State legislators to challenge ‘anchor babies’
From USA Today/The Arizona Republic
“PHOENIX — Republican lawmakers in 15 states Tuesday announced a nationwide effort to change the way the 14th Amendment is interpreted and stop granting citizenship to babies born in the USA to illegal immigrants.
A national coalition called State Legislators for Legal Immigration is coordinating the effort.
Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce said Kansas lawyer Kris Kobach, who helped draft Arizona’s tough immigration law now on appeal in the federal courts, is working with him and Republican state Rep. John Kavanagh to draft a bill that all the states could use as a model on the citizenship issue….”
Here’s the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Opponents of so-called birthright citizenship hang their argument on the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” arguing that children of illegal immigrants do not meet that test. In practice, however, federal courts have read that language very differently, ruling repeatedly that every person in this country is subject to its jurisdiction except for foreign diplomats.
An illegal immigrant, for example, could be prosecuted for a crime here because he or she is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. But foreign diplomats are subject only to the jurisdiction of their home country, not of the United States, which is how the concept of diplomatic immunity is derived.
The 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War, very clearly makes the determination of U.S. citizenship a federal rather than a state function. The strategy of the State Legislators for Legal Immigration is apparently to try to subvert the constitutional language by passing state laws that bar issuance of birth certificates to children of parents who cannot prove citizenship.
One of the members of the group is Georgia state Rep. Tim Bearden, R-Villa Rica. In other words, coming soon to a state Legislature near you….
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
473 comments Add your comment
USinUK
October 21st, 2010
7:35 am
meanwhile … is anyone really surprised about this??
Although national teen-pregnancy rates are on the decline, the disparities between states are often dramatic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported Wednesday.
Some women’s health advocates say the discrepancies are indication that comprehensive sex-education programs are producing results for states that offer them, while states emphasizing abstinence-only programs aren’t faring as well.
Whatever the reason, the regional disparities are stark. In Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, for instance, 2008 birth rates were less than 25 per 1,000 teens aged 15 to 19, CDC found. In the same year, Arkansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas all had rates topping 60 per 1,000 teens.
Mississippi had the country’s highest rate (65.7), CDC says, while New Hampshire had the lowest (19.8).
Leslie Kantor, national education director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the report “makes it crystal clear that the teen birthrate is lower in states that provide students with comprehensive, evidence-based sex education.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/state-issues/125059-cdc-finds-stark-regional-disparities-in-teen-pregnancy-rates
stands for decibels
October 21st, 2010
7:35 am
Paleo – you’re thinking of adding “under god” to the pledge
Not to be confused with the fabulous television series (written & produced by Avondale Estates, GA native W. Watts Biggers) with the similar title.
(Starring Tim Bearden as Simon Bar Sinister.)
USinUK
October 21st, 2010
7:37 am
paleo … 7:33 … I know that … you know that … however, try convincing a Tea-Partier of that fun little fact … looking at people like CO’D, they don’t even realize there’s an establishment clause in the 1st Amendment …
paleo-neoCarlinist
October 21st, 2010
7:37 am
atlantaalan, again, I ask, why aren’t we ’sending mommy and daddy home’? why are the healthcare providers NOT calling the INS or DHS? seems easy, right? the whole family (at least mom and kid) ar right there. send them home? do you think (as with food stamps and “big ag”) “big med” doesn’t care who pays the bills (U.S. taxpayers)? this issue is only an issue because self-serving politicos and influence peddlers are telling you it is an issue.
Mirror, Mirror
October 21st, 2010
7:37 am
By the way, I assert with something like 94.9% confidence that the only reason we are talking about this subject today is this.
Pardon me but that does deserve a DUH!
Southern Comfort
October 21st, 2010
7:39 am
atlantaalan
Learn Immigration Law, then pass judgement. Then you’ll realize what you posted is way out in left field.
Christine O'Donnell
October 21st, 2010
7:39 am
Why in the world would anyone anchor a baby?
Moderate Line
October 21st, 2010
7:41 am
josef nix
October 20th, 2010
7:55 pm
moderate
-I did not say that “people born here to parents illegally could not go back to their country of origin.”
You said “Many countries do not recognize these children as citizens ”
which is false depending on what you mean by many. I meant to say their parents country of orgin.
-And I still hold the line that, and don’t take this the wrong way, we are
-REALLY talking about Mexicans or you would not be bringing up the
-56% etc. Also, you will note that I put in the smilie for the purpose
-of being flippant but at the same time making the point that for
-many, and I did not say you were doing it, do not distinguish
-between “illegal” and “Mexican” and that what many of the more
-reactionary are talking about IS the Mexican…
Your statement would seem to imply that people are against illegal immigration because they dislike Mexicans. The only problem with that argument is the largest number of legal immigrants to the US is Mexican. 24.7 of legal immigrants are from Mexico while 56% of illegal. Mexicans are 5 times the number of the next country of orgin. If the American people did not like Mexicans in general it would seem through congress they would also want to curtail legal immigration by Mexicans but that is not the case. You seem to want to make this a race issue so you can pontificate instead sticking to factual information. Just my opinion.
-And as for the American Indian thing, true…but I’ve got a get off the boat free
-card! Under Choctaw -common law, I’m allowed to stay…just not be a citizen!
Nice Eurocentric viewpoint. And what eventually happen to the Choctaw. Do you really want to bring that up as an example?
Mirror, Mirror
October 21st, 2010
7:41 am
USinUK at 7:35,
The part that the southern leadership should find most disconcerting is that their policies are translating into more Latino pregnancies and some of those might be illegals. Abstinence only education increases the number of “anchor babies”.
JA
October 21st, 2010
7:44 am
Michelle Malkin, pack your bags!
stands for decibels
October 21st, 2010
7:44 am
the teen birthrate is lower in states that provide students with comprehensive, evidence-based sex education.
Education? SEX education ? We can’t afford it. Can’t spend money we don’t have.
Besides, all you have to do is work the magic words “personal responsibility” in your stump speeches, and blame bad stuff on “illegals.” Problem solved.
USinUK
October 21st, 2010
7:47 am
“Besides, all you have to do is work the magic words “personal responsibility””
but, of course, it’s not THEIR personal responsibility to make sure schools are educating kids on biology
and, according to one poster earlier this week, we need to spend more time teaching kids how to balance check books and apply for a mortgage! those are the IMPORTANT things in life! not this elitist literature and calculus …
Bob
October 21st, 2010
7:48 am
During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
In other words, anchor babies were not to be given citizenship.
USinUK
October 21st, 2010
7:52 am
Bob – given this point: “described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties”
gosh, could the author BE any more racist? talk about tainting your contention.
stands for decibels
October 21st, 2010
7:56 am
tainting your contention.
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
crazy
October 21st, 2010
7:57 am
Again…why, just because a child is born here, should they be entitled to citizenship? Even if the parents are here legally.
stands for decibels
October 21st, 2010
7:58 am
Why in the world would anyone anchor a baby?
To keep them from crawling to the TV remote and watching Fox News.
USinUK
October 21st, 2010
8:00 am
crazy – “Again…why, just because a child is born here, should they be entitled to citizenship? Even if the parents are here legally”
I sort-of agree. If one parent is a citizen (not just there on a VISA), the child should be a US citizen, as well.
Peadawg
October 21st, 2010
8:04 am
“If one parent is a citizen (not just there on a VISA), the child should be a US citizen, as well.”
I can go along with that. But if neither are here legally, then the baby shouldn’t be able to be a citizen either.
Doggone/GA
October 21st, 2010
8:04 am
USinUK…read what you quoted, again. I think you would NOT agree with it.
Mick
October 21st, 2010
8:04 am
Ball of confusion…thats what the world is today…hey hey…
USinUK
October 21st, 2010
8:07 am
Doggone – I don’t think that a child should be granted citizenship just because he/she is born there, UNLESS one parent is a US citizen already.
Southern Comfort
October 21st, 2010
8:08 am
crazy
two words… Jus Soli
Finn McCool
October 21st, 2010
8:08 am
Other “Great” republicans running fr office this year:
Congressional Candidate Runs Ad Attacking WRONG Opponent
The ad in question attacks Gardner’s opponent, Democratic Congresswoman Betsy Markey for–among other things–voting in favor of the 2010 budget, which the narrator refers to as “the most fiscally irresponsible budget in history.”
The problem? Markey didn’t vote in favor of the 2010 budget. The ad apparently confuses Betsy Markey with the other Markey in Congress, Ed of Massachusetts.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/cory-gardner-ad-pulled-by_n_770252.html
Doggone/GA
October 21st, 2010
8:09 am
Georgia at it’s finest?
“”I was disrespected last Monday. I’m getting about tired of you all, talking to me any kind of way. I’m not working in a cotton field,” Lee said.
Williams paused for a second and then replied, “You should be.”"
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/21/georgia.council.remark/index.html?hpt=Sbin
Doggone/GA
October 21st, 2010
8:11 am
” I don’t think that a child should be granted citizenship just because he/she is born there”
Ok
Finn McCool
October 21st, 2010
8:13 am
Dogggone, it’s best when it comes out in the open like that. That’s how you get rid of these racists quickly. That guy’s public career is over – just as it should be.
Southern Comfort
October 21st, 2010
8:13 am
Doggone @ 8:09
I read about that yesterday and just scratched my head.
jt
October 21st, 2010
8:14 am
taint.
good one SFD.
taint.
stands for decibels
October 21st, 2010
8:14 am
this issue is only an issue because self-serving politicos and influence peddlers are telling you it is an issue.
and again, in case anyone missed it earlier:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/governor/arizona
Note the timeline, where the blue and red lines cross. Coincides nicely with the of the rancher’s murder and subsequent exploitation of this tragedy.
If it prosper politically, then none dare call it effed-up.
Southern Comfort
October 21st, 2010
8:14 am
Finn
That guy will be re-elected with ease. I’ll believe otherwise when I see it.
Soothsayer
October 21st, 2010
8:14 am
Now that the sheriff won’t do the foreclosures, will the banks hire Blackwater (Xe) to breakdown the doors and throw the mortgage deadbeats out on the street.
Today, almost anything is possible, but they have a bigger problem…the middle class is waking up and realizing that all the laws passed by Congress are essentially written by and to protect the monied interests, at their expense. They are starting to fight back…and take the law into their own hands.
Here is a great article about the foreclosure mess. Read it if you have the time.
USinUK
October 21st, 2010
8:14 am
Finn – “That guy’s public career is over – just as it should be.”
meh – he’s a city councilman in Warner Robbins. he’s not going anywhere. (unfortunately)
stands for decibels
October 21st, 2010
8:15 am
with the of the. Oy.
outa here for awhile. Try not to anchor any babies while I’m away.
USinUK
October 21st, 2010
8:15 am
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthpicturegalleries/8077859/Veolia-Environnement-Wildlife-Photographer-of-the-Year-2010-winners.html?image=6
amazing pictures, but this one just had me thinking of Finding Nemo’s “Mine! Mine! Mine!”
Doggone/GA
October 21st, 2010
8:19 am
“I read about that yesterday and just scratched my head.”
You wouldn’t if you’d ever lived there. Warner Robins is my Georgia hometown.
Horsefeathers
October 21st, 2010
8:19 am
To Josef Nix: “First off, they’re not “anchor babies.” They are citizens of the United States of America. That’s it. End of argument.’
Actually, Josef, you are wrong there. The babies parents are Felons who have come to the USA illegally. The baby is a product of two felons and is a citizen of the Country of the parents citizenship. If you went to France on vacation and your wife had a baby, the baby would NOT be French for Gods Sake!. Get your head out of the sand dude!
Southern Comfort
October 21st, 2010
8:20 am
your Georgia hometown? Bless your heart!! As a native Alabamian, I empathize with you.
Southern Comfort
October 21st, 2010
8:21 am
Horsefeathers
You should change your handle to Horse hockey. France does not recognize Jus Soli, however the United States does.
Doggone/GA
October 21st, 2010
8:23 am
“If you went to France on vacation and your wife had a baby, the baby would NOT be French for Gods Sake!.”
But this is not France and our Constitution is different.
Equality 7-2521
October 21st, 2010
8:24 am
The very fact that parents use their babies in this way is what is despicable.
You would have no respect for anyone that held a baby in front of themselves for protection.
Yet this is what is being done.
USinUK
October 21st, 2010
8:25 am
Horsefeathers – “If you went to France on vacation and your wife had a baby, the baby would NOT be French for Gods Sake!”
which is exactly the point I’m trying to make … and why it needs to be clear that, even if you’re in the country legally (such as on a tourist VISA), that any child born in the US to 2 parents who are NOT citizens should not automatically have US citizenship bestowed on them.
jt
October 21st, 2010
8:26 am
“Now that the sheriff won’t do the foreclosures, will the banks hire Blackwater (Xe) to breakdown the doors and throw the mortgage deadbeats out on the street.”
I don’t know about the banks hiring Blackwater but the the Federal government might.
No one is mentioning the HUGE amount of federal tax leins on these homes.
This is a wrinkle that I have heard NO ONE talk about. Intentionally?
The Feds want their ill gotten money….those Drones cost alot.
Doggone/GA
October 21st, 2010
8:26 am
“As a native Alabamian, I empathize with you.”
I know, and you’d think a town with a huge Air Force base would be just a TAD more cosmopolitan, wouldn’t you?
Doggone/GA
October 21st, 2010
8:27 am
“that any child born in the US to 2 parents who are NOT citizens should not automatically have US citizenship bestowed on them.”
And all it takes to change that is to amend the Constitution.
Pots
October 21st, 2010
8:29 am
As I weigh the issue of anchor babies, a perfect storm of constitutional doldrums wash over me and I founder in a trough of partisan planks. I think it’s best to bail on this one.
casual observer "living on other peoples money"
October 21st, 2010
8:32 am
I think we should take every uneducated , Third World, nonworking , government money sucking person we can get in the United States. They will feel right at home And be welcomed by all Socialist Libs here, that are also living off the working taxpaying citizens.
Not Blind
October 21st, 2010
8:34 am
The whole problem with interpretation of any of the amendments is that the courts should be enforcing the framers INTENT. This intent is easily researched in period writings. Instead the courts are continously trying to ferret out new meanings from old words. Like ANDYGRD posted, the 14th was never meant to give citizenship to babies born in this country to parents that are not citizens. Somewhere along the way previous rulings were thrown out the window and citizenship was granted to those not eligible. It would help if the idiots in Washington would adopt a policy of plain language instead of doublespeak and jargon.
Big D
October 21st, 2010
8:36 am
The Constitution pertaining to this subject was in the spirit of a person being here rightfully in the first place. Having said that( I know you bleeding heart libs won’t by that) this type of infiltration is unsustainable.
For every person who ILLEGALLY crosses into this country the chances of communicable diseases, terrorist and other losses go up so why would anyone in their right mind want to perpetuate this. Our forefathers in government, science and medicine worked tirelessly to leave us a better country and clueless idiots will not be happy until you’ve destroyed it.
I will do everything in my power to stop this along with every other thinking American.
In less than two weeks I hope to God you posers wake up and think about what you have and what you stand to lose.
Doggone/GA
October 21st, 2010
8:41 am
“The whole problem with interpretation of any of the amendments is that the courts should be enforcing the framers INTENT”
Uh huh. So you think the framers of any amendment aren’t capable of actually putting their intent into the words of that amendment.
Curious Observer
October 21st, 2010
8:43 am
In less than two weeks I hope to God you posers wake up and think about what you have and what you stand to lose.
Only an uneducated, hyperpartisan hack will assume that the results of an election will produce any change whatsoever. All we’ll have is more gridlock. I look forward to reading about your disillusionment in about six months, Big D. You’ll richly deserve what you are apparently voting for.
Big D
October 21st, 2010
8:44 am
Dog…if intent was so easily defined we would not need lawyers.
Atlanta 1
October 21st, 2010
8:46 am
While it is clear that our forefathers did not see a day when a person would cross the border of our country to have a baby and thus gain the benefits of the country indirectly; it is still an admendmant and should be honored. Unless the admendmant is changed and I believe that requires 3/4’s of the states to ratify the change, then it is what it is.
We who believe that the Constitution should be followed and honored cannot have it both ways. Either you stand by it or you do not.
Vickie
October 21st, 2010
8:48 am
It is time to give the American people a break from being the welfare providers for the hispanic welfare class invasion. We really don’t deserve to be caught between a treasonous Administration and the illegal mob while we are paying the bills.
Big D
October 21st, 2010
8:49 am
CO…I think not… this is really not about a rush to install another “rino-repub”.
It is more about a new way of taking back control of our country and MAKING the ones we elect do OUR business that WE want instead of some special interest or subversion.
I pray it it is an awakening tantamount to being bombed without the carnage.
” I believe we have awakened a sleeping giant”.
Big D
October 21st, 2010
8:51 am
Vickie…that is way over the Dems head at this point.
Penny
October 21st, 2010
8:51 am
It’s being abused and adulterated. Constitution never intended for the anchor baby amendment to be abused like it is. It’s just sick and we need to do something about it (along with all the illegals in this country). First thing they do is break our law entering our country illegally. Do we REALLY want these people as citizens? I want the ones standing in line, waiting to get in legally from all countries, not just Mexico!.
Doggone/GA
October 21st, 2010
8:51 am
“if intent was so easily defined we would not need lawyers.”
I just love the idea that we should not be interpreting what is actually WRITTEN in the Constitution…we should, instead, be governing and judging laws based on what is NOT in there. Novel idea, don’t you think?
LeeH1
October 21st, 2010
8:53 am
“Anchor Baby” is OK as a term. Lawbreakers use the babies as an emotional means to hold on to what isn’t their’s to begin with.
But instead of “illegal alien,” let’s use the proper term for breaking and entering- “burglar.”
Southern Comfort
October 21st, 2010
8:57 am
Vickie
October 21st, 2010
8:48 am
It is time to give the American people a break from being the welfare providers for the hispanic welfare class invasion. We really don’t deserve to be caught between a treasonous Administration and the illegal mob while we are paying the bills
What about the illegals from Europe, Asia, Africa??? Why only single out the Hispanics???
Doggone/GA
October 21st, 2010
9:04 am
” It’s just sick and we need to do something about it (along with all the illegals in this country).”
Ok, no problem with that. How much more in taxes are you willing to pay to cover the cost of finding and deporting all of them?
Bosch
October 21st, 2010
9:07 am
“Ok, no problem with that. How much more in taxes are you willing to pay to cover the cost of finding and deporting all of them?”
But, but, but……we want to CUT spending!!!
Mirror, Mirror
October 21st, 2010
9:16 am
Wait just one cotton pickin’ minute here! I thought that the way to raise tax revenues was to cut taxes. Y’all are getting me all confused.
md
October 21st, 2010
9:21 am
“Ok, no problem with that. How much more in taxes are you willing to pay to cover the cost of finding and deporting all of them?”
Well, in CA alone, they are spending 10 billion annually anyhow:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm
Thai is a 100 billion over a ten year period – so, the question might be how much would it cost to deport them one time vs 10 billion annually…………..
Randalph
October 21st, 2010
9:21 am
Someone should look into why that amendment was put into place.
Ralph
October 21st, 2010
9:22 am
Republicans: The greatest threat to America. Name one republican that is worth anything,, NONE. They are all evil.
The Last Boy Scout
October 21st, 2010
9:27 am
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” Nice words. Means nothing to todays Conservative Repugs
AmVet
October 21st, 2010
9:30 am
“What about the illegals from Europe, Asia, Africa??? Why only single out the Hispanics???”
Hey, some group had to replace the blacks and Jews!
So now it’s the Mexicalis and Muslims…
CO, your post at 8:43 is spot on.
Let’s review, shall we?
The Republic just endured eight years of unmitigated disasters and serial debacles at the hands of the worst administration in modern history, as enabled by the worst Republican leaders in the history of the party. Bush and Cheney should never have been allowed to serve out their terms. How they were not impeached for serial violations of US law is a travesty and testament to the craven and spineless Democrats.
Documented train wreck after train wreck. Deadly and incompetent. Morally bankrupt with record numbers of scandals and corruption.
And if I understand correctly, in the ensuing two years they had some sort of stunning epiphany?
They showed sincere remorse for screwing up the nation horrifically? Economically, environmentally, in terms of domestic policy and especially in foreign policy?
NO.
From what I have seen they have not made one substantive improvement whatsoever. Nothing. The Party of No.
If anything they are even more intransigent and irrational then ever. Witness the advent of the lunatic fringe’s lunatic fringe, aka the Tea Party. Hopeless misguided hyper-reactionaries.
And anybody who believes the bumbling neo-cons have changed stripes is just delusional.
More of the same for the grand advocates of the failed status quo…
jarvis
October 21st, 2010
9:36 am
And you call yourselves Conservatives.
Can’t have it both ways. The Constitution is not up for editing.
The same document that gives us the right to bear arms, free speach, and the right to assemble says that these children are citizens if they are born here.
We don’t start carving up the foundation of the nation because our political parties don’t like parts of it. Line-item-veto doesn’t work with the Constitution.
md
October 21st, 2010
9:46 am
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” Nice words.
Yes they are nice words – just happens to be unsustainable in reality……………may be why both parties helped put in qualifiers to legal immigration. Take in the worlds poor, how long do you think it would take to run out of money – think about it.
Fred
October 21st, 2010
7:29 pm
Last (maybe lol)
Phil Gordon
October 21st, 2010
8:26 pm
The real problem with the 14th amendment is the amendment was never ratified. Just over a quarter but below a third of the states have rejected the 14th amendment in 1871. This includes the 16th amendment and 17th amendment that was never ratified. You need more than three quarters of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment. However amendments 14 to 28 are not legal they were passed in the 1871 corporate constitution not the dejure 1787 constitution. The corporate constitution 1871 is in all caps “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” but the dejure 1787 constitution is “united states for America” the reason for this is to hide the original 13th amendment that bars esquires from serving in government. This means that all lawyers’ attorneys and barristers are to lose their US citizenship and be deported from the country.
trun
October 23rd, 2010
9:46 pm
janice sibug of 1631 el camino real #7 tustin ca 92780 was born to an illegal alien name ligaya fabian who jumpshipped her flight at lax from germany to canada.