Constitution Smonstitution

Filed in National by on June 14, 2010

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they’re on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona – and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution – to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone’s immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists – things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?)

But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential “anchor baby” bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the “anchor” and leave.

Hey, why not make a law that denies citizenship to the children of business owners who employ illegal immigrants?

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (10)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. I doubt this would ever get implemented since it’s unconstitutional. That doesn’t mean they won’t try, though.

  2. anonone says:

    Just wait until one of those kid grows up and runs for President! Birther redux on steroids!

  3. Hmmm…let’s say this does pass. Will the “liberal” judges who vote to overturn it be classified as “judicial activists” for, umm, following the letter of the Constitution as the Founders wrote it? Hmmm…fascinating. There’s a real case study with these teabagging right-wingers.

  4. Phil says:

    Eh, what they should pass is to deport the parents, and allow the children to stay in foster care, or they can go with them.

  5. jason330 says:

    Mass deportation and expanded foster care – but no new taxes. Brilliant!!

  6. Phil says:

    I thought you were all about welfare and healthcare for all anyway?

  7. anon says:

    Eh, what they should pass is to deport the parents, and allow the children to stay in foster care, or they can go with them.

    Now there’s some Republican family values for you.

  8. Phil says:

    well, any “respectable” parent would take their child with them.

    Wait, I have a better idea. All you people that think we’re too hard on illegals can put them up in your home. You can support their healthcare, and increase your school and property taxes to take care of them.

  9. pandora says:

    Notice how little the Constitution means to Phil.

  10. Phil says:

    how is that unconstitutional? There are no benefits for illegals in the constitution, only citizens. Giving birth is not a free pass for yourself.

    Pandora, I would like an explanation. How does the constitution mean little to me, when I basically agreed with you. That law would not be constitutional. My idea on the other hand would be, considering the citizens (children) would be receiving the care and benefits of the US.

    Honestly, I would like to know your thought process behind that. No offense taken if you didn’t even think about my posts, and it was just a “left wing” auto response.