Let's examine Ruben Navarratte Jr.'s recent article about children's citizenship, where he calls recent attempts to deny citizenships to children of illegal immigrants 'cowardly and shameful.' Article Here.
The lawmakers are cowards because, first, they go after illegal immigrants who don't vote, lobby or contribute to political campaigns. And now they're going after children who don't vote, lobby or contribute to political campaigns.
Whom are they not going after? Employers of illegal immigrants. You know why? Because they vote, lobby and contribute to political campaigns.
This makes no sense. You know why? Because Arizona already has the most stringent laws to help enforce against illegal employment. Moreover, what's wrong with going after people who don't vote? The people who don't vote, don't because they have no right to vote. They have no right because they aren't here legally. The people who do vote want them to take their drug cartel violence and go away.
The fact that Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who was famously holed up in a Chicago, Illinois, church, had a U.S.-born son didn't stop federal officials from deporting her in 2007. Some anchor.
Just because you can point to one example where an 'anchor baby' didn't work, doesn't mean that it doesn't usually work. Most of the time, in California for example, parents of US-citizen-children-anchor-babies who are here illegally and caught are allowed to stay for humane reasons of not splitting up the family. In actuality, the parents and children should all go back to their native country if the family wants to remain in tact.
In fact, right-wingers acknowledge as much when they argue that if we dry up the jobs, illegal immigrants will self-deport.
What about their kids, some of which were born in the United States? Why not stay for them? Simple: Employment takes precedence. Thus, according to conservatives' own arguments, there aren't anchor babies -- only anchor jobs.
Very true, jobs are anchors, and employers should be punished like crazy. Unfortunately, Arizona can only make it so hard for employers to hire illegal immigrants. At some point in time, it is the federal government's job to be enforcing these laws. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually Arizona does pass legislation allowing their state troopers to raid businesses who hire illegals in the same way the federal government does. And I would bet a pretty penny that you would get upset about that, too.
Also, you can bet that some of the same people who oppose citizenship for the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants also oppose the idea of granting a pathway to earned legalization -- what they call "amnesty" -- to illegal immigrants. Why?
Because, they say, you can't willy-nilly convert those who are illegal to legal. Then how can those folks be so cavalier about making that conversion in the opposite direction by changing legal to illegal?
Of course people oppose a pathway to citizenship. (And for the record, since you started this ridiculous right-wing, left-wing crap, the left-wing coined the phrase 'Amnesty.' Only recently has it begun using 'pathway to citizenship' because they realized most people do not want Amnesty, so they gave it a new name.) But there's no two way argument here. No one is calling for those who already have US citizenship to be stripped of it. You are just trying to incite people with patently false statements.
And now all the opponents of birthright citizenship have to do is change the Constitution. The 14th Amendment makes clear that anyone born in the United States, with the possible exception of the children of foreign diplomats, is a U.S. citizen.
Now, to understand why the 14th Amendment is begin challenged, you need to have the slightest bit of historical context.
Clearly, you don't, so let me explain. Do you know why the 14th Amendment was written? Because lawmakers needed some blanket way to grant citizenships to the black population after slavery was abolished. The idea of citizenship was much looser at the time than it is today.
Presently, no other country in the world has a citizenship law similar to the 14th Amendment. None. That's because every other country recognizes the stupidity of having uncontrolled immigration in a time where the world is much smaller and easier to traverse than it was in 1868.
The people who challenge the 14th are NOT fighting to have current citizens' rights taken away. They ARE fighting to essentially change the law so that no more 'anchor babies' are created.
Given all that's happened in recent weeks in its jihad against not illegal immigrants but Hispanics in general, the Grand Canyon State seems to have more than its share of people who slept through high school civics, and they're being advised by lawyers who were obviously absent the day they taught "law" in law school. That's not a good look.
What the heck are you talking about? Can you give a single example of 'Jihad' against Hispanics? Of course you can't. SB1070 says nothing about being white, hispanic, black, asian, etc. There are other recent laws to which you may be referring, but they also make no racial distinction whatsoever, and in fact have more severe words against racial profiling than most similar federal legislation. You sir are the one grasping at straws, likely due to your political agenda.
The U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are legally entitled to U.S. citizenship. What part of "legal" don't the critics understand?
They understand perfectly. That's why they want to change the law so that the practice of birthing trips stops. (Yes, businesses in countries like Turkey actually have touring packages for pregnant women designed to get their child US citizenship while 'vacationing' in the United States.) They want to change the law to stop creating an overburden on the taxpayer, since the 'anchor babies' don't have anyone paying taxes to account for them. They want to change the law since every other country recognizes how stupid it is. They understand perfectly. That's why they want change.
You sir don't understand.
