GOP to target women and babies

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Today is the big day for racists, nativists and descendants of the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing Party of the 19th Century. It's "anchor baby day," when all their racist, nativist, anti-immigrant hysteria and hatred comes pouring out of the dark recesses of their souls to spew their bilous hatred for the yet-to-born innocent children of "illegal immigrant" mothers in model legislation to be introduced in Washington, DC.

As a quick aside, I have to agree with David Safier that Howard Fischer's reporting more and more has come to resemble stenography for our de facto governor, Sen. Russell Pearce. Proposed legislation would let each state define citizenship. Howie lets ol' Russell spout his ridiculous legal theories without ever revealing that he learned this nonsense from Kris Kobach, a lawyer with the Immigration Reform Law Institute, the legal arm of the anti-immigrant hate group Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

Koback previously drafted SB 1070. Hate Group Lawyer Drafted Arizona’s Anti-Immigrant Law | Hatewatch | Southern Poverty Law Center. (The idiot voters of Kansas just elected Kobach their secretary of state — don't laugh, we just elected Tom Horne our attorney general). Reporters really must stop crediting Sen. Pearce as the "author" of these bills, he is merely the sponsor. Always identify the source of "model legislation," whether from FAIR, ALEC, Goldwater Institute, etc. The public has a right to know.

Fortunately, Marc Lacey of the New York Times recently did a much better job of reporting on this story. Citizenship for Babies Looms as Immigration Fight:

Most scholars of the Constitution consider the states’ effort to restrict birth certificates patently unconstitutional. “This is political theater, not a serious effort to create a legal test,” said Gabriel J. Chin, a law professor at the University of Arizona whose grandfather immigrated to the United States from China at a time when ethnic Chinese were excluded from the country. “It strikes me as unwise, un-American and unconstitutional.”

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, was a repudiation of the Supreme Court’s 1857 ruling, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, that people of African descent could never be American citizens. The amendment said citizenship applied to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

In 1898 the Supreme Court, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, interpreted the citizenship provision as applying to a child born in the United States to a Chinese immigrant couple.

Still, some conservatives contend that the issue is unsettled. Kris Kobach, the incoming secretary of state in Kansas and a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who has helped draft many of the tough immigration regulations across the country, argued that the approach the states were planning would hold up to scrutiny.

“I can’t really say much more without showing my hand,” Mr. Kobach said in an e-mail. “But, yes, I am confident that the law will stand up in court.”

No, it will not. It is patently unconstitutional as professor Chin indicated.

I have previously posted about the Racist roots of Russell Pearce's regressive anti-immigrant laws, and Meet Kris Kobach, the man behind SB 1070. I have also addressed most of Pearce's ridiculous legal theories behind the offensive "anchor baby" law here Sen. Russell Pearce's next target: women and babies, and here Anti-Constitution radicals attack citizenship.

The radical right excels at unserious efforts to create legal tests, and with so much of the federal judiciary filled with judges nominated by Republican presidents, a number of conservatives feel like it's worth rolling the dice. Our de facto governor, Sen. Russell Pearce, readily admitted to Howard Fischer that his intent is to use the courts, no doubt defended by lawyers from right-wing anti-immigrant hate groups at taxpayer expense, in the hope of getting one case to the U.S. Supreme Court:

Pearce said that even if the proposal becomes law in Arizona and elsewhere, that is just the beginning of the battle.

“What we’re looking for is a (U.S.) Supreme Court fight,’’ he said, one that will reverse earlier court rulings.

That fight is likely to take the form of a lawsuit filed on behalf of a child born in Arizona who has been denied a full-citizenship birth certificate. Pearce, however, said he is confident that a majority of the current Supreme Court will agree with his argument that the states, as sovereign entities who formed the federal government, get to determine citizenship.

This issue is dividing Republicans, too. 'Birthright citizenship' will be target of House GOP majority | McClatchy:

"We find both this rhetoric and this unconstitutional conduct reprehensible, insulting and a poor reflection upon Republicans," DeeDee Blasé, the founder of Somos Republicans, a Latino GOP organization based in the Southwestern states, said in a letter to House Republican leaders.

Maybe so, but I have not heard any "compassionate conservatives" in Arizona speaking out against the radical right of the Republican Party pursuing this divisive legislation. Where are they?

Kudos to Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic for her well-reasoned opinion today. State leaders should focus on border security, not babies.

H/t graphic by Michael Bryan, who insisted that I use it.