ILL IMM Anchor Babies: Debate May Not Stop With SB 1070

[Joann]

While I would like to see the 14th Amendment challenged regarding anchor babies of both illegal alien parents, it open a can of worms, giving the comrades in office opportunity to equally challenge the Constitution at their discretion (I know, like they don't already).

http://www.kpho.com/news/23623047/detail.html

Sen. Pearce's E-Mails Reveal Future Plans
Immigration Enforcement Debate May Not Stop With SB 1070

Morgan Loew
CBS5 Investigative Reporter
UPDATED: 10:40 pm MST May 21, 2010

PHOENIX -- E-mails to and from Ariz.state Sen. Russell Pearce reveal the immigration enforcement debate may not stop with SB 1070, the controversial immigration law.

Pearce, R-Mesa, the author of Arizona’s immigration law, has been writing to some of his constituents about what he plans to accomplish next.

In e-mails obtained by CBS 5 News, Pearce said he intends to push for a bill that would enable Arizona to no longer grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil.

Pearce wrote in one e-mail: "I also 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."

Document: E-mails To And From Pearce

CBS 5 Investigates looked through hundreds of e-mails Pearce had sent to constituents and some of their replies. The e-mails varied from praise to criticism and outlined Pearce’s future plans. Most were about SB 1070, his immigration law.

E-mails from the law’s supporters outnumbered those from critics by seven to one.

One supporter wrote, "I think it is about time we take our state and country back from the Mexicans."

One opponent wrote, "Mr. Pearce, you are a sick, racist bigot..."
Pearce replied to some opponents: "Do you not care about the deaths…maimings…billions in cost to America..."

One of the more remarkable e-mails sent to a list of supporters detailed his next steps. The e-mail, several pages long, includes articles critical of the 14th Amendment, which gives babies born on U.S. soil automatic citizenship.
One of the e-mails written by someone else but forwarded by Pearce reads: "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."

In response, Pearce sent two e-mails to CBS 5 News that contain some of the reasoning he used to conclude that children of illegal immigrants should not be granted citizenship. He also said he's disappointed when people think he's mean spirited because he stands for America.

Pearce said his new idea is not only legal but it's also constitutional.
“It’s common sense,” Pearce said. “Again -- you can’t break into someone’s country and then expect to be rewarded for that. You can’t do it.”

When Pearce was shown the e-mail referring to “anchor babies” that he forwarded, he said he didn’t find anything wrong with the language.
“It’s somebody’s opinion… What they’re trying to say is it’s wrong, and I agree with them. It’s wrong,” said Pearce.

 

[Publius]

We have in the past deported Parent with their anchor babies and when their 18 years of age they can come back and if they can prove they were born here in the United States their welcome to stay, but not their parents unless they go threw the legal process to become citizens.

 

[Maher]

Pearce wrote in one e-mail: "I also 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."

Straight Up! Pearce should be POTUS.

 

[SassyinAZ]

'cept the 14th amendment doesn't say that so it wouldn't really be the amendment being challenged but its application. The intent was clearly stated by the Senators during the process:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

There is also a Congressional bill being considered that would amend the Immigration Act to clarify interpretation of the 14th, so either way it's not the amendment itself or an additional amendment, the 14th just needs to be restored.

 

[American Rage]

The 14th Amendment had to do with former slaves. It had nothing to do with illegal immigrants babies.


Rage

 

[Joann]

'cept the 14th amendment doesn't say that so it wouldn't really be the amendment being challenged but its application. The intent was clearly stated by the Senators during the process:



There is also a Congressional bill being considered that would amend the Immigration Act to clarify interpretation of the 14th, so either way it's not the amendment itself or an additional amendment, the 14th just needs to be restored.

Thanks for insights, I remember reading that several times, however forgot to apply this time. With reading 20+ docs a day, my RAM forgets to transfer to hard disk, sometimes out of overload, and sometimes out of repression, but surely not in this case.

The 14th Amendment had to do with former slaves. It had nothing to do with illegal immigrants babies.

Same as above, in other words, it could be challenged on merit of meaning from then to now. I just don't want the administration to use this for other standings as they deem fit.

Edit:

it's not the amendment itself or an additional amendment, the 14th just needs to be restored.

I really agree with going forward on this.

 

[Seeker]

Arizona is already going to be punished - may as well go for broke. Watch for consequences now, for sure.

 

[SassyinAZ]

I knew what you were saying, Joann, and don't disagree, he hates our Constitution and has made that very clear. He's too clever to amend it the good old fashioned way because he could never get the results he gets undermining and ignoring it and I pray he won't even try, that would be an epic nightmare.

He just needs to be neutralized until he can be replaced or removed.

 

[American Rage]

Thanks for insights, I remember reading that several times, however forgot to apply this time. With reading 20+ docs a day, my RAM forgets to transfer to hard disk, sometimes out of overload, and sometimes out of repression, but surely not in this case.



Same as above, in other words, it could be challenged on merit of meaning from then to now. I just don't want the administration to use this for other standings as they deem fit.

Edit:
I really agree with going forward on this.

Wrong. The Constitution is an article of "manifest tenor." It says what it means, and means what is says until such time as it is amended in accordance to law.

But the left couldn't get that done, so they created the philosophy of "interpretism." And it's through this illegitimate philosophy that they reorder the US according to their will.

Rage

 

[SassyinAZ]

Not sure what you are disagreeing with, Rage.

Just what you are saying is how birthright citizenship came into practice, it never was Constitutional. The bills attempt to undo that perverted interpretation and application so they would really be amending existing legislation not created a Constitutional amendment.

Joann supports elimination of the practice but not amending the Constitution to do so fearing BO would take leaps and bounds with that opportunity.

Both the proposed bills clarify the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as is, and would eliminate the bogus claim of birthright citizenship as was the intent of the writers.

The proposed Congressional bill makes the provisions retroactive 20 years.

What's the problem with that? That's how it should have been all along?

 

[American Rage]

Not sure what you are disagreeing with, Rage.

Just what you are saying is how birthright citizenship came into practice, it never was Constitutional. The bills attempt to undo that perverted interpretation and application so they would really be amending existing legislation not created a Constitutional amendment.

Joann supports elimination of the practice but not amending the Constitution to do so fearing BO would take leaps and bounds with that opportunity.

Both the proposed bills clarify the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as is, and would eliminate the bogus claim of birthright citizenship as was the intent of the writers.

The proposed Congressional bill makes the provisions retroactive 20 years.

What's the problem with that? That's how it should have been all along?

I support the Senator from Arizona. I was attacking the modern "interpretist" view that ALL born here are automatically citizens.

Sorry for the confusion.

Rage