The phrase, "that class of people" was spoken by Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce in an interview on Phoenix CBS affiliate KPHO. Pearce sponsored SB 1070, and made it his mission to leave a legacy. He seemed to be referring to illegal immigrants, namely Mexicans, whose violent crime rate is said to be twice as high as the Native American crime rate. He wasn't referring, I don't think, to all Mexicans. He also had no problem passing on an email that he received to stop the "anchor baby racket." The constitutional issue seems to be the interpretation with respect to citizenship of the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment. Senator Pearce seeks re-election this year, and he'll undoubtedly win. He also seeks the Legislature's President of the Senate leadership position, and will probably get it.
Yet, SB 1070 also addresses the hiring of Mexican laborers, who simply hang out on certain intersections where they can be picked up to earn a living working as day laborers. They are not drug dealers or violent criminals, why would a drug dealer or violent criminal be looking for day work? And then there's Sheriff Joe Arpaio, everybody should know Sheriff Joe by now, who does his "raids" in predominantly Mexican areas, because, as he says, that's where the illegals are. But, I haven't heard of any employer being arrested for hiring illegals, which is also against the law. Somehow police enforcement, and the tipsters who phone in the illegal violators, can spot these illegals, but the employers seem deaf, dumb and blind. Is any illegal going to tell others, "Hola muchachos, soy inmigrante ilegal" (remember, illegals are not supposed to know English).
Now, I am not against protecting our borders from illegal aliens, especially drug runners and violent criminals, but does that require harming innocent people like the children of illegal aliens? Separating them from their parents? Many of these parents, the media reports, are illegal by virtue of expired visas and not their illegal entry. Some 5 million expired-visa-holding aliens are still here in America.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mac
"illegal by virtue of expired visas ... Some 5 million expired-visa-holding aliens are still here in America." - what, in those statements, makes those people NOT illegal? Why can't they abide by the rules of renewing, or obtaining new visas, and stay legal?
2 - Dr Dreadful
Since the distinction between what constitutes a "legal" versus an "illegal" immigrant is essentially arbitrary, a move to deny citizenship to the US-born children of illegals based on a particular interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of" is a dangerous path to take.
For instance, I'm a foreign national and a legal US permanent resident. I happen to be married to a US citizen, but let's pretend for a moment that I'm not. Let's pretend that my spouse is also a legal resident and that our child is born in the US. Remember, although we're here legally, neither of us has given up our foreign citizenship.
What makes our child "subject to the jurisdiction of" the US while the baby in the next crib born to illegal aliens is not?
3 - Clavos
I don't think that anyone born of non-citizen parents should be granted citizenship under any circumstances.
4 - Dr Dreadful
...Which (correct me if I misinterpret your meaning) would mean that no-one would ever be a citizen...?
5 - zingzing
heh. don't bring up facts, doc. history means nothing. the past is irrelevant.
anyone born outside of this country is foreign to us. we are, therefore, going to slowly intermarry and become a nation of drooling, big-eared english royalty.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc and zing - LOL!
7 - Silas Kain
God Save the Queen.
8 - Clavos
I think you get my meaning Doc.
9 - Dr Dreadful
[diabolical chuckle]
10 - Silas Kain
Legalize pot. Canada and Mexico get export taxes. U.S. and states get import taxes. Heroin and hard drug use go down and everybody's mellow.
11 - Irene Wagner
Good idea, Silas. And as an added bonus, the prison population goes waaaaaaaaay down.
Opposition will come from those who have a vested interest in keeping the prison population waaaaaaaaay up, though. Be ready for it. :(
12 - Irene Wagner
Good article, Hoagov. I sure hope the next election sends a lot of brainy AND compassionate people to DC.
13 - Cannonshop
#3 Then you're out of step with the definitions, Clavos- you're born here, you're a citizen.
Now, me? I think if the parents are illegal, send them back or make them go through the hoops to GET legal, but the kid's American, and we've got thousands upon thousands of couples (gay and straight) waiting for the chance to foster and/or adopt.
Maybe growing up with 'father of the week' has made me callous, but I don't see much sanctity in allowing someone to break the law because they have a kid, even if it means breaking up the family unit.
14 - Clavos
#3 Then you're out of step with the definitions, Clavos- you're born here, you're a citizen.
I realize that, Cannon. My point was that I think that should be changed; only those born here with at least one American citizen parent should be granted citizenship.
15 - roger nowosielski
Pretty soon it's going to become a moot point; we're all be "citizens of the world."
16 - Clavos
Not in your or my lifetimes, Roger.
17 - zingzing
"aww look at the cute baby. deport that criminal's ass. what a fucking slacker. just sitting there all day, pooping itself and BEGGING for food. whine, whine, whine, you little crybaby. go home to mommy! well, she's in jail right now, awaiting deportation. ... i don't know where. why are you asking me? now get out of here? what's the matter with you? can't walk? and put on some fucking clothes. what are you, stupid? that's not how you button a shirt. my god, no one ever taught you how to tie a tie? where's your father? oh, right. jail. gotcha. well, alright, it's like this, then this, then this and whalla! now get your brown ass back to mexico, you fucking leech."
18 - Les Slater
Immigrants are being scapegoated for the ills of the capitalist system itself. It isn't workers, with or without papers, that have caused the crisis. From a working class perspective these workers are part of our class. An injury to them makes us all weaker. We need to defend them.
The real criminals should have their control of society taken away from them.
19 - Les Slater
No raids, no deportations. Documentation to all workers who work here and their families.
20 - Clavos
Documentation to all workers who work here and their families.
Not until they've gone back home for a specified period of time, and then returning only under a guest worker program.
21 - roger nowosielski
In other words, we want to hold on to a semblance of "legality."
I suppose in the interest of preventing all hell from breaking loose.
22 - Les Slater
All hell breaking loose?
23 - roger nowosielski
I'm thinking of backlash, Les, from the conservatives and the Tea Party crowd.
America is still inviolable in their eyes.
24 - Les Slater
Too formal. None of this can happen overnight. It would require a much stronger and organized working class. The Tea Party, if it's still around, will have other things to worry about.
25 - George Staropoli
I think we will see the 1873 US Supreme Court Slaughter-House Case (83 U.S. 63) surfacing in any constitutional challenge. This case dealt with restrictions on the use of slaughter houses in Louisiana, raising issues of the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment. However, it required that "a citizen of the United States" be first defined. "Citizen" is not defined in the Constitution.
Subsequently, US Revised Statutes, sec. 1992 (precursor to the US Code), declared that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excluded those with allegiance to other countries. "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power . . . are declared to be citizens of the United States." This issue can be now found in Title 8, sec. 1401 of today's USC, which reads: "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;" Note that the "foreign power" clause has been removed.
So, what does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean? The 64-dollar question. If it means that illegal immigrants are not subject to the US, then that implies no duty to obey the laws of Arizona, for example, or the US. Now that presents a problem, doesn't it? Even diplomats and embassy personnel, although by international law and treaty are not subject to US jurisdiction per se, they do agree to abide by the laws of the country in which the embassy is found.