B
Burmonster
Guest
...to eliminate "anchor babies".
http://www.kpho.com/news/23623047/detail.html
Lettuce Discus
http://www.kpho.com/news/23623047/detail.html
Lettuce Discus
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sen. Pearce of AZ plans on expanding immigration bill he wrote..
S
seventh circle
Guest
That is even more unconstitutional then the previous law.
D
Desert Eagle
Guest
About fucking time!
But it'll never work. The Federal Constitution is overriding here, and because it is unclear (in my opinion) as to the legal status of "an illegal cunt who spreads her legs and squirts out a baby on US soil", I don't think this bill will succeed.
But it'll never work. The Federal Constitution is overriding here, and because it is unclear (in my opinion) as to the legal status of "an illegal cunt who spreads her legs and squirts out a baby on US soil", I don't think this bill will succeed.
B
buttslut
Guest
Arizona is right on target and should keep going.
O
Ozmar
Guest
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14
This bill would be struck down if ever it were to pass.
This bill would be struck down if ever it were to pass.
1
1979TA
Guest
Jus Soli > Pearce
T
tom37211
Guest
I applaud this man 100%!
O
Ozmar
Guest
For what, proposing a law that is unconstitutional, and will be struck down?
S
seventh circle
Guest
Not to mention that they trying to create foreign policy.
T
Tzuma
Guest
This is my concern as well. Im glad he's making the attempt either way.
Ill be curious to see more details why he believes its constitutional as the 14th amendment is not specific. I have a feeling his argument is somewhere along the lines of the 14th amendment protects citizens only, and thus, cannot be used as constitutional shelter for those not here legally.
It would get tricky from there, as there is some prior precedence. In Landon v. Plasencia (which was about due process of a resident alient), it was ruled that a resident alien was entitled to constitutional protection once that person develops permenent residence ties to the place they reside (live). So, if an anchor baby is literally born in short order after crossing illegally - before said ties could be made, he could have an argument.
Link
Excerpt
Congress has exclusive authority to establish immigration laws and procedures. 1 This authority is limited, however, by the constitutional rights of resident aliens. 2 An alien attempting to enter the United States for the first time has no constitutional rights and thus may be excluded 3 on any ground and by any procedure the legislature deems appropriate. 4 Once an alien has been admitted into the United States, 5 however, his or her status under the Constitution changes significantly. 6 When expelling a permanent resident alien, 7 the government must afford the alien many constitutional protections, including procedural due process. 8 Deportation proceedings for resident aliens have been developed by Congress in conformance with these constitutional protections. 9 In contrast, exclusion procedures for aliens attempting initial entry into the United States have had no such constitutional restraints. 10
An anchor baby, by definition would seem to fall perfectly under the first bold. So just how unconstitutional is it?
Ill be curious to see more details why he believes its constitutional as the 14th amendment is not specific. I have a feeling his argument is somewhere along the lines of the 14th amendment protects citizens only, and thus, cannot be used as constitutional shelter for those not here legally.
It would get tricky from there, as there is some prior precedence. In Landon v. Plasencia (which was about due process of a resident alient), it was ruled that a resident alien was entitled to constitutional protection once that person develops permenent residence ties to the place they reside (live). So, if an anchor baby is literally born in short order after crossing illegally - before said ties could be made, he could have an argument.
Link
Excerpt
Congress has exclusive authority to establish immigration laws and procedures. 1 This authority is limited, however, by the constitutional rights of resident aliens. 2 An alien attempting to enter the United States for the first time has no constitutional rights and thus may be excluded 3 on any ground and by any procedure the legislature deems appropriate. 4 Once an alien has been admitted into the United States, 5 however, his or her status under the Constitution changes significantly. 6 When expelling a permanent resident alien, 7 the government must afford the alien many constitutional protections, including procedural due process. 8 Deportation proceedings for resident aliens have been developed by Congress in conformance with these constitutional protections. 9 In contrast, exclusion procedures for aliens attempting initial entry into the United States have had no such constitutional restraints. 10
An anchor baby, by definition would seem to fall perfectly under the first bold. So just how unconstitutional is it?
D
Desert Eagle
Guest
The only way I can see this working (and I do support a Constitutional Amendment) would be if the 14th was changed to read:
A
AVengeance
Guest
The one thing that may be over-riding is that we should expect the soverignty of another nation and it's rules and laws. For example, if a Mexican husband and wife are touring Saint Louis, and she goes into labor, she's going to have that baby before making it out of the Midwest, let alone out of the country. Why does the baby automatically become an American citizen? Now, what if the tourists are German, or from any other country that doesn't allow dual-citizenship? Why do we have a policy of "gobbling up" citizenship status on the babies of foreign nationals? If someone is a citizen of Mexico, and they poop out a baby on American soil, we should take care of the immediate need, and send them (adult and baby) on their way, as if the baby was already born and was just visiting along with the mother.
Now, when you have an issue of illegal woman and citizen man, then it gets more complex, with a potential custoday battle.
Now, when you have an issue of illegal woman and citizen man, then it gets more complex, with a potential custoday battle.
O
Ozmar
Guest
Constitutional amendments are extremely difficult to pass.
1
1979TA
Guest
Germany allows dual citizenship
T
tom37211
Guest
I agree with him on principle. He is doing what Washington has never done. Try and enforce it's own laws.
D
Desert Eagle
Guest
Valid point. But the argument there would be that when they return home, they can simply renounce the babies citizenship in the US and be a "German" or where ever citizen again (if they don't allow dual citizenship).
Trust me, I DETEST the concept of "anchor babies" as much as the next person, but I just don't see a way around the 14th Amendment, it is, as written, iron clad.
Yup, as they should be.
Trust me, I DETEST the concept of "anchor babies" as much as the next person, but I just don't see a way around the 14th Amendment, it is, as written, iron clad.
Yup, as they should be.
S
seventh circle
Guest
The 14th amendment is enforced by the government...
B
BoomBoomBoy
Guest
Pearce is my new hero!
V
Vermincelli
Guest
The previous law is constitutional or else it would have already been in front of a court so we can drop that false talking point.
This proposal is though.
I do agree that the anchor baby law needs to go away but it needs to be done on the federal level.
Even Canada realized how fucked up anchor baby laws are. We are the only ones in the world to still have one.
This proposal is though.
I do agree that the anchor baby law needs to go away but it needs to be done on the federal level.
Even Canada realized how fucked up anchor baby laws are. We are the only ones in the world to still have one.