.

  12. The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to offer protection to the recently freed slaves and their children. It was NOT written with the express intent of giving citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens.

    Exactly!

    Until we get rid of this crap called “anchor babies,” we’ll never get illegal immigration under control!

    Over and over again, illegals with anchor babies play on the heartstrings of Americans. Well, those heartstrings are breaking the bank! And destroying our national sovereignty.

    Great post, Fred.

  13. Steve Dennis says:

    I agree that the 14th amendment is outdated and has been grossly misinterpreted and expanded over the years in a manner that it was not intended for, and I hope that Arizona goes through with this bill. But I just don’t see how this bill will ever be allowed to stand by the SC after the way the 14th amendment has been interpretted all these years. It seems as if a new amendment may be required in order to repeal the damage that has been done by allowing these anchor babies.
    Still, I am glad that Arizona is not done and I hope they continue to push hard against these outrages!

  14. Opening up a Constitutional Convention kinda scares me; I’m afraid the Left would jump into that with both feet and, at this point, they have the potential votes to corrupt any results.

    BZ

  15. ablur 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.

    Nobody seems to focus on the phrase ” and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. This phrase is the key to the whole issue. If they are illegal they have failed to come under this clause. The use of the word “and” is inclusive and must be met as part of the condition.

    Arizona is on a role. Why stop now.

Comments are closed.