let's not push it...
Today, I read an article from the Politico website that says that the Arizona legislature is preparing to deny citizenship to those children born in the United states to parents who are not citizens.
It sounds to me like they are, pardon the expression, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
For one thing, as states of the US of A, their charter stems from the Constitution, which addresses this issue, specifically. If you are born here, you are a citizen. I think that they might be a bit full of themselves, having not been nuked and paved after their last bit of legislative panache.
If this is actually introduced, and/or passed, whatever standing the state may have carved out in terms of political standing will be seriously eroded. the state is inviting, at best, ridicule, and at worst, an intervention in governmental affairs unseen since the Emancipation Proclamation. We recognize that a problem exists, a serious problem, but a casual disregard of the constitution and a states rights attitude is not the way to solve it. The day after Arizona takes such extreme action, other states may fail to recognize Arizonans as citizens of anything, and treat them accordingly. Or maybe the state legislature can do something about those pesky Baptists. Maybe they can stop those editorials on those liberal TV/radio/cable networks too. And stop that damned internet crap. I mean, if a housecleaning is in order, then, lets clean house.
I am not sure what the state is trying to accomplish here, but it seems to be something beyond cost control and immigration reform. This may be a quiet issue that grows into a cancer that consumes us, (yeah I know, before all those other things that could consume us....). Instead of being a serious issue, this may be yet another club that one faction or another uses to bet up on a political antagonist, and when that utility is exhausted, they move on to something else, leaving the issue unresolved and all the worse for wear.
The state of Arizona needs to chill, apply itself to what it can do, and heed some sage advice:
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
posted by eccentric recluse at 1:35 PM
13 Comments:
I think I could adequately prove I was born in the United States, but I'm not sure I could prove that my parents were U.S. citizens--just because I don't have that much documentation concerning them. I don't like that new law.
I think what needs to happen now is for the Native American contingency to vociferously demand that the law me made retroactive since, oh, 1500 a.d., and that everybody else get the hell off their land.
There are all sorts of ramifications to this, I can see mass pandemonium at best, mayhem at worst.
There might be quite a few better ways to deal with the "anchor baby" phenomenon, say, allowing the child to stay in the US as a ward of a state, (perhaps as a foster child, not necessarily in AZ), while the parent or parents are deported and documented as waiting for legal status. That would, possibly, give pause to parents who use this as a means to jump to the head of the line.
Of course that will never happen. Obviously to actually do that would be a form of cruel and/or inhumane punishment. I have come to believe that there is no realistic solution to this problem. The only course we have is to either just accept the influx of new immigrants in this uncontrolled way, or work to stop the incentives for illegal immigration, i.e. the economic incentives that seem to be at the core of all of this immigration. If we choose to do the latter, a new discussion opens up as to how exactly to do that. Trying to control businesses to keep them from utilizing cheaper labor is going to wind up like prohibition, I think. That leaves opening up the economies of Mexico and the U.S. so that they reach an equilibrium and people will be content to stay where they are, which is probably what most people want to do anyway, if they could.
Historically, this is probably what is going to happen eventually anyway.
Just my opinion.
I think that you are right, and, for the record. it is a rather harsh way of dealing with this rather narrow aspect of the larger problem.
We all want the cake and to be able to eat it. The cheap labor is great, but the hidden costs are a real downer. Nobody wants to take those jobs if it means a standard of living comparable to the average migrant. So what do you do? My point in this post is not to suggest a solution but to suggest that trashing the Constitution should not be near the top of the list, (but you know that).
Some discipline is in order here, and, unfortunately, it has to start with us before we can impose it on them. We will have to give up something significant so that we can deny the immigrant population the leverage they have now, (by default).
That won't be easy as it will be as expensive, up front, as what we have right now.
I hate seeing all these narrow problems solved by broad swath changes. We should exercise a little caution, and foresight. Back to a theme to which I frequently return: the principles on which our country was founded were not meant to be temporary, for as long as "everything is OK." They are the ground rules for this grand experiment. Is it going to fail?
The time for caution and foresight was 30 years ago, when a "careful" and "forward thinking" government would have secured the border, and made swift punishment for hiring illegals the order of the day.
Too late for that.
Imagine if you're well into retirement living, on beautiful, southwest desert property, that you saved all your life to purchase.. and now you dread sundown, 'cause your life has become a bizzare, thriller novel. You can't even explore your land in broad daylight without someone to watch your back (both of you armed).
As for trashing the constitution ? Are you serious ? This regime has left it in tatters. Assuming we can return to a time when it IS the supreme law of the land; this AZ stuff is how amendments get a head of steam going. You need an aroused population (whole country), to give that process life. However ugly the sausge making gets, it'll pale to how the constitution has been ground into the intestinal casing by our current congress.
This isn't the first time an out-dated amendment needed to be voided by an new amendment. Even if the parents are here legally; they might not want their new child to be deemed an American citizen. If they are here legally, yes the new child can be awarded citizenship.
As for the Native-American reference.. aside from the utter impracticality of it all.. let's not forget that any number of those nations would have happily wiped the the others off the continent; if they were able to. (and there wouldn't have been any sort of treaty wrap up to the genocide).
The Native American reference was sort of a joke. As if, hmmm...perhaps immigration control should have started a LOT earlier. But I'm willing to concede that the situation should be taken from this point on and not from some historical reference. Which is why I think we should concentrate on the root causes of these problems and not try to punish retroactively. Make clear, sensible and enforceable laws that take place from now on, and slosh through this.
RweTHEREyet said...
"This isn't the first time an out-dated amendment needed to be voided by an new amendment."
OK, would you care to elaborate on that point?
Sure..
Specifically, the 21st... But I should have phrased that differenty.
It's not the first time the constitution needed to be altered by amendment (as opposed to adding to it)
The; 12th, 17th, 22nd changed the existing Constitution.
What I meant was, how would you amend the Constitution, as it is today, in order to rectify this, or another specific issue?
Ahh.. ok.. I thought per this discussion, it was assumed.. It's what your post is built on.
Section 1 of the 14th
Eliminate the "Anchor Baby" provision.
The 14th Amendment would instantly nullify AZ's stab at a state taking it upon itself to deny citizenship to children born of people here illegally. To me, in 2010, it's a no brainer.
Why not simply bypass the problem of amending the Constitution, with the complexities that it brings with it, and grant such a child the right of citizenship, but deport the parents anyway, and work from that point?
The onus is then on them who created the situation.
The child may leave with them, but may carry a right of return, when old enough to do so under his or her own auspices?
or not.
That would entail too many individual 'transactions'.. documentations, and of course another government entity to administrate it all.
The point of this (from where I see it), is to remove one of the motivations for the mother to be here in the first place.
Post a Comment
<< Home