Tags : :
I agree with Pearce. He's absolutely right. The 14th Amendment is being hijacked by the illegals AND being misconstrued by guess who - the DOJ and its minions. No surprise there, huh? They actually support this upended thinking.
Lawyers don't know everything (or should that be anything) about "constitutional law" if they really want to support the idea of anchor babies. Until the parents are citizens, the kids shouldn't be either. What is so hard to figure out about that? I always wondered what made this "constitutional". Just because the woman, here illegally herself, is on American soil when she gives birth?? What the hell kind of logic is that? It's only geographic. What if she gave birth on a plane in mid-air over, say, Italy. Does that make the baby Italian? Now THERE'S your stretch.
And no wonder our dole roll is huge---and growing daily. My Lord.
===========================
Opponents attack Arizona state senator’s proposal to crackdown on illegal immigrants’ ‘anchor babies’
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller | Published: 06/15/10 at 1:14 AM | Updated: 06/15/10 at 1:23 PM
The lead sponsor of Arizona’s tough immigration law passed in April said he will pursue a new law that would restrict children of illegal immigrants born in the United States from obtaining citizenship — and his opposition is taking notice.
“I intend 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,” wrote Arizona Republican Sen. Russell Pearce in an e-mail to supporters in April. Pearce proposed similar bills restricting the practice in Arizona twice before, but both attempts were voted down in the Arizona House of Representatives.
Although the fresh attempt would not reach the Arizona Senate floor for months, opponents of Pearce’s policy said they are ready to fight it from the start and are not taking any chances. [MINE: IOW, they know it's the right type of legislation, but they're gonna fight it anyway. Good one, doods. How much of your tax money are you handing over for these anchor babies, not to mention the parents who are most likely STILL here illegally?? Christ on a crutch.]
“We will definitely challenge if it does get passed,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona. “It is clearly unconstitutional, discriminatory and it fuels this anti-immigrant agenda. That really is not what our state needs now,” she said. [MINE: Oh well, ACLU -- that explains everything.]
Pearce, who has introduced more than 80 immigration bills to the Arizona House and Senate since 2005, reiterated his ambition to push a new state immigration bill last week in an interview with Time magazine. Referring to children born of illegal immigrants as “anchor babies,” he said that those in the country without legal status had “hijacked” the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to those born within the borders of the United States.
Pearce has been a long-time critic of the modern interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. His website, RussellPearce.com, contains an entire section on the issue in which he makes the case for why the original authors of the amendment never would have extended the right to illegal immigrants.
“The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified,” Pearce’s website reads. “Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which [the Fourteenth Amendment] was ratified.”
But that’s a real stretch, legal experts said, and it will be difficult for drafters of a bill to write it in a way that does not run afoul of the Constitution. [MINE: What is a "legal expert" anyway? A lawyer with a sense of direction pointing toward the idiocy of their profession? Don't like a law the way it's written? Just twist the words a bit and viola -- new precedent. Right or wrong doesn't seem to matter. These jerky lawyers all act as though they were THERE when the consitution (and it's Amendments) were drafted and know exactly what was intended. ]
Tucson immigration attorney John Messing said that although the proposal is still in the theoretical stages, he was skeptical that anyone could write a law like the one Pearse proposed that would not run into problems with the Fourteenth Amendment. [MINE: The 14th Amendment is being hijacked, just as Pearce says it is. It's as plain as a nose on a face. But, what the heck. Who cares, huh? Just write your own version and the DOJ will accept it unconditionally. Geez guys.]
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/15/opponents-attack-arizona-state-senators-proposal-to-crack-down-on-illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies/#ixzz0qx5gnOvy
Lawyers don't know everything (or should that be anything) about "constitutional law" if they really want to support the idea of anchor babies. Until the parents are citizens, the kids shouldn't be either. What is so hard to figure out about that? I always wondered what made this "constitutional". Just because the woman, here illegally herself, is on American soil when she gives birth?? What the hell kind of logic is that? It's only geographic. What if she gave birth on a plane in mid-air over, say, Italy. Does that make the baby Italian? Now THERE'S your stretch.
And no wonder our dole roll is huge---and growing daily. My Lord.
===========================
Opponents attack Arizona state senator’s proposal to crackdown on illegal immigrants’ ‘anchor babies’
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller | Published: 06/15/10 at 1:14 AM | Updated: 06/15/10 at 1:23 PM
The lead sponsor of Arizona’s tough immigration law passed in April said he will pursue a new law that would restrict children of illegal immigrants born in the United States from obtaining citizenship — and his opposition is taking notice.
“I intend 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,” wrote Arizona Republican Sen. Russell Pearce in an e-mail to supporters in April. Pearce proposed similar bills restricting the practice in Arizona twice before, but both attempts were voted down in the Arizona House of Representatives.
Although the fresh attempt would not reach the Arizona Senate floor for months, opponents of Pearce’s policy said they are ready to fight it from the start and are not taking any chances. [MINE: IOW, they know it's the right type of legislation, but they're gonna fight it anyway. Good one, doods. How much of your tax money are you handing over for these anchor babies, not to mention the parents who are most likely STILL here illegally?? Christ on a crutch.]
“We will definitely challenge if it does get passed,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona. “It is clearly unconstitutional, discriminatory and it fuels this anti-immigrant agenda. That really is not what our state needs now,” she said. [MINE: Oh well, ACLU -- that explains everything.]
Pearce, who has introduced more than 80 immigration bills to the Arizona House and Senate since 2005, reiterated his ambition to push a new state immigration bill last week in an interview with Time magazine. Referring to children born of illegal immigrants as “anchor babies,” he said that those in the country without legal status had “hijacked” the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to those born within the borders of the United States.
Pearce has been a long-time critic of the modern interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. His website, RussellPearce.com, contains an entire section on the issue in which he makes the case for why the original authors of the amendment never would have extended the right to illegal immigrants.
“The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified,” Pearce’s website reads. “Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which [the Fourteenth Amendment] was ratified.”
But that’s a real stretch, legal experts said, and it will be difficult for drafters of a bill to write it in a way that does not run afoul of the Constitution. [MINE: What is a "legal expert" anyway? A lawyer with a sense of direction pointing toward the idiocy of their profession? Don't like a law the way it's written? Just twist the words a bit and viola -- new precedent. Right or wrong doesn't seem to matter. These jerky lawyers all act as though they were THERE when the consitution (and it's Amendments) were drafted and know exactly what was intended. ]
Tucson immigration attorney John Messing said that although the proposal is still in the theoretical stages, he was skeptical that anyone could write a law like the one Pearse proposed that would not run into problems with the Fourteenth Amendment. [MINE: The 14th Amendment is being hijacked, just as Pearce says it is. It's as plain as a nose on a face. But, what the heck. Who cares, huh? Just write your own version and the DOJ will accept it unconditionally. Geez guys.]
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/15/opponents-attack-arizona-state-senators-proposal-to-crack-down-on-illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies/#ixzz0qx5gnOvy


Shoot for the Moon. Even if you miss, you'll land amongst the stars. - Anonymous