"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."
That statement was written by someone in favor of denying U.S. citizenship to babies born here with immigrant mothers. Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce, driving force behind the "Papers, please" immigration law, forwarded it as part of an e-mail chain on his future plans obtained by the local CBS affiliate in Arizona.
Asked about the statement, Pearce told the station: "It's somebody's opinion…What they're trying to say is it's wrong. And I agree with them. It's wrong."
The move to end "birthright citizenship" is very much alive at the national level, too.
(H/T @QueerjohnPA)
Leave a Comment:
Wow. It seems like Arizona has become the bellwether of the civil rights debate of the new decade. Expect to see it coming to a state near you.
Who knew racism, classism, and xenophobia were going to converge (or coagulate) right there in the wacky world of Weathervane McCain. I guess we should have seen his presidential campaign swing to the right as an early tremor. Tsunami ho!
"If we are going to have an effect on the anchor baby racket, we need to target the mother."????
Why punish the mothers without punishing the American fathers? Castrate those horny men LOL!
Saint James
The father doesn't neccesarily have to be American citizen. The father could be an illegal immigrant or legal immigrant as well as an American citizen. A child only has to be born on US soil to be granted citizenship.
Its possible there is room for debate on immigration laws. A person crossing the border for the sole purpose of giving birth in the US has room for debate in our immigration reform.
However, I am disturbed by the theme of 'targeting mothers'. I won't say I'm shocked, being female I have seen and heard a lot over the years but the remark is truly disturbing. Don't know the context it was said or the entire story so shouldn't rush to judgement, but I am not surprised.
Part and parcel for the conservatives...women should not be allowed to have reproductive rights. Sufferage was not granted until the 1920's.
More tellingly. Back in the bad old days, a slave meant being the child of a black woman. Biracial children born to white women were called "free issue."
Now they want to twist the law so that being an illegal immigrant means being the child of an illegal mother. No matter where you are born.
The thing I don't understand.. Why does Arizona have more problems with border control and illegal imigrants than the other three border states???
Hey Mike, I live in California, southern CA some of the time and we do have the same issues, but fortunately we don't have the same governing body that AZ does.
Since you seem to be interested in news, check out the Desert Sun news http://www.mydesert.com/ go to the letters and opinion pages and you will get some new information.
I think where it might get real interesting, AZ shared open borders CA, and NM so it will soon become our fault because they have their border with Mexico under control and therefore the illegals must be entering CA and NM, then making their way to AZ.
Good point, Rick, and you're right. Arizona will eagerly blame Calif for its problems should it ever decide its borders are 'under control.' The odds of that decision ever coming to pass is slim though. Arizona is a crippled state with a horribly broken economy and no real hope in sight of things getting much better. Rather than take any part of the blame for the dire consequences of their poor management, it's just easier for our so-called 'leaders' to blame illegals for everything that's wrong with the state. So this is what they do.
What's really pitiful is that this same leadership has no problem offering up outright lies about crime, illegal population, etc. For example, the crime is down in Arizona, as is the illegal population and the border crossings. Instead of saying that, it's much easier to portray Phoenix, for example, as a place where drug lords battle in the streets and run rampant to the point it's impossible to be safe any where in the area.
As an example, have you heard the one that 50% of the murders in Phoenix (population roughly 4million) are committed by illegals? Not even close to the truth. From the Phoenix Police Department's release of violent crime statistics: In 2009, 124 murders down from 168 in 2008. Cleared were 65.3%, up from 51.8% cleared in 2008. Since roughly 35% were unsolved in 2009 and a little over 48% remained unsolved from 2008, how could you then say that illegals committed 50% of the murders? If the statement had been 50% of the solved murders, I could accept that, but that's not what's being said. And remember please, this is only one example. There are more.
I do wonder how Russell Pearce and/or the state of Arizona thinks it can simply override or change the 14th amendment. One thing is for sure, this bill to deny citizenship to those born in the US to parents who are illegal will likely pass and be signed into law. After that the lawsuits can begin. If there's one industry alive and well in Arizona, it's that of lawyers and litigation.
Loozerio sends thanks and encouragement to Haddie Nuff.
Well, the bigotry was already explicit against the poor and non-white. It only makes sense to include women too. Racism, classism, misogyny: the bigots' trifecta.
I think in order to get this debate in perspective it is necessary to check out some data.
1) From the U.S. population clock, http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html America has a population of 309,320,552k people
2) From the U.S. State department passport statistics http://travel.state.gov/passport/services/stats/stats_890.html As of 2009, there are only 13,486,085 active passports issued to American citizens.
These numbers indicate that there is a vast majority of American citizens who cannot prove they are a citizen unless they are carrying their birth certificate, which we know does not guarantee that you won't be challenged for having or showing.
Just exactly how does the Arizona immigration law enable law enforcement to tackle an illegal immigration problem when we can assume that the majority of citizens who live in Arizona do not have any proof that they are citizens.
A social security card doesn't prove you are a citizen and neither does a driver's license, check out this site for the info http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/proofofcitzenship.htm
There may be some people that say well a social security card can be taken as proof of citizenship, and you may be right but, and now I can't find the story, there was a story within the last couple of days about an elected official refusing to apply for a social security card for his newly born daughter, well this is America and we can do that right? Therefore there is no requirement to have a social security card if you don't want to work, therefore you can't use it to prove you are a citizen.
So if we love our free society with as little infringement on our ability to travel around it, without ever having to prove we belong here then how do we solve this problem.
It seems there is only one way, every citizen must be issued a national identity card, and every citizen must be required to carry that national identity card at all times in case you are asked for it. And every visitor to America must be issued a visitor identity card and every visitor must be required to carry that visitor card at all times, which shows the period of time the visitor is allowed to be in the country. This process would give law enforcement a clear way to identify anyone who does not belong and start the process for deporting that person, right?
I wonder if Jan Brewer carries her passport with her, and I wonder what might happen if her driver was involved in a serious traffic accident and she ended up detained because the law enforcement officer asked for proof of citizenship and she could not provide it.
Finally, if we really want to get tough, then we can probably solve the unemployment problem in this country as well. If we send every migrant or visitor who might be doing work for a farmer or a family, then the government could force unemployed people to move to states that need these workers instead of providing unemployment insurance and welfare, Right?
Bad solutions are never a solution, they only add to a problem, and I sure don't want to live in an America that isn't what it was designed to be, do you?
One other thing,
I have always wondered how the estimated number of illegal immigrants is calculated, I mean if they are here illegally then they weren't counted coming in.
And since I can travel between Canada and the U.S. without anyone recording that I came into the U.S., I have to wonder if it is any different on the Mexican border, so even the people who entered legally haven't been counted.
And, even if the number of people entering legally has been counted, on which day of the week do you subtract the number who left from the number who entered in order to determine how many are still here, and then how do you determine that they are here illegally?
So how does the government, either state or federal, determine how many illegal immigrants there are in the U.S.
My bet is it is a guess, that for some reason, citizens don't challenge.
I see. So, if I, a female US-born US citizen, choose to engage in babymaking with an undocumented male person who came here from somewhere south of the US border (and, I don't know about you, but I have personally never asked to see a passport or currently-valid visa--not that kind--before having sex and would prefer not to add this to the checklist of things we talk about before getting busy), then I am not part of the problem*, but if my brother, a male US-born US citizen, chooses to do the same with an undocumented female person who came here from somewhere south of the US border, his child is bad and wrong.
Right.
*for a value of problem in which I buy the assertion that births to undocumented women is actually inherently a problem.
And until now, singles thought the dating scene was complicated. Wait until these questions hit Match.com or Eharmony.com....LOL
Great post.
You know, there is a point that all of you seem to be missing. The immigration issue is someone who has no ties to the US whatsoever crossing the border to have a child born in the US.
We have more than one border. Umm...perhaps someone from Turkey or Iraq came into the US illegally for the sole purpose of having a child born on US soil? Does this change the perspective of that issue based on current events of American Citizens committing acts of terrorism?
The disturbing part of the message was targeting mothers. The mothers are probably the least guilty in the scenario.
L-not sure what your point is. The law says as long as 1 parent is already a citizen it doesn't matter. It doesn't specify whether the parent has to be the mother or father.
Or how about they came into the country legally, I am not sure how you define illegally if they are coming from Turkey or Iraq, but I guess if they are a good swimmer you might have a point. But then again if they are from Cuba, all they need to do it put together a flotation device that gets them legally into the U.S.
Having said that, so what?!? We are a better country for granting citizenship to foreign nationals that are born here, it shows a respect for the process, but your comments would have us believe that there are hordes of foreign nationals, women in their 8th month of pregnancy rushing to get here, jumping on planes from all over the world just so their child can be an American citizen.
This is another one of those rules we want to make so we can punish the majority for what a minority has done. Let's make it simpler.
At the border immigration can request a urine sample from every woman who is trying to enter the country, if they are pregnant refuse them entry. If they aren't then direct them to the immigration IUD department where in order to gain entry they are required to have an IUD inserted so just in case they have sex while they are visiting they won't get pregnant. But if they do we can also have them wear a tracking device that constantly monitors their hormone levels, at the first sign of pregnancy the baby busters at immigration can collect them and have them shipped home.
Yup, that is someone's kind of America, but not mine.
Rick,
The reason the issue has come up is because there ARE women rushing to the border in their 9th month to give birth in the US. I know it happens every day in border cityies. How did the terrorists from 9/11 enter the country illegally? Some come on Visas that are never checked for expiration dates. There are a million ways we need to tighten up our security and our borders. Targeting mothers however should not be top on the agenda.
Yes, open our borders to immigrants. The US was founded on that. But to reward anyone who has come here illegally is wrong.
I think migrant workers should be allowed to work in the US. We just need to keep track of people who are not citizens entering and leaving our country. We need to keep better records, not target mothers or people of hispanic origin.
Jackiels,
Firstly, the 9/11 terrorists did not come into the country illegally. They had visas to enter and did, that having been said, we all wish they had not been allowed into the country.
I think there are some women rushing across the border with the intention of having their child in the United States so their child can have the gift of U.S. Citizenship. How many are there?
If the answer is 200 in a year as a fact would you be concerned?
If the answer is 2000 in a year as a fact would you be concerned?
If the answer is 20,000 in a year as a fact would you be concerned?
Sure it is reasonable to see a level of concern go up as the number goes up, but we don't know the real, factual number. We have some estimates only, and it is important to remember two other things, 20,000 is a miniscule percentage of the population of the U.S. which is approximately 309,000,000, and the other important thing to remember is the citizenship of the baby does not confer citizenship on the parents.
I am a proponent of immigration reform, but sensible immigration reform that is fair and balanced, not just focused on one population, and still allows America to be the free society that we are.
Just another position by comrade maddow that proves communist tendencies
Ah, so sexist and racist. Sure, why not?
And most Latinos are Catholic so let's approach it from that angle, too. If you're going to slash up the 14th Amendment with regard to birthright citizenship, why not the First as well?
Funny you should mention that. Russell Pearce is also the one who sponsored a bill to place the 10 commandments on the state capital building. I believe that also passed, but have lost track due to the other outright bizarre laws that have been passed this year. You know, things like allowing everyone to carry a concealed weapon without having to get a permit, guns being allowed in bars, the ban on human-animal hybrids... that last one greatly surprised me, since I was unaware that was a problem.
Of course there was some rather humorous conversation about seeking the landlords permission to post these, since the state has sold its capitol and other government buildings.
You need to pay more attention to Fox News, obviously. We can't have Cat-men and Cow-women running around like the Island of Dr. Moreau (or the High Evolutionary if you follow Marvel Comics), centaurs and mermaids. :P
Because if we did, we wouldn't be able to microchip them to keep track of them.
Unless of course they were illegal alien human-animal hybrids; that'd be okay.
:|
I probably shouldn't assume that they carved out a niche for transplants, like having a pig's heart or skin grafts for scars or burn victims.
That carry permit law sounds like one of Rand Pauls libertarian utopian dreams.
Anchor baby? Anchor baby? ANCHOR BABY? Who is the @!$%# who came up with this most dark and hateful of terms? Shame on you, Russell Pearce, you are beyond redemption, along with all the other empty skulls who "think" as you do.
Can't figure out how to contact you any other way, too many pages and too little access - but you really need to geek out on a latin term used in the 16th/17th century, "adeps hominis", the fat of man. It was used under the notion that "like cures like", and it was also used to make women's makeup and skin applications. It was the fat of slave captives that were too fat to be useful. They were boiled down and their fat was transported instead.
History knows of this, but for all my time studying history, I've never found one mention of this fact in history, it's like this horrid fact was simply forgotten.
You're geek enough to breathe life back into this forgotten fact, that some slaves were killed and harvested for their fat, so physicians could use them as skin cures and women could use them as make up.
It's horrible, it's detestable, but it's factual.
Tim
Tim, if you are attempting to contact Loozerio, click on his name/handle and then click on "contact this author" on his Newsvine page.
I grant that my childhood has a distance of over 45 years, but when I was a child growing up in Arizona, there were immigration laws in effect that still make sense to me. Under those codes, illegals were sent back without exception. If a child were born in the US to an illegal couple, there was a choice. Either the couple found a US legal guardian to care for the child in this country, or the child was sent back with the family so they wouldn't be separated, and upon the child's 18th birthday, the child could choose between American citizenship or citizenship of the home country. This was a constitutional response to the problem that did not violate either the constitution or the family bond. This allowed the adult that was born in this country to make an adult choice, but did not allow the illegal family to manipulate that choice by means of an innocent child.
I'm pretty liberal in most things, but I sincerely never saw a fault in the old immigration laws as they pertained to children, I always saw them as very fair in every respect. The child has a right to stay, but the illegals don't have the same right. They especially don't have that right if coming here to have a child is their main purpose. We have no reason to separate the child from the parents unless the parents make those arrangements, so they all go back until the child comes of age and makes a legal choice. I run it over in my mind time and again and still find no liberal fault in the thinking. Illegals have no legal right to be here, and we have no right to separate them from their children, but they can't stay here if they're in violation of the immigration laws. The rules when I was a child are far more compassionate than those today, in my view.
Tim
Your post got me to thinking about the whole "Anchor Baby" thing, so I went to the immigration website to try and find the legislation that creates it.
Yes, birthright is clearly spelled out as granting citizenship, but it requires that the birth be registered at the time it occurred. Reasonably this means a hospital birth, with concurrent registration, but it doesn't grant citizenship to the parents.
So, there doesn't seem to be any protection against deportation of the parents, and one would assume they would take the baby home with them, unless as you describe there are relatives who could raise the child in the U.S.
Now we get into, intentions, a legal visitor to the U.S. does not become illegal until they do what? Well if you obtain a visitor immigration visa then the rules are set. Guess what you don't need one if you drive over the border from Canada, and my guess is you don't need one if you drive over from Mexico, so I ask again, when does a legal visitor turn into an illegal one?
I think we can assume there are some people who do cross the border in order to grant their child citizenship, and some who intend to then seek asylum, with the supporting fact that their child is a citizen, but there are also people who visit and just have the baby with no intention of staying.
I don't believe what most politicians say about issues when they are speaking to their voting base, and it should be important to us that all of the discussion about illegal immigration only applies to Mexicans. We share a border with Canada that is at least twice as long, and has as many opportunities for illegal crossings, yet it isn't part of the discussion.
The final point, yes I can get to it eventually, how many people are we really talking about? What is the percentage of the population of the United States, and is this simply an issue that gets people fired up for all the wrong reasons?
Tim, the paradigm you described from your youth is still the fairest way of dealing with a most complex dilemma, after all, it is human beings we are talking about. Rest assured that Loozerio does not advocate non-enforcement of immigration law. What chaps Loozerio's ass-cheeks is the term "anchor baby". It is a term obviously loaded with hate, and indicates a mind-set that cheapens the human experience. Loozerio appreciates your words, and encourages you to advocate your position to the many. Though events have gotten quite ugly already, they have not reached the boiling point. Thoughtful people like you are needed now to turn down the flame under the pot. Best Wishes, Loozerio
Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants is blatently discriminatory.
Support equality with comprehensive immigration reform: end birthright citizenship for the children of all illegal immigrants.
Mediabiz, you slapped some words like "discriminatory" and "equality" onto your post, and it seems as though you are regurgitating talking points. Please explain how birthright citizenship is discriminatory. Please explain how CIR supports equality.
@Loozerio:
SCOTUS has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the US to illegal parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment.
During the original debate over the 14th Amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” This is considered the original intent (and is elaborated to make it clear that children of illegal immigrants were not included.)
Under the current birthright citizenship *practice*, illegal immigrant children born in the US are privileged over those illegal children brought or sent here by their parent/s. The children born here are rewarded with the option of birthright citizenship, the children brought here are denied the option.
Illegal immigrant children born here are treated preferentially over illegal imigrant children brought or sent here by their parent/s, yet neither group of children did anything to warrant the distinction.
Well done, mediabiz. Although Loozerio already knew the scenario, you showed a willingness to do scholarly research. You stated that "neither group of children did anything to warrant the distinction". Please explain how innocent children, caught up in the @!$%#storm of complex human events, could possibly warrant anything. Only adults could possibly have the tools to advocate for them. Do you find it ironic that, during the 14th amendment debate, Native Americans were "excluded" from being citizens in a land where they were indigenous? Concerning the issue of illegal immigration, Loozerio would direct you to the well thought out post #16, with which Loozerio concurs. May we all find the wisdom to do this well. Best wishes, Loozerio.
Although Loozerio already knew the scenario//
Of course you did, dear.
Oh -- and children ARE WARANTEES OF THEIR PARENTS.
If their parents, understandably. so wish their children raised as US citizens, the parents need to comply with the laws that enable them to do so.
Should the parents fail to comply, the children have their own recourse (in the US) when they reach majority.
The children of parents who are complying with the law should not be discriminated against by granting *privileged* benefits to parents who are *breaking the law.*
Mediabiz, such spirit! With a bit of poking and prodding, you have produced a focused and acceptable explanation. P.S. Loozerio did know the 14th amendment scenario, he also does research.
I think I see where racist/teabaggers may be headed with this. End the 14th Amendment for illegal aliens... then also for those born to just one non-citizen, regardless of which parent, so as to include fathers to 'not be sexist' and prevent any claims for them... then, oh -- President Obama's not a citizen. 'Oops; what an unfortunate, unforseen circumstance. Tsk, tsk.'
At least as far as AZ is concerned. Then it wouldn't matter what legal, certifiable birth documentation was provided to be on the 2012 ballot.
I imagine that those wanting this sort of unConstitutional BS justifiy their position that the 14th Amendment wasn't part of the original Constitution and so not what the Founders wanted.
Oh that pesky Article 5 of the Constitution! Allowing for amendments to the Constitution! Could our founding father forsee the day that people would want our country to be stuck in the 18th century? Or that people would one day try and second guess them?
The Constitution as Living Document...as opposed to Laws "carved in stone." Yeah, I'd just posted something similar, though I definitely lacked your succinctness. Personally I suspect that those who have the "carved in stone" view of the Constitution are guilty of worshiping false idols. The Constitution ain't the Bible.
That's very true (it's much better) tho even the Bible isn't the Bible. Not only was it edited into being by Man, but I often wonder why it is that 'history stopped' so to speak when it did, that it's not a living document/anthology as you note.
Well met Man of La Mancha
Remember Glen Beck's commencement speech he gave a couple of weeks ago? The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the "word of God" False idols indeed.
I forgot to add (Que sound of Founding Fathers spinning in their graves over Glen Beck's comments about Declaration of Independence & Constitution)
Thank you. I'm honored. Its Quixokie with a "k," however. Phonetically "Donkey-Okie," which is at least as true. I'm a liberal from Oklahoma which is famous for its leading lights Senators Inhofe and Coburn. <Gahhh!>
I promise I'll try to do right by the man who's name I borrowd and mangled.
I have a friend who taught at U of OK.. so I have heard stories ;-)