Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I actually agree with the idea somewhat. I believe that the law should require that at least one parent have a "legal presence" such as citizenship, permanent residency or a visa in the USA for a baby born here to be an automatic citizen. But a state cannot change that. Only a Constitutional Amendment can change that.
Obviously Arizona knows it can't change federasl citizenship laws, and that this is going to be challengd. I think the goal is to get it before the Supreme Court, and have them rule on the intent of the 14th Ammendment.
Clue to the Clueless:
States do not set immigration laws for the Nation or even their own State, nor do they give US citizenship. I seriously think AZ needs to change the name of the State to Crackpot Corner, they can use a tinfoil hat as their new logo on the State flag.
Actually States do have some role, what do you think residency requirements are for? Many/all states deny residency to illegal aliens, thus without residency they can not obtain certain benefits, hence why they have children born here who gain residency and according to DoS and FAM1111 thay also gain citizenship status.
Obviously Arizona knows it can't change federasl citizenship laws, and that this is going to be challengd. I think the goal is to get it before the Supreme Court, and have them rule on the intent of the 14th Ammendment.
The already did over 100 years ago. And one state challenging the law isn't enough to get the supreme court to even care about.
Face it, the only way to stop anchor babies is to amend the Constitution. Once Congress passes it the 38 states have to ratify it.
Actually the Constitution doesn't even have to be amended. All it would take is for the SC to revisit the meaning of birthright citizenship and the way it was intended to be translated from the writer's of it.
Actually the Constitution doesn't even have to be amended. All it would take is for the SC to revisit the meaning of birthright citizenship and the way it was intended to be translated from the writer's of it.
We don't know how they intended it since illegal immigration was not a concern of the founding fathers.
Citizenship is defined and granted per DoS FAM1111, it is nothing but policy, policy is easily changed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
