Russell Pearce, Baby-Basher, on Blast Monday with "Thousand Baby Chain"

rpboyones 066.jpg
Does this man hate your baby? Um, only if it's not white...

State Senate President Russell Pearce's baby-bashin', anti-14th Amendment legislation will get a hearing Monday, February 7, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Pearce's ally, state Senator Ron Gould.

Fortunately, the pro-immigrant advocacy group Border Action Network, has a plan for battle:

A "One-Thousand Baby Chain," made up of real and imagined infants and children, flooding the legislature with more goo-goo-in', screamin' , and diaper-changin' than an outing to Chuck E. Cheese.

For those sans rugrats, BAN even offers you a baby cutout you can bring along to show solidarity. Granted, this is a little dangerous, given the fact that the Republinuts in the legislature are now packin' pistolas, and may confuse those cutouts for the sort of paperr targets they fire at out on the shootin' range.

Grand idea, this children's crusade. Those kiddies are guaranteed to be Mensa-smart by comparison to the Republitards who're backing Senate Bills 1308 and 1309 in an effort to undermine the birthright citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Though reputedly written by the "brain trust" at the DC-based hate group FAIR (the Federation for American Immigration Reform), these have to be two of the most asinine pieces of proposed legislation I've ever read.

And since I do read a lot of the dumb bills the Arizona legislature spews forth from its bile-filled belly, that's saying something.

SB 1308 is not only moronic, it's dishonest. It attempts to set up a "compact" with other states to create a two-tiered system of birth certificates, and in doing so, it lies about what the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provision means.

Take this passage of 1308,

As used in this compact, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" has the meaning that it bears in section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, namely that the person is a child of at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, or a child without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country.

Total made-up bull. The 14th Amendment says nothing about parents, about one parent being American, or any of that claptrap.

Literally, it says,

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Nativists want to twist that phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," to mean what they want it to. But the 1866 Senate debate on the language makes one thing clear: Both proponents and opponents of the provision agreed that the children of foreign nationals -- save for those of diplomats -- would become citizens as a result.

You can read that debate, here.

Aside from the original intent of the language, and the plain meaning of the language, there's over 100 years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, making it clear that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to kids of foreign diplomats who have immunity from U.S. laws, and not to children born to, say, Chinese nationals, as was the case in the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States vs. Wong Kim Ark.

So SB 1308 is immoral, unethical, unconstitutional and plain illegal, as the 14th Amendment also dictates that,

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Which is exactly what Pearce, Gould and the rest want to do: abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States, and deny them equal protection.

Interestingly, the language of SB 1308 makes it clear that the proposed compact is, essentially, meaningless unless the U.S. Congress agrees to it:

This compact shall not take effect until the United States congress has given its consent pursuant to article I, section 10, clause 3 of the United States Constitution.

Similarly, SB 1309, is also hollow, as it attempts to create a non-existent "Arizona citizenship," and prevent so-called "anchor babies" from becoming Sand Land citizens. (The bill doesn't actually use the term "anchor babies," but it might as well.)

Still, in 1309's very last sentence, the bill's authors sheepishly admit they're doing little more than playing cops and robbers in their own backyard:

Citizenship of the state of Arizona shall not confer upon the holder thereof any right, privilege, immunity or benefit under law.

All of this would be hilarious if it were not outright racist. The only "anchor babies" Pearce and his ilk are truly concerned about are the non-white variety, you see.

Mark my words, anyone who supports these idiotic, bigoted bills will forever be branded as a laughingstock, and perceived as one-step away from being a white-hood-wearer. Those who do not strenuously oppose them will be damned by inaction.

Because even if these bills are doomed to failure in the courts, they still symbolize the ugliness, prejudice and stupidity of Arizona in 2011.

My Voice Nation Help
18 comments
Che
Che

Pearce is pure, neo-nazi scum. Too bad he wasn't born in Germany a little earlier so he could've hung with the rest of them.

guest
guest

a thousand baby chain... perfectly illustrating the reason for the bill's existence in the first place.

Temoc Usa
Temoc Usa

If the framers of the 14th Amendment meant to confer birthright citizenship solely upon persons whose parents "owe sole allegiance to the U.S.", why didn't they use language to that effect in lieu of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

How can a person be an "illegal alien" if they are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

Does the 14th Amendment even mention a persons parents?

U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment;

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

"Enforce U.S. immigration laws" scream the haters...except U.S. immigration laws precluding individual states from enacting their OWN immigration laws!

Ironically, when SB 1308 and SB 1309 are inevitably struck down by the courts, the same haters will be screaming;

WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

revgerry
revgerry

"Sound and fury, signifying nothing..." diversion from our real issues which they have no way to address - education, health care, jobs, tax revenue.....

Temoc
Temoc

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

If the framers of the 14th amendment meant "namely that the person is a child of at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty", why didn't they just write that instead of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

The language is pretty clear and unambigous. As already pointed out, the fact Arizona law enforcement can prosecute/jail undocumented immigrants clearly demonstrates they are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" Obviously only persons enjoying DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Adrian Cruz
Adrian Cruz

Hey, Rusty, how about creating some jobs for a change or plugging the $2 billion hole in our budget with that big ugly noggin of yours?

Coz
Coz

That's asking a lot from someone that has only a one track racist Neo Nazi mind.

david saint
david saint

A point i didnt see mentioned here is the issue of jurisdiction. RIght now this county is charging illegals with felonies for basically smuggling themselves into the country. So, in charging them with felonies, they are asserting jurisdiction, contrary to the language in the bill. SO, they can either charge them as felons and assert jurisdiction and grant their babies citizenship, or they can deny the babies and not have the power to charge them with felonies..Do these morons even realize this, or do they just ignore it and hope others will miss this?

Kit Carson
Kit Carson

Nice article up to the point where Lemons tosses out this bit of crap>

"Mark my words, anyone who supports these idiotic, bigoted bills will forever be branded as a laughingstock, and perceived as one-step away from being a white-hood-wearer. Those who do not strenuously oppose them will be damned by inaction."

No, sadly, they won't. THis is Arizona. They will be seen as decent, G-d fearing folk just trying to defend the nation.

We've done dumber things - English Only, anyone - and we will do even more idiotic in the future.

Come back after the next election and report how many supporters are back in power.

Guest
Guest

Arizona voters not only sent JD Hayworth to congress, they kept him there ...

Stupid is as stupid does.

CableGuy
CableGuy

We need a bill to ban people like Russell Pearce from breeding. His son is out of control!

Coz
Coz

I hear the in house Capital cleaners is offering a special on white hood and robe cleaning for the legislators this week so they can look sharp for hearings.

Omdick
Omdick

I live overseas.. I watch. Arizona is the WORST example of American republican politics that has the ignorant Fox News watchers believing republicans are 'right'. "They're NOT the republicans your grand father voted for. They're simply a greedy mob eating from the trough of big business and rampant, uncontrolled free enterprise. Greed is not an American value in politics.. it's "for the people, by the people" ?

XSoldier
XSoldier

I think Senate President Pearce should do a bit more research.

During the Reconstruction Era, when Ulysses S. Grant was President, laws were passed that he signed that helped to bolster the 14th Amendment. They are:

The Naturalization Act of 1870--Presumably to give African-Americans citizenship.The Amnesty (gasp!) Act of 1872--Presumably to make amends with the African-Americans.The Civil Rights Act of 1875:--Presumably to give African-Americans equal rights.

I wonder if any one of these three laws ties into the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Pearce wants to void?

Truth to Power
Truth to Power

According to Pearce's bill, John McCain would not be an Arizona citizen; the children born to U.S. soldiers stationed overseas could not become Arizona citizens; and no one who is an Arizona citizen has any rights whatsoever.

Tombstone_Pete
Tombstone_Pete

This triple-chin ass-hole is in dire need of a great blow job.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Home

Loading...