Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children Of Illegals

TIME:

"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots -- the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. -- for their next move.

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.

Read the whole story: TIME

Comments

[eagle eyes]

08:46 PM on 07/30/2010

Targeting innocent children??? So all children of parents who commit crimes will also be punished, sent to prison along with their parent? Oh, of course not because this hateful act targeting children of immigrants seeking a better life here in America is just another show of the true racist colors that plague the nation and fueled by the racist Governor and law officer in Arizona who think nothing of the millons of dollars they are costing the tax payers of Arizona from the boycotts to the point of spending even more millions to hire high cost lawyers in hope of spreading their hate by fighting for their racist perspectives. They are sick individuals no doubt as are all who stand behind them while the real criminals reap benefits by draining millions from corporations and pocketing millions more from outsourcing jobs to other countries for their own benefit while the ignorant and racist masses follow the lead of the Arizona governor and law officer and others in their camp. The taxpayers of Arizona should be demanding that the governor and law officer give up their own pay and retirement benefits to help pay for the financial damage they are causing at the expense of Arizona businesses and taxpayers to satisfy their racist attitudes!!! The lipstick of the Sarah Piglin is smeared all over these sick individuals. The governor unhappy with her wrinkles, like the state, is drying up as she thinks of ways to continue her unethical and obviously racist fight.

[Randy Shepherd]

02:16 AM on 06/20/2010

anchore baby is a dirty term for US Citizen, let's be more respectful to our citizens. funny how the ultra right don't want any abortions, but when it comes to taking care of babies born here, they want to get rid of as many as possible.

[tuneone52]

03:22 PM on 06/17/2010

This is in reply to Saquarosue She asked me why my ancestors did not stay in their own country and make it better That's a valid question and this is my answer as best as I can give! My first ancestor to arrive in this country was in 1622. Joesph Royall my 10th great grandfather arrived at Cap Cod along with 59 other men on board the Ship call Charity Joesph Royall was an indentured servant so I don't know if he was forced or came willing? The men were from different places, Joesph was from England. I can not give you an honest answer for this happened over 378 years ago. I know regardless of why he came He helped build this country into a great Nation that is now under attack from within and from abroad and we need to enforce our laws esp Immigration laws. I have no problem with people who come legal and learn our history and become citizens I have problem with those who bring harm to my neighbors or their property or commit crimes I don't care what Country they are from? They should be sent back I have stated my position and I will not back down!

[theerrantsoul]

01:02 PM on 06/16/2010

While we're at it, how about we "update" the Second Amendment to be in line with its creators' intent? After all, it clearly states that firearms are to be available for the purposes of militia - why don't we require gun owners to be a member of an official militia or police force? Additionally, at the time it was drafted, the most powerful weapon available to pretty much anyone was a single-shot flintlock musket - compare that to today's firearms, and it's easy to see that this aspect of the Constitution is not in keeping with the modern age.

How do you like that, Constitution-changers?

Incidentally, I believe all the stuff I said above, but I also believe even more strongly that the integrity of the Constitution is unimpeachable. If I have to accept easy access to guns for the majority of the nation's nutjobs, you guys are going to have to deal with existing birthright laws. Get over it.

[GenosseJoe]

10:30 PM on 06/16/2010

Intent was to protect themselves against Government.

As to birthright law - is applies only to those who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

Foreign citizens are under jurisdiction of their respected governments and not under jurisdiction of the United States.

[spytheweb]

09:54 AM on 06/27/2010

True and Fanned! Let's hope an amendment to the 14th amendment is made that requires at lease one parent be a US citizen to be born a US citizen.

[Wayne Laugesen]

12:18 PM on 06/16/2010

I'm a Reagan-inspired conservative Republican who's as far to the right as one can get and I think this proposal is un-American, bigoted and racist. "Anchor Baby" is the vogue bigot term of 2010. Please read the lead editorial in today's Gazette (Colorado Springs), which I wrote as editorial page editor of the conservative/libertarian editorial section. Let me know what you think, and please feel free to vote in the online poll. Thanks!

http://www.gazette.com/opinion/life-100307-good-prosperity.html

[GenosseJoe]

10:41 PM on 06/16/2010

IMHO, the major problem with the article is that it is about abstract truisms and it conveniently silent about current welfare system developed in the last 40 years or so.

Yes, people bring wealth to the country...when they will grow up and if they will become educated and self-reliant.

100 years ago it was not a problem, because parents were earning hard to come up with the money necessary to raise this baby.
But now to achieve this self-reliance State has "put this baby through college".

If author of that theoretical article would attach check for couple billion dollars payed to state treasury, that article would have some weight.

State has no money even for the children of legal citizens.

[Larry Kurnarsky]

03:19 PM on 06/17/2010

So, the solution is for the stronger of the victims to pick on the weaker of the victims?

That's never a solution, not now and now in Germany in 1936. The victims must be in solidarity with each other and then stand as one against their mutual victimizers, or they will never really solve the problem that causes their miseries.

There lies the solution. If a gardner, for example, made 20 dollars per hours and benefits, then the vast majority of gardeners would be legal US residents. If those who control the purse strings cannot or will not pay a decent dignified wage, then either they're the problem or the economic system is the problem - in that the much ballyhooed free enterprise system can no longer provide normal hard working Americans with a middle-class lifestyle.

And that is, I feel honor bound to disclose, in my opinion, the problem. What we should be discussing is how to change that sorry reality. We should not get sidetracked with this marginal issue about legal versus illegal hard working people.

Worse, if we do continue on the anti undocumented track, there's an excellent chance that the just wrath the American people will be deflected in a culturally chauvinist, and even a racist way, from its real enemies and on to scapegoats - as occurred in Germany during the mid twentieth century, and as it was in the US southern states until very recently - and some argue ,as it still is there.

[GenosseJoe]

09:50 AM on 06/19/2010

The real conservative solution to the problem would be to cancel each and every benefit coming form the state, reduce taxes to the amount of these benefits and let everybody to come to US to try themselves. If person earns enough to provide for his family, he stays. If not - he is free to go back to his old country.

This is how US had grow for about 150 years before Francklin Roosevelt.

[spytheweb]

10:23 AM on 06/27/2010

I'am looking at retiring in Thailand.

"First, you may show by copies of your bank statements that for at least three months before the application you have had the equivalent of at least 800,000 baht ($25,000 US) deposited in a bank or banks in your home country or in Thailand. The bank or banks must give an original letter about each account confirming the accuracy of the account statement.

Second, you may submit an original income certificate from the source of the income showing you have a pension or monthly income of at least the equivalent of 65,000 baht ($2,006.23 US)
You may, likewise, prove a combination of your monthly income multiplied by 12 plus bank deposit of the equivalent of a total of 800,000 baht and this will be acceptable.

You'll also have to submit a letter from the police or similar organization in your country, issued less than three months before your application, that you have no criminal record. This must be notarized.

Finally, you'll need a medical certificate, in the form the embassy or consulate will give you, showing that you are not suffering from leprosy, an advanced stage of tuberculosis, drug addiction, elephantiasis or the third phase of syphilis. This must be notarized and dated not more than three months before your application."

http://www.expatdailynews.com/2009/03/retire-overseas-retirement-visas-in.html

http://bangkokhomecondo.com/vilai/listings.html

[FACTISFACT]

09:54 PM on 06/15/2010

After going through the article and the comments of the commenter the prominent constitutional legal experts opined, that the lawmakers of Arizona could have first removed the hurdle that lies in the federal constitution. Later whether or not applicable to this case should have been found and considered under the light of The 14th Amendment which states that "All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
Read more: time.com/time/nation/article/0 [time.com] ,8599,1996064,00.html?xid=huffpo-direct#ixzz0qy0VeutU

They added that the point is, No where in the constitution the mention of terms like illegal child or anchors child is there. Therefore, there would be a potential hurdle to insert the new terms in the federal constitution with details about the terms to suit the need of the State lawmakers. The Arizona lawmakers will confront surmountable obstacles including embarrassing court comments on the newly passed law.

From analyzing the fall out of the newly Arizona passed law , It is indeed difficult to assess the situation which way it will take turn. opined the Political Analysts.

The Intelligence Analysts strongly recommend that the Federal government issues necessary orders to make deliberate and thorough inquiry into the maters. The inquiry on creation of Arizona issue, and Oil Spill .

[chonus]

06:18 PM on 06/15/2010

EXCLUSIVE! In protest of AZ anti-immigrant law, Outernational featuring Tom Morello & Cuéntame have produced this moving MUSIC VIDEO that highlights the struggles and lives of migrants and "deportees" across the country.

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=401531796902

[CruzanKenny]

06:09 PM on 06/15/2010

I think it's time we took Emma Lazarus' words off of the Statue of Liberty.
Once we were proud of our nation and its' ability to accept those in need and lift them up.
Maybe the words should read," Give us your Madoffs, Stanfords and Goldman Sachs, the wretched refuse of greed and avarice, I lift my lamp to shine on the gold you bear".

[spytheweb]

02:39 AM on 06/16/2010

Ellis island there where many who were turned away and sent back to their homelands. Many families separated because of sickness or their "papers" were not right.

Illegals today by bypass this inspection.

"the inspection process had already begun. Scanning the moving line for signs of illness, Public Health Service doctors looked to see if anyone wheezed, coughed, shuffled, or limped as they climbed the steep ascent.

Of primary concern were cholera, favus (scalp and nail fungus), insanity, and mental impairments. In 1907, legislation further barred immigrants suffering from tuberculosis, epilepsy, and the physically disabled. The disease, which resulted in the most exclusions, however, was trachoma, a highly contagious eye infection that could cause blindness and death. At the time, the disease was common in Southern and Eastern Europe, but relatively unknown in the U. S. (A Japanese immigrant later discovered the cure.) Physicians checked for trachoma by turning the eyelid inside out with their fingers, a hair-pin, or a button-hook to look for inflammations on the inner eyelid-a short but extremely painful experience. The "buttonhook men" were the most dreaded officials on Ellis Island.

The sick were taken to Ellis Island Hospital for observation and care, and once recovered, could proceed with their legal inspection. Those with incurable or disabling ailments, however, were excluded and returned to their port of departure at the expense of the steamship line on which they arrived."

http://freepages.family.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gregkrenzelok/Ellis%20Island.html

[spytheweb]

02:49 AM on 06/16/2010

"Legal immigrants are required to have medical screening to ensure that they do not bring any contagious diseases into the United States. Illegal aliens are not screened and many are carrying horrific third world diseases that do not belong in the USA. Many of these diseases are highly contagious and will infect citizens that come in contact with an infected illegal alien. This has already happened in restaurants, schools, and police forces. " Illegals import:
Malaria, dengue, leprosy,hepatitis A_E, chagas disease, HIV, schistosomiasis, guinea worm infection, whooping cough and cysticercosis.

[b525]

04:10 PM on 06/15/2010

Iowa Republican representative Steve King wants to build a border wall along the entire thousands of mile long border of the U.S. and Mexico, out of steel, cement and barbed wire etc., even though the wall would destroy the Rio Grande River eco-system by depriving millions of mammals, reptiles, flightless birds, mountain lions, jaguars, coyotes, wolves, ocelots, desert bighorn sheep, deer, antelope, black bears (in some areas) and numerous other animals access to Rio Grande river drinking water in a desert climate which will be deadly for these animals.

The border wall will also completely stop neccessary migrations of animals south and north of the border. This enormous wall will also block the spectacular views into Mexico, which are some of the most beautiful desert/mountain landscapes on earth enjoyed by millions of Americans. The view that we would see after completion of representative Steve King's wall would be mile after mile of gray cement and steel wall over 20 feet high covered with razor wire and possibly electrified, being patrolled 24 hrs. a day by armed gaurds with high powered weapons...does this sound like a Godly thing to do?

The cost of this proposed wall....HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Why is this man in congress?

Imagine if some day economic collapse, crop failures, civil war etc. happened in the U.S. and we all needed to migrate to Mexico and were stopped by this enormous prison wall of greed, hatred and fear that we ourselves built.

[wdw505]

05:07 PM on 06/15/2010

it sounds like a good plan .......built it now

[johnr49]

12:37 AM on 06/16/2010

You're happy with the government spending hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, then?

[argus4]

05:39 PM on 06/15/2010

You raise two issues here: (1) The effect of a border wall on migratory creatures and other ecological consequences; (2) the cost.

Which do you consider worse?

[AKansan]

04:08 PM on 06/15/2010

Setting Arizona aside for a moment. My question: Can the US afford not to change the constitution.

One thing is clear: Undocumented immigrants are driving up the number of people without health insurance. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 59% of the nation's illegal immigrants are uninsured, compared with 25% of legal immigrants and 14% of U.S. citizens. Illegal immigrants represent about 15% of the nation's 47 million uninsured people — and about 30% of the increase since 1980. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_N.htm”

According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance we payed $393,941,785.00 in 2009 to take care of illegal alien repeat offenders. This figure doesn't even take into consideration the cost of each of these crimes to US citizens. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/09SCAAPawards.pdf

How do we, as Americans, think we can keep footing the bill for all of our crisises?

[AKansan]

04:14 PM on 06/15/2010

From the same article as above: In Texas, where the state comptroller estimates illegal immigrants cost hospitals $1.3 billion in 2006, the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston is considering denying cancer care to such immigrants.

[wdw505]

05:09 PM on 06/15/2010

good........tell them to go home

[argus4]

05:46 PM on 06/15/2010

@ AKansan

The same way we've done since the end of World War II: by ignoring them.

Can you picture the reaction of the average American if Mr Obama were to propose budget cuts as Chancellor Merkel has done? or as Prime Minister Papandreou has done with the salaries and benefits of civil servants, etc?

[tuneone52]

03:47 PM on 06/15/2010

I think the answer to the problem with the Illegal people is at home in their own country, Work to make your home better, Mexico belongs to Mexicans! America belongs to Americans is that not so? We are not over running their country and we have gangs and high crime as well, This affects all of us whether you like it or not, We must help Mexico to become a more productive country or annex it and let it become a state! After all either enforce our laws or just open all the borders and let everyone in Who Cares if they are illegal or not? I can not believe most of the comments here that it seems okay to have all these illegals here in first place esp in light of our battle with terrorist and the chance they are coming across our borders as well, We will just let them have the whole country then everyone will be happy! Is this what you want?

[SaquaroSue]

05:47 PM on 06/15/2010

Why didn't your ancestors stay in their country and work to make it better, instead of coming here?

[Turukano]

05:54 PM on 06/15/2010

Righto

[Rosy]

08:55 AM on 06/16/2010

Bingo--I was just about to post that.

[Larry Kurnarsky]

05:52 PM on 06/15/2010

One: California, New Mexico, Arizona, California, used to be Mexico. Those who you refer to as "illegal people' would be legal people had it not be for the US military attack in 1846. Now only half of Mexico belongs to Mexico!

Two: The oppressive and corrupt conditions in Mexico are not disconnected to the conditions in the USA. American business interests have exploited Mexican resources and cheap labor for at least a hundred and fifty years. It can be honestly stated that Americans are in part richer because Mexicans have been kept poorer.

So yes, we owe the Mexicans a lot and we need to help them, but there is a moral argument that our country has stolen the birthright of millions of Mexicans from their country. The same can be said of American Indians, especially because most Mexicans are, in fact, descendants of the indigenous tribes that were living here for thousands of years before even the Spanish arrived on their territory. That we refer to these undocumented Mexicans as illegal is, therefore, racist and unjust. You might logically argue to the contrary, that the Mexicans who steal over the border into places like Arizona are, in fact, only reclaiming their natural rights. That would make us who are the illegals.

[frankg3400]

02:14 PM on 06/17/2010

Yes, Mexico owned those lands for 30 years and prior to that it was owned by Spain for 200 years. You don't think Mexico stole those lands from anyone during their 30 total years of ownership.

[ugly american]

03:09 PM on 06/15/2010

It may offend many that this is being discussed but it is a legitimate question. Is the 14th amendment intended to grant citizenship to anyone born here, even to unregistered foriegn citizens?
These kids would not likely be "without a country" because they would still be citizens of thier parents nation. So instead of being made Americans instantly, they would still be Mexican, Columbian, German or any other nationality.
It might be a mistake to use the Constituton to grant privileges to the citizens of other nations. It seems so many forget that America is a nation. We may be the product of a "melting pot" but we have a right to our own laws and language and culture and to blend it the way we choose.
If other nations want the US to do things to please them, they should be willing to implement it first.
There is a concept called "undue foriegn influence" that some wise people in our history warned us to guard against.

[Larry Kurnarsky]

07:44 PM on 06/15/2010

"All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The above is from the Constitution. There is no debate possible that denying citizenship to anyone born in this country is illegal.

[Rosy]

08:57 AM on 06/16/2010

Some have used the argument that the amendment was only meant to refer to former slaves and their children, but if you read the exact text, slavery is not mentioned. It is broad and clear. and the supreme court has interpreted it to mean exactly what it says--anyone born here is a citizen, period.
Of course there is a procedure for amending the constitution, but unless and until that happens, this is the law.

[Dave Thinkster Paulson]

01:13 PM on 06/15/2010

I’ve made many posts here that attempt to elicit intelligent conversation on the issue of illegal immigration. That’s turned out to be a seriously uphill battle for a progressive who supports SB1070. I don’t like being unjustly cast as a conservative, or worse yet as a racist, but emotions tend to run high on this issue and as a result real dialog is hard to come by.

That said, this new Arizona initiative is just freaking ridiculous. For those like me, who support serious action against illegal immigration, this type of activity serves only to bolster opposition. Unlike SB1070, any argument that this legislation could possibly be constitutional is patently absurd. I openly admit that don’t like the “anchor baby” situation, but alas it is the law of the land, and if it’s ever to be changed, it will require a constitutional amendment.

Russell Pearce is likely a racist, or at the very least some sort of supremacist. It doesn’t surprise me that he would attempt this sort of legislation. I just hope that there are enough moderates in the Arizona legislature to team with the left and prevent something so stupid from being passed.

[Lawrence Kurnarsky]

03:39 AM on 06/16/2010

Obviously those who want to step up the fight against illegal immigration are a mixed bunch and not all racists. Yet who should be surprised to see the bigotry that emerges from the - shall we call it a - movement?

When times get tough, as happened during the nineteen twenties and early thirties in Germany, people look for someone to blame, but not just blame, someone to punish, someone at hand and vulnerable, some Jew/Injun/Infidel/Ni---er/Commie,Wet who becomes that galvanizing 'other'. You can do things to them that you cannot do to those unreachable with real powerl. Most importantly, you somehow understand that you cannot threaten the real victimizers without threatening your mystic blood-group.

Now you chosen people can do glorious battle with the unchosen non-people who, as everyone reasonable understands, have crept over the imaginary border from hell to threaten your imaginary Eden.

Thus, you let loose your monster, but you don't threaten what is essential in the status quo. Hitler did not threaten the major capitalists. In fact, they came around to believe what most Germans wanted to believe, that Hitler was a Jesus who would deliver. The truth was, though, that if you counted every Jew in Deutschland, illegally or legally there, they numbered less than 2% of the population.

Take heed, In 1924 there were many people who viewed themselves as liberals, progressives, even socialists, who, by 1934, supported Hitler.

[Dave Thinkster Paulson]

02:20 PM on 06/16/2010

I know who I am, and I know what I believe and support. I’m also not in need of the history lesson, though might be. Things were actually rather difficult in the U.S. during the same time period you cite for Germany, but the reaction was different. Here, the American middle class was born out of the depths of that depression.

That same middle class did well until movement conservatism launched its insidious attack with Reaganomics and a platform that preached that the “government is the enemy.” Today, after 30 years of conservative deregulation and wealthfare for the rich, the American middle class is on the verge of extinction.

One of the dynamics working toward the demise of the middle class is illegal immigration. Cheap labor serves the wealthy and harms working Americans — it’s that simple. It’s not about race: http://www.thinkersjam.com/illegal-immigration-is-not-a-racial-issue/. And it’s certainly not about “mystic blood groups” or your mythical “unchosen non-people” You can paint it however you like, but to narrowly focus on tenuous parallels to Hitler’s Germany is to ignore practical facts and feed the fire.

[Lindsay Schutz]

12:21 PM on 06/15/2010

Oh and that was meant to be a rhetorical question...

[Lindsay Schutz]

12:15 PM on 06/15/2010

Since when is it up to us to decide who is "worthy" of the privilidge of being protected by our constitution or not?

[ugly american]

02:22 PM on 06/15/2010

Do you mean "us" as American citizens? That would be since 1787. The US Constitution was not written or amended to please the citizens of foriegn countries. When it is, we need to discuss throwing it away. Fortunately, we can and do amend it. Even the meaning of the amendments is open to question.
That is why there are so many opinions about it.

[Lisette53]

04:50 PM on 06/15/2010

Hey Ugly, currently those children are not citizens of foreign countries, they are U.S. citizens.