Apparently, the new Arizona immigration law isn't good enough. Neither is the United States Constitution.
Russell Pearce, a state Senator from Arizona, is introducing legislation to make all children of illegal immigrants, born here in the United States, also illegal and deny them citizenship. Mr. Pearce must be unaware of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which states:
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.
Seems pretty clear to me. Of course, I'm not in the Cult.
"It's been hijacked and abused," Pearce said. "There is no provision in the 14th Amendment for the declaration of citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens."
I'm wondering what version of English he speaks. Must be the "Fuck You, Spic" version.
I'm also wondering exactly what Mr. Pearce envisions as being an acceptable way to deny citizenship to babies and children. Under the new immigration law he voted for, doesn't that mean they would be deported along with their parents? I can see it now...images of brown people being put on trains and herded out of the country because of the "Papers Please" law. But shit, though. I can't compare them to....that time in world history, can I? Nah, no similarities whatsoever...
Many folks would say that Pearce is dreaming if he can pass this law. Fifteen years ago I might have agreed with them. But with the power of the Cult, things have changed. The BP oil spill, for example, is now the fault of our fascist/socialist/leader Barack Obama. And he should apologize to the warm and golden corporation for ever questioning anything they are doing.
So, Pearce has an excellent chance of passing this law regardless of what the Constitution says. After all, rules need not apply.
11 comments:
Of course the oil spill isn't Obamas fault.
The shitty federal response he claims to be in charge of IS his fault though.
Of course it seems clear to you, but you aren't really a great reader of the constitution. Which has been shown over and over and over and.......
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.
Let's just deal with this sentence. Arguments? No? Good.
This was a post-reconstruction amendment, designed to overrule the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 stated the same, but may not have been constitutional if challenged. Protections were needed for the former slave population, especially from state laws that sought to legally bind the negroes back to a de facto condition of slavehood.
Good so far? Any arguments? I just made that up, so feel free to challenge me.
Just to ensure I was up to my standard level of rhetoric, I re-read US vs Wong Kim Ark & Plyler vs Doe.
As much as I would like to reform the "anchor baby" laws. The 14th amendment, as currently interpreted by SCOTUS, most certainly applies to illegal immigrants. It's easy to say "I don't like it", but the ramifications of saying they have NO rights opens up a large can of worms. No rights? Go ahead, rape, murder, torture them. You can't be punished because they have no human rights.
Obviously that isn't the answer.
The majority opinion in Plyler vs Doe said that it was smarter for Texas to stop illegals by preventing their illegal employment.
I agree. Perhaps these United States could even try to prevent them from getting into the country.
But, although you wrap your farcical "Cult" argument in tripe and ludicrous vitriol, the fact remains that the law is what it is. The 14th amendment may have been intended to apply to former slaves, but the gaps it left unanswered are being filled today by illegal immigrants. That's just the way it was written. If we want to change it, we'll have to change the 14th amendment.
dw
Markadelphia, I'm going to bury you just like I did that Cliff Barnes fellow. Dusty Farlow knows what I am talking about too.
On a completely different topic, who would have thought (formerly Communist) Russia would be talking like this?
http://www.tehrantimes.com/PDF/10899/10899-4.pdf
Why does this sound like the exact opposite of the current US economic policy? Both Presidents claim their version is the way to go. Guess time will show us who wins...
dw
US Constitution, Article IX, Section 4:
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion..."
I guess when the Democrats in Congress gave Felipe Calderon a standing ovation, proudly showing their open refusal to do their duty under the Constitution, they must have been speaking the "Fuck everyone stupid enough to obey the law" version of English.
But of course, if you can find one Republican whose decisions might not be upheld by the courts, "they don't like laws."
Seems pretty clear to me. Of course, I'm not in the Cult.
Of course it does, because you know more about the Constitution than James Madison, who said:
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
In 1884, the Supreme Court, in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, ruled that Indian tribes were exempt from the guarantees of the 14th Amendment because they were independent political powers with "no allegiance" to the United States.
Are you contending that illegal immigrants have allegiance to the US?
In 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, the Supreme Court held that those born to foreigners who were here "lawfully," and were not employed in a diplomatic position, were considered to be citizens.
Even you aren't stupid enough to contend that they are here lawfully, are you?
So... it appears that your entire premise, that this is in direct contravention of the US Constitution, is horseshit. For one, the vast majority of your party's elected officials openly refuse their own Constitutional duties and the majority of their party (including you) praises them for it. For another, the Supreme Court has clarified the application of that Amendment, so as to exclude those who deliberately break the law in order to take advantage of it.
No, your only legal leg to stand on is this:
In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, the Supreme Court ruled that illegal immigrants are within the 'jurisdiction of the states they reside.' A footnote to their ruling stated that, "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."
In other words, they deliberately failed to heed the words of Madison (as you have, Mr. History Teacher) and deliberately ignored the decisions of Supreme Courts before them.
So your entire argument is "the latest Court was right, the previous Courts and the author of the Constitution himself were wrong". And so far as I can tell, your only reason for that is "because I said so." Doubtless Madison and the earlier Supremes were all racist homophobic tea partiers.
This makes even less sense when put in the context of the speaker. You don't think there should be any immigration laws at all, that gun runners, pimps, slavers, drug lords, gangsters, terrorists, mad bombers, whoever, should be allowed to cross the border whenever they like with no scrutiny at all.
I guess that means you speak the "Fuck You, America" version of English.
So you think illegal immigration is okay?
Mark, do you still think that keeping drug dealers out of this country is not necessary?
Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Article IV though, not IX.
I submit a change to my post, and restate my last sentence:
If we want to change it, we'll have to change the way the SCOTUS interprets the 14th amendment.
Unfortunately, allowing a "living" constitution goes against what I stand for. The process to amend is there for a reason. When the ultimate law of these United States rests only on the beliefs of five people, the bedrock of the nation turns a bit sandy.
dw
Thinking about what you wrote Anon, and it has me day-dreaming of a constitutional challenge to the specific 'citizenship by birth' clause. The Plyler V Doe case wouldn't be applicable if the specific challenge was to instantaneous birthplace given status. Now. Who could challenge the decision as a 'legally harmed defendant'? Who would be allowed to show a legal standing for the accusation? It would have to be the parents of the baby that was just born on US soil. The claim would have to be that the child was NOT a US citizen.
Thoughts on that?
dw
Who could challenge the decision as a 'legally harmed defendant'? Who would be allowed to show a legal standing for the accusation? It would have to be the parents of the baby that was just born on US soil. The claim would have to be that the child was NOT a US citizen.
The only instance I can imagine of this happening would be someone who was subject to criminal punishment in the US, but would be subject to a much lesser punishment (or none at all) for the same action if he were in his home country.
I would say that the situation needed would never happen.
If a foreign mother gave birth in the US; say during a business trip or vacation or whatever; with no intention of her child being a US citizen, does she HAVE to accept citizenship for the baby? I honestly don't know, but I have to assume she does not.
If my assumption is correct, then the only people claiming birthright citizenship are the people that have something to gain. Why would they subsequently challenge that status?
Time for a long overdue constitutional convention.
dw
oops, sorry to leave you out of that conversation Mark. The grown ups had to talk about something for a moment.
You were saying something about the dirty brown people... or something...
dw
Post a Comment