[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

These Are The Most Stolen Cars In Every US State

Earth Changes Summary - June 2025: Extreme Weather, Planetary Upheaval,

China’s Tofu-Dreg High-Speed Rail Station Ceiling Suddenly Floods, Steel Bars Snap

Russia Moves to Nationalize Country's Third Largest Gold Mining Firm

Britain must prepare for civil war | David Betz

The New MAGA Turf War Over National Intelligence

Happy fourth of july

The Empire Has Accidentally Caused The Rebirth Of Real Counterculture In The West

Workers install 'Alligator Alcatraz' sign for Florida immigration detention center

The Biggest Financial Collapse in China’s History Is Here, More Terrifying Than Evergrande!

Lightning

Cash Jordan NYC Courthouse EMPTIED... ICE Deports 'Entire Building

Trump Sparks Domestic Labor Renaissance: Native-Born Workers Surge To Record High As Foreign-Born Plunge

Mister Roberts (1965)

WE BROKE HIM!! [Early weekend BS/nonsense thread]

I'm going to send DOGE after Elon." -Trump

This is the America I grew up in. We need to bring it back

MD State Employee may get Arrested by Sheriff for reporting an Illegal Alien to ICE

RFK Jr: DTaP vaccine was found to have link to Autism

FBI Agents found that the Chinese manufactured fake driver’s licenses and shipped them to the U.S. to help Biden...

Love & Real Estate: China’s new romance scam

Huge Democrat shift against Israel stuns CNN

McCarthy Was Right. They Lied About Everything.

How Romans Built Domes

My 7 day suspension on X was lifted today.

They Just Revealed EVERYTHING... [Project 2029]

Trump ACCUSED Of MASS EXECUTING Illegals By DUMPING Them In The Ocean

The Siege (1998)

Trump Admin To BAN Pride Rainbow Crosswalks, DoT Orders ALL Distractions REMOVED

Elon Musk Backing Thomas Massie Against Trump-AIPAC Challenger


Immigration
See other Immigration Articles

Title: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100 ... RzZWMDeW5fbW9zdF9wb3B1bGFyBHNs
Published: May 22, 2010
Author: Liz Goodwin
Post Date: 2010-05-22 13:44:45 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 859
Comments: 68

The author of Arizona's immigration law, state Sen. Russell Pearce, told constituents he wants to pass another measure to invalidate citizenship granted to the children of illegal aliens.

Pearce wrote that he plans to "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," in an email obtained by Phoenix CBS affiliate KPHO.

Pearce also forwarded an email from another correspondent expanding on the proposal — which he later told KPHO he didn't agree with. "If we are going to have an effect on the anchor baby racket, we need to target the mother. Call it sexist, but that's the way nature made it. Men don't drop anchor babies, illegal alien mothers do," the email said.

Pearce did tell the CBS affiliate, however, that he didn't see anything wrong with using the term "anchor baby" to refer to natural-born U.S. citizens.

Last year, 92 Congressmen sponsored a bill that would change the 14th Amendment so that children of illegal aliens born in the United States would not be granted citizenship. The bill is still in committee.

Last month, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California told a tea party rally he would support deporting children of illegal aliens, even if they are citizens.

"And we're not being mean. We're just saying it takes more than walking across the border to become an American citizen," he said. "It's what's in our souls."

His spokesman later sought to clarify the remarks with the Associated Press, saying that Duncan believes that "U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants should stay with their parents unless there is a legal guardian who could take care of them."

— Liz Goodwin is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 33.

#5. To: Horse (#0)

The author of Arizona's immigration law, state Sen. Russell Pearce, told constituents he wants to pass another measure to invalidate citizenship granted to the children of illegal aliens.

I disagree for two reasons:

1. The government should never be given the authority to determine citizenship. Not EVER, NEVER, NOT AT ANY TIME. PERIOD.

2. Regardless of how I feel about illegal aliens, I want them gone yesterday, nevertheless if you were born on free soil you are a free person and by right of birth. The founding fathers well knew what they were doing. To do it any other way is to grant government authority which it should NEVER have. That does not mean that I would grant their illegal parents the right to stay because of that birthright. Book'em and deport'em.

Original_Intent  posted on  2010-05-22   15:54:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Original_Intent, Horse, Lod, Jethro Tull, abraxas, noone222, Esso, buckeroo (#5)

2. Regardless of how I feel about illegal aliens, I want them gone yesterday, nevertheless if you were born on free soil you are a free person and by right of birth. The founding fathers well knew what they were doing. To do it any other way is to grant government authority which it should NEVER have. That does not mean that I would grant their illegal parents the right to stay because of that birthright. Book'em and deport'em.

I must beg to disagree on this one. (I know, disagreeing with you is rare for me)

It was never the intent of the founding fathers or the 14th Amendment to allow children of illegals to be citizens. Just like diplomats, children of illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US and should not be citizens. The change came with the '65 Immigration Act.

Anchor Babies

Anchor Babies: Is Citizenship an Entitled Birthright?

Anchor Babies: Part of the Immigration-Related American Lexicon

The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster

farmfriend  posted on  2010-05-22   16:07:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: farmfriend, Original_Intent, Horse, Lod, Jethro Tull, abraxas, noone222, Esso (#6)

The founding fathers well knew what they were doing. To do it any other way is to grant government authority which it should NEVER have. -- Original_Intent (suggesting the framework of the US permitted undocumented aliens to be here)

Original_Intent doesn't know what an illegal alien is. He thinks they are happy, go-lucky people willing to clean our toilets and mow our lawns and wash our dishes. He doesn't know about the trash they bring, nor the social problems much less the economic strain on the economy as they lower the over-all quality of life and bring down the structure of America.

Original_Intent has NEVER looked into his post other than thinking he was a wise Internet chit-chat poster.

buckeroo  posted on  2010-05-22   16:35:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: buckeroo, Original_Intent, Horse, Lod, Jethro Tull, abraxas, noone222, Esso (#8)

Original_Intent doesn't know what an illegal alien is. He thinks they are happy, go-lucky people willing to clean our toilets and mow our lawns and wash our dishes. He doesn't know about the trash they bring, nor the social problems much less the economic strain on the economy as they lower the over-all quality of life and bring down the structure of America.

Original_Intent has NEVER looked into his post other than thinking he was a wise Internet chit-chat poster.

Ok, now I'm going to have to disagree with you. I'll just be Miss Disagree today.

I don't get that from O_I at all. I think for him, and he is welcome to say if I am reading him wrong, the issue is not about the aliens themselves. I think he would agree with your assessment of them. No he is dealing with the Constitutionality of the issue. That is paramount in his opinion. We all sit here and complain about this issue or that and what we see the most is the Constitution being used for issues we disagree with and being ignored when it come to our own pet peeve. I think O_I is trying to stay true to the Constitution regardless of the issue. You'll note that my disagreement with him came not from the good or bad of the aliens themselves but whether it is constitutional for them to claim or be granted citizenship.

farmfriend  posted on  2010-05-22   17:23:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: farmfriend, buckeroo, Horse, Lod, Jethro Tull, abraxas, noone222, Esso (#10)

I think he would agree with your assessment of them. No he is dealing with the Constitutionality of the issue. That is paramount in his opinion.

Exactly. One of the points in having a Constitution, and making it difficult to change, is to establish basic principles of free and just governance which are binding above all else upon the government.

Illegal Aliens are a problem, and their presence is resulting in a good many ills within our Republic. There are existing statutes, which are not being enforced, which would deal with that problem were there not a hidden agenda at play undermining the Republic. However, the other issue is that the Constitution is is a limit upon government and when you ease those limits you provide room for mischief.

Original_Intent  posted on  2010-05-22   19:05:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Original_Intent (#21)

One of the problems with the jackasses in the Supreme Court is that, even though they are agreeing with some idiot ruling by the lower courts instead of just saying "It's all good" and letting it go at that, they think they have to write novel-length opinions.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-05-22   21:46:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 33.

#38. To: James Deffenbach (#33)

One of the problems with the jackasses in the Supreme Court is that, even though they are agreeing with some idiot ruling by the lower courts instead of just saying "It's all good" and letting it go at that, they think they have to write novel-length opinions.

That's the truth. And often they rule based "on precedent" and "stare decisis" (let stand) and there is no Constitutional authority for them to do that. The arbiter is the text of the written Constitution - not what someone else says it means.

Original_Intent  posted on  2010-05-22 22:42:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 33.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]