Arizona bill would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants

[goof2]

To the framers issue, I'm not sure their intent should be the overriding factor in this anyway. I'll be kind and say their track record was a bit "poor" on citizenship and rights when it came to non-whites and non-males.

[Homeslice]

You can blow off parking tickets, but after awhile you will get a knock on the door.

Just like you can blow off your visa exipration date, but if you do, your visa is automatically void, and good luck with what happens after that.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

You can blow off parking tickets, but after awhile you will get a knock on the door.

Just like you can blow off your visa exipration date, but if you do, your visa is automatically void, and good luck with what happens after that.

Yup. A friend of mine, a Canadian working in the US, was told that if she didn't leave the country while her access period had lapsed and re-enter when her new visa came through, then good luck ever working there again.

[the chi]

Awesome.

[Homeslice]

Pretty much.

I'll have to dig up that jpeg of the protesters with "This is OUR land" and "Go home, Gringo Invaders!" signs.

[Papa_Complex]

Pauldun170, I stick with my original statement. I think that it would be a reasonable accommodation to state that the parents must actually be in the country legally for the 14th Amendment to apply. This has nothing to do with 'criminal' vs. 'civil' (which is nothing of the sort anyway).

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Pauldun170, I stick with my original statement. I think that it would be a reasonable accommodation to state that the parents must actually be in the country legally for the 14th Amendment to apply. This has nothing to do with 'criminal' vs. 'civil' (which is nothing of the sort anyway).

"Any person"
That's the key phrase and whether you take the literal definition or massage it with context (intent and purpose of the 14th) it is clear that someone here illegally has right to due process.

Lets say we were to get a sympathetic supreme court to say that Bill of Rights are not extended to unlawful residents. We eliminate all due process to those found in the country illegally.

A state is no longer under constitutional obligation to apply the rule of law to those found to be unlawfully residing within the state.
Are you supportive of a state being able to do whatever it sees fit with those people?

Lets say that they weaken the 14th amendment and one state (State A) declares all illegals guilty of a state felony while another state (state B) declares that it is under no obligation to honor federal immigration code and extends state citizenship to all who establish residency. In effect, all residents of a state are automatic citizens of the United states simply by establishing residency in that state.
An individual is charged in one state as an illegal and therefore guilty of a felony. The person escapes to the state offering residency and citizenship.

Is state B obligated to extradite that person to state A? does the state the follows the amendment to the letter and has a responsibility to honor the individuals due process send the person to a state that says it will not extend due process?

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Pauldun170, I stick with my original statement. I think that it would be a reasonable accommodation to state that the parents must actually be in the country legally for the 14th Amendment to apply. This has nothing to do with 'criminal' vs. 'civil' (which is nothing of the sort anyway).

The sticky point is that the child IS in the US legally and as a citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law.
Putting the law to the side, what is the benefit to society to make this child a ward of the state?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

The sticky point is that the child IS in the US legally and as a citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law.
Putting the law to the side, what is the benefit to society to make this child a ward of the state?

Actually that's the question, which you're assuming an answer to. Again, as I said, I believe that it would be a reasonable accommodation to state that the parents must be in the country legally, for the child to obtain citizenship. Due to the many and sundry rights and privileges attendant to citizenship, I also believe that this should be a reverse onus situation (the parents must demonstrate that they were, in fact, in the country legally).

If this would require a Constitutional Amendment, then so be it. If it could be managed by Supreme Court judgment, as to intent of the 14th Amendment, then all the better.

I do believe that Constitutional protections regarding due process should apply to foreign nationals while within the United States, but that doesn't mean that the results of such exercises of due process should automatically be favourable to them.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Actually that's the question, which you're assuming an answer to. Again, as I said, I believe that it would be a reasonable accommodation to state that the parents must be in the country legally, for the child to obtain citizenship. Due to the many and sundry rights and privileges attendant to citizenship, I also believe that this should be a reverse onus situation (the parents must demonstrate that they were, in fact, in the country legally).

If this would require a Constitutional Amendment, then so be it. If it could be managed by Supreme Court judgment, as to intent of the 14th Amendment, then all the better.

I do believe that Constitutional protections regarding due process should apply to foreign nationals while within the United States, but that doesn't mean that the results of such exercises of due process should automatically be favourable to them.

I personally do not think the Constitution should be changed and that there should not be a test for those born here to attain citizenship.

I see no reason not to criminalize unlawful status but I prefer that it remain a procedural issue.
I'm fine with machine gun armed, alligator filled moats on the border and trained killer sharks patrolling our waters.
"Anchor babies" appears to be a bullshit term based on a misconception that having a child ensures illeagals can stay inthe country when it according to the info I found, during hearings a child is not given as much weight as people think during evaluation for deportation.

I believe that anyone born here should be auto citizened. that does not mean that i believe the child should be seperated from it parents. I think it is both reasonable and constitutional to deport the child with the parents NOT because it is a "dirty Mexican Anchor baby" but because the child belongs with its parents. Post deportation, that child, as an American citizen is welcome back to enjoy their birth right at anytime.