(CNN) -- A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents.

The bill comes on the heels of Arizona passing the nation's toughest immigration law.

John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.

Under federal law, children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' residency status.

Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative, strongly opposes the bill.

"Unlike (Senate Bill) 1070, it is clear this bill runs immediately afoul of the U.S. Constitution," she said.

"While I understand that folks in Arizona and across the country support S.B. 1070, they do so because we have seen no action from the federal government," said Sinema. "Unfortunately, the so-called 'anchor baby' bill does nothing to solve the real problems we are facing in Arizona."

Arizona Republicans are expected to introduce the legislation this fall.

If nothing else, the proposed law would stir up controversy. Maybe someday the feds will start doing their job.

No, I doubt it. It is said that Democrats want illegals here because they want the votes but they don't want them to work. The Republicans want them here to work but they don't want them to vote.

Unfortunately, the problem is greed for cheap labor - and not just big businesses. We citizens want cheap labor even when we hire contractors (who hire illegals). All of us are to blame. If there were no jobs they would not come.

Edit: I live in Northern California. Go to any car wash. Who is working there? Who is washing dishes at the restaurants? Who do contractors hire for temp labor when they work on your home? Who is working in our fields picking our fruit and vegetables? Who are our janitorial services in Silicon Valley tech companies? Who are the gardeners for these companies? I see this daily.

How many of these have Green Cards? I cannot answer this with more than a hunch.

I do not blame the people who come here trying to improve their lives.

Think about this also. Those that hire these people, are social security taxes paid? income taxes? is it under the table? do the employers contribute to workman compensation? if a worker gets injured, is he just dropped off at Valley Medical Center in San Jose (county hospital - not private) to be treated in the emergency room? Do all of these illegals even get minimum wage (whatever is less between state and federal)?

The problem is our greed. Until we can say as a people that we want to pay the price for what things should cost, we will have this problem.

The fence is a joke, it is climbable with a 6 foot ladder. Tunnels can be dug underneath. The federal response is a waste of money. The will never address the real issues of this problem - but Arizona is not either. For the most part we have demagoguery and scapegoating. Point the finger at the perceived problem - Mexicans - rather than point the finger where it really belongs - ourselves.

You DO realise it's against the law, right? It doesn't matter if you propose it, support it or oppose it, it is illegal.

What part of "Supreme Law" does this ridiculous Kavanagh alleged person not understand, and why didn't he learn at a very early age from both his parents and school teachers how to amend the Supreme Law of the United States? Hell, *I* know that. There are probably Yurpeens who know that. I know many Asians who know that.

I propose this guy have his US citizenship taken away. Oh wait, that would be illegal, probably. No, not probably, it WOULD be illegal, because he was born in New York City, which was in the United States at the time of his birth. No matter how stupid and unpatriotic and uneducated he is, you can't take away his US citizenship. Too bad, really.

.

well actually you could. The 14th amendment has been pontificated and examined since before it's ratification but it is only since 2006:

"As of 2006, United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines ten categories of person who are United States citizens from birth. According to that law the following acquire citizenship by jus soli:
"a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
"a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
"a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States"
"a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person"

But prior to that:

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof

During discussion of whether to pass the 14th Amendment, there was debate over granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States. The author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob M. Howard, stated, in reference to the Amendment, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."[2]
In 1873, The United States Attorney General ruled the word "jurisdiction" under the 14th Amendment meant:
"The word 'jurisdiction' must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them."[4]
The Citizens Act of 1924 (codified in 8USCS 1401) lists two separate categories of people born in the United States as citizens (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; ( a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe."

So, the Supreme Court has not weighed in on this issue and the statute could change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_ci...ates_of_America

But even in my youth I "understood" that citizenship was a guarantee if born here.

This can be traced to:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (May 2010)
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who
is born in the United States
of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Although any language in Wong Kim Ark that suggests the Court's opinion and rationale could be expanded to include the children of illegal immigrants would be mere dicta as Wong's parents were in the country legally.[28] Children born to foreign diplomats or, hypothetically, to hostile enemy forces or born on U.S. territory while it is under the control of a foreign power, are not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore are not citizens at birth.[29] The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[30]
The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[31] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[28] When accorded automatic birthright citizenship based on birth on American soil, a newborn's status is generally unaffected by the legal status or citizenship of that individual's mother or father.

My point is that until the Supreme Court deals with the issue there is some ambiguity concerning illegals that was not lost on Congress and the President in 2006.

Everyone including criminals is subject to the jurisdiction EXCEPT those specifically and individually exempted. I can't think of any except foreign diplomats but illegal aliens are most certainly subject to the jurisdiction, that is the entire premise of your argument. Your argument sucks, but this part of it is totally true, that illegals, like you and like me when I'm in the US, are subject to the jurisdiction. Anyone IN the US and not specifically exempted, is subject to it.



Tell it to the aliens and anchor offspring of those dirty foreigners required to sign up for the draft AND get drafted AND die for the USA.

Don't get in a fuss over "jurisdiction" and stop trying to pass illegal laws that supersede the Supreme Law. If you want to get rid of those dirty foreigners, at least have the gumption to do it through the front door. I bet you can't, but at least show some guts and put in for an amendment and make your case in a manly manner.

.

Don't get personal. I was only trying to fairly point out the complexity of the current situation. Obviously you cannot follow an intellectual argument that is not on your terms.

By your tone I can only surmise you would be in favor of another "Final Solution".

Vielen Dank, Herr Goebbels!

It is not even your country for "F" sake.

Sober up and then post again!

I can't see them making it retroactive, but I can it becoming a reality that they stop allowing anchor babies

cheap labor is NOT cheap when the taxpayers are paying to put their kids thru school & give them free breakfast & lunch while they're at school

when they are prego they should get deported IMHO

the problem with your first statement is that:

1. we do not see these costs, they are hidden - and not intentionally

2. the media does the politically correct thing of not digging in to it and telling us - they have their own agenda

the problem with your second statement is:

1. short of gestapo like tactics how could we make it happen?

And please do not take me for a sympathizer of illegal immigrants. I simply point out the difficulties and complexity of the problem.

No matter to what degree Arizona went to eliminate problems with racial profiling in their legislation, for instance, they were excoriated in the media as if they were the second coming of the Third reich.

Just as individuals can become suicidal, the body politic can also. Most empires collapse from within long before external forces relegate them to history.

I definitely didn't. If it seemed to be, I apologise. I have no reason to attack the poster, only the post. Sorry if it seemed otherwise, my fault.



Um.



Er.



hmmm.

Don't get personal?
Don't get PERSONAL?

Good grief.



And not only the media. There is a disconnect between the ruled and the rulers in the US right now that is ugly, including those who only cling to the coattails of the rulers. That isn't to say "overthrow the Constitution" however.



That is a practical question. Who does the identifying and deporting? Even totally ignoring the FACT the ICEman can't find his butt with both hands, how would you go about identifying pregnant foreigners and arranging for their removal?

.

Before you even get to the Wong Kim Ark decision, the proposed Arizona statute is unconstitutional as a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Any state or municipal statute which attempts to set up categories of citizens based on national origin violates the Supremacy Clause, unless it is consistent with federal law. See California proposition 187 and its legal history.

Oh, I absolutely agree with that. My point was only to point out the complexity of the situation we find ourselves in as a nation and to point to some federal legal precedents to show both how long it has been judicially since we dealt with this on a federal level and the last time we dealt with this on a legislative level - federally.

Having said that, any law can be passed by any governing entity ( city, county (parish). state or commenwealth. The state or district federal appeals courts must weigh in per a law suit to challenge this law (or any law). If they beg off, the law is as it is pending other legal challenges. Even then it is not a done deal. Any decision can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court eventually. The Court can let it stand as is by rejecting the petition or agree to consider it.

Any law, not just this one, is not a slam dunk legally!

That was my point.

So, let's say that a pregnant woman is on holiday in the US. Her baby is born there. Do any of you really think the intent of the constitution is that the baby would automatically become a US citizen?

The Mexicans do indeed take advantage of this misinterpreted law. Arizona recognizes this and because the federal government refuses to do its job, Arizona is forced to try to take care of the problems themselves.

I CAN'T get free health care but a pregnant woman who manages to cross the border illegally can.

That's a bit of a canard. Think about it. Illegal immigrants are not entitled to vote. Even if they could fake their ID somehow, voting requires showing up in person, in broad daylight, with a card that says what your name is. It doesn't matter whether that ID is genuine or false, or if the information on it is true or false: it's a massive deportation risk. That's why illegal immigrants don't vote, and don't try to vote.

Now, note that the new AZ law makes it illegal NOT to be carrying ID. Not "no ID? go home and get it", it's "no ID? Off to the hoozgow with you." A recent Slate article suggested this may have been one more Republican effort to keep minorities from voting, akin to the massive vote fraud by Republicans in 2000 and 2004.

It won't solve any arguments, but for those who actually would like to read the Wong decision.

the irony you miss is that Democrats push for a path to citizenship. Illegals if given a path to citizenship take it - as has happened before. The right side of the aisle is against this but caves in.

your second paragraph paragraph - especially your comment about Republicans, which was part of my jest, contradicts other parts of your post.

Please rephrase.

Free medical care is available to anyone who presents themselves to a hospital emergency room where free medical care is required be given by federal law.

BTW if you present yourself as pregnant and found to be so. I guarantee you will receive the best free medical care on the planet plus all the publicity you can handle.

First of all we no longer have the draft but males are required to sign up. BTW men and women who are in the military have special provisions making it much easier to become citizens.

Nice. Every now and then D......

pretty easy, they come to the hospitals for FREE medical care, that's where the authorities are reported too & the deportation begins

Do you deport them before or after she gives birth? BTW what do you do if she needs a C section. Do you wait till you send her to the border before the hospital operates. If the mom dies waiting for the surgery. What do you do with the live birth child or do you let the child die along with the mother?

they would most likely come in for consultation before they are in labor, then it's BOOTIN' time

abortion on the spot is another option, if they want to stay

Well sure, but, I see three major hurdles to your cunning plan........

1- The left won't vote for it because they're for letting them stay anyway.
2- The right won't vote for it because they're against abortion.
3- The middle won't vote for it because it's a stupid plan.

I didn't say it would happen, but it's how to handle it IMHO

3 still applies...............

Is it the intent of the US drugs laws to have medical marijuana? Is it the intent of the printing-money law to cause inflation? Is it the intent of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act to frisk grandmothers at the airport and seize nail clippers?

The intent of a law is here nor there. The intent of a 200-year-old law is LESS than here nor there. There was one main reason for the constitutional amendment, and one only -- and it was a good intention. It was put in the constitution so that people could NOT change it suddenly on some whim. These days there are a dozen or six intentions for that law. So what?



It's not "much easier" or easier at all. It's exactly as difficult. The only difference is that the five years' residency is waived.

That corrected, the FACT is that some people including some posters would deny citizenship to the offspring of members of the US military, including those who have given their lives already and left a pregnant mother behind. And I disagree. Vehemently.



You should have been around in the Carter days, you would have found all those illegal Iranian students he couldn't.

If only it were so easy....

..

No need to rephrase.

First of all, a path to citizenship is one way of returning to the rule of law, which is the problem -- a nation overrun by tens of millions of illegals is endangering the very principle of rule of law. I'm not saying I endorse the approach, but it's one approach. Another is a one-time amnesty accompanied by a new guest-worker visa framework. Let's be honest: Plenty of US citizens depend on Mexican migrant labor, especially the illegal sort.

No idea how you think I contradicted myself. In the 2000 and 2004 elections black voters were intimidated with lies that they would be arrested and imprisoned if they tried to vote while behind on their child support, credit card debt, etc. This is a similar tactic, aimed not at putative "voting illegals" but rather at Hispanic US citizens, who tend to vote Democratic.

yes, I'm sure they would find a way around it once they found out about the deportations
maybe they have a choice to give birth & die or leave the country so they both can live
but that would mean making the death penalty viable for being an illegal immigrant & sapping off the system

This has been done. It was a HUGE success. Then it started all over again. One of the problem with amnesties (plural) is that people look at them and go, "hmmm, there'll be another amnesty" and it is a magnet that attracts illegals.



That's a given and was stated above.



Too much conspiracy there for me. I don't believe for a New York millisecond that the politicians are that smart. However, for that rule of law you refer to, no person in the US need prove that he is in the country legally. NO ONE. It is up to the legal system to PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not. Walking down the street or wandering the malls of America, there is NO legal (rule of law) requirement that I identify myself, let alone get into my background. That *IS* the rule of law.

You want to change that? You want mandatory ID cards and "papers please" anywhere, any time? Well, count me out. And I am *appalled* by illegal immigration and the huge, huge problems it causes to the USA, not to mention Thailand. But I'm still in favour of rule of law.



One of the HUGE errors you're making is assuming that these illegals are somehow isolated. They are not. They have huge networks aiding, abetting or just helping and when I say "network" I don't mean organised, although they also exist. Millions of people help illegal immigrants, for various reasons. They give illegals *real* choices like having their child in a hospital supervised by gestapo paper-checkers, or having it in a very nice clinic with guarantees of no paper checks. For a tiny example.

.

then the aiders & abettors should also be give the death penalty

We have mandatory ID cards now. We have state drivers license. In the past when we had the draft. Men were required to carry their draft card with them. If you don't drive a car. The state will issue a state issued non driver license to show as ID. Personally I think we should have a national ID card that's required to carried at all times.

We need to take control of our border and make it illegal to hire a undocumented worker. Cut off the economic incentive to move here and the problem will diminish. I have no problem with a general amnesty. The vast majority of the people are decent hard working men and women looking to make their way in life.

Not true, I always vote by proxy and anyone else can...

Total Bullocks It is up to the prosecutor to prove that someone is here illegally beyond a reasonable doubt.

Deportation? I'm not so sure the immigration laws are criminal. It may be a civil matter under the jurisdiction of the immigration judges. I guess I should look it up. Anyway, if it's not criminal, the burden of proof would be different.

It's mandatory to drive, now?



Let's try this again.

In the United States, there is no requirement to SHOW ID of any kind when you are walking down the street, browsing the mall, etc. You do not have to have an ID card. You do not have to SHOW any ID. There is no requirement to carry ID.



You go first. Me, I kind of like iceberg lettuce and having fresh fish in the supermarkets.



Exactly. AND it is against the law to just scoop up people on the street in case. You'd need literally millions more ICEmen to have a chance of identifying such people, and of course it is physically impossible to do that, to have enough federal courts, etc etc etc

.

From what I could tell from a quick search, people in the country without proper documentation can be subject to both criminal and civil charges, depending.

Yes, it's against the law to be in the country without proper documentation. It's also against the law for government agents to demand papers. I don't see how to resolve these, so I think you have to work on other angles. That's just me, of course but I have never, literally, seen a workable suggestion on how to deal properly with the "without proper documentation" part. There is NO way to tell an American citizen, a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant apart.

.

If only it were in the hands of politicians unfortunately the US, and plenty of other countries, are no longer run by people who are answerable primarily to the people. Behind the scenes are a whole menagerie of turd blossoms who serve various lobbies, and they're the ones who drive the government agenda. That is why Obama's healthcare system became a trough-feed for the insurance industry, and why the financial oversight bill was completely gutted.

The Republicans' cynical hijacking of the federal election process is extensively documented. See Fooled Again by Mark Crispin Miller.



Yes, which is why the Arizona bill is so outrageous.



You talkin' to me? I'm opposed to the Arizona bill for the reasons I outlined. I also think the US needs to get to grips with illegal immigration because it undermines the rule of law. A guestworker system like the one Germany uses might help. Another possibility is to stop screwing Mexico with farm-bill protectionism so decent jobs will be available south of the Rio Grande.

Dave Buczek:
Yes, but you need to supply a name and address. If you're an illegal, that's a big COME AND DEPORT ME. Not gonna happen.
Which is why, despite the alleged problems with illegal aliens voting, not a single one has been arrested on such charges.

Oops double posty-poo

Well, if they somehow end up in jail, then the authorities will surely want to know who they are. If nobody ever had to show papers, how in the world do they ever deport anyone? I think the problems come in when they stop people without probable cause, which is why the AZ law is causing such a stink. It may give the officers "probable cause" based on whatever they think an illegal alien looks like.

But it is permissible to require people to identify themselves to police:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Six...Court_of_Nevada

but you are correct, no state requires people to carry id for purely identification purposes.

But everything will be ok for hispanics in Port Chester, N.Y.

They get to vote early and often thanks to the judiciary:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_...rights_election

I really do find it very strange & wonder about peoples intelligence when they start to blame the poor guy that does the shit jobs that nobody else will do .
For the collapse of their standard of living. Has a toilet cleaner become that strong as to bring down the USA ?
When the powers that be start all this blame the minority shite it is usually a diversion so that they can sneek some shit policy through or they can dip the till a little bit more.
The Germans fell for the minority shite before WW2 . Why do people not see when they are being manipulated . VERY STRANGE

Don't forget the immigration checkpoints. Inside the US border but apparently still within the jurisdiction of the Border Patrol. They have them on I-5 in between San Diego and LA, and also on I-8 or I-10, going west. They can stop whoever they want and ask for ID. I guess they're there to weed out the illegals.

"I guess they're there to weed out the illegals. "

yeah, sterling job those cunts are doing

they should use flamethrowers on those fuckers when they catch them, that would cut down on the amount of illegals that want to come in


do you know why there's no Mexican team in the Olympics ?

cause any of those fuckers who can run, jump, swim, or dig is in North America already

You are right, of course, on both points. The US, like most Countries gives prosecutors great leeway on simply deporting somebody illegally in their country, or charging them with a crime. Thailand does this all the time.

Two different problems, and they are not necessarily related. To me, it's pretty simple to resolve. To get a job, you already have to give documentation that you are legally able to work by showing a social security card, identification and maybe other documentation.

If the Government would issue tamper proof Social Security identification and make available a way on line to check these, employers could then verify if somebody is legally able to work. Then they could make it very expensive via fines and penalty's to those that do not do so. It is a crime NOW to hire a illegal.

No jobs - They all go back to their home country.

Dammit-I was tricked! I enlisted because I quit college and lost my 2-S deferment and my lottery number was low.................

That's a fair/cheap price to pay IMO.Feckin' baby factories.