Arizona Clears Strict Immigration Bill

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304604204575182721466632104.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth#articleTabs% 3Darticle

Arizona Clears Strict Immigration Bill


By MIRIAM JORDAN


Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.

It would also grant police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal.

The bill could still face a veto from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. A spokesman for Ms. Brewer said she has not publicly commented on the bill. Ms. Brewer, a Republican, has argued for stringent immigration laws.

Under the measure, passed Tuesday by Arizona's lower house, after being passed earlier by the state Senate, foreign nationals are required to carry proof of legal residency.

Immigrants' rights groups roundly criticized the bill. "The objective is to make life miserable for immigrants so that they leave the state," said Chris Newman, general counsel for the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "The bill constitutes a complete disregard for the rights of nonwhites in Arizona. It effectively mandates racial profiling."

The bill's author, State Sen. Russell Pearce, was in a committee session Tuesday and couldn't be reached, his offices said. Mr. Pearce, a Republican, represents the city of Mesa, in Maricopa County, whose sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has gained a national reputation for his tough stance on immigration enforcement. A spokesman for Mr. Arpaio didn't return a request for comment.

The bill is different from an earlier version, giving protections for church and community organizations from criminal prosecution for transporting or harboring illegal immigrants.

In a statement, Tuesday Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) called the measure "a comprehensive immigration enforcement bill that addresses the concerns of our communities, constituents and colleagues."

"This updated version gives our local police officers the tools they need to combat illegal immigration, while protecting the civil rights of citizens and legal residents."However, human rights groups are certain to challenge the measure in court, said Joe Rubio, lead organizer for Valley Interfaith Project, a Phoenix-based advocacy group, calling it "an economic train wreck." He added that "Arizona's economic recovery will lag way behind the country's if we keep chasing away our workforce. Where do the legislators think business will find workers?"

The bill in some ways toughens up a situation that the Obama administration had tried to roll back. Under a program known as 287g, some local law enforcement agencies were trained to enforce federal immigration laws by checking suspects' immigration status.

Mr. Arpaio, the Maricopa county sheriff, had been one of the most aggressive enforcers of 287g. However, the Obama administration in recent months has sought to scale back that program, and had reduced the resources it made available to Mr. Arpaio's office and others.


I hope I don't forget my wallet in my hotel room when I visit Arizona.. I may end in Mexico

[LnGrrrR]

It would also grant police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal.

HA! Let's see THAT hold up in court.

"So officer, why do you think he was illegal?"
"Because he didn't speak English? Plus, he was doing construction work... lots of illegal Mexicans do that."

Also, there's no law mandating that citizens have to carry around paperwork. Technically, you don't have to show cops your ID... you just have to give them your name.

Unless they specify certain reasons for checking the ID, I don't see it lasting long.

[TeyshaBlue]

HA! Let's see THAT hold up in court.

"So officer, why do you think he was illegal?"
"Because he didn't speak English? Plus, he was doing construction work... lots of illegal Mexicans do that."

Also, there's no law mandating that citizens have to carry around paperwork. Technically, you don't have to show cops your ID... you just have to give them your name.

Unless they specify certain reasons for checking the ID, I don't see it lasting long.

Yup. The lack of paperwork mandate is the poison pill. I can see, however, the state legislature passing a measure mandating citizens of their state carry proof of residence tho.

[The Reckoning]

nah they just need to unleash some chupacabras on the border

[Stringer_Bell]

PAPERS! SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS NOW! *shoots*

I think this law shoes the desperation of AZ to combat the ills that the Federal Government cannot because they're too busy killing towel heads elsewhere. AZ is willing to give up the work force of maids they have in Scottsdale and the janitors in Phoenix...just to replace them with white people? That is not a lateral move, my friends.

[panic giraffe]

sickening.

[Oh, Gee!!]

it'll probably cost a lot to jail suspects until trial, and try them, and then send them to prison. seems to me that enforcing the law would be costly and difficult, if the probable cause for stopping somebody is that person's appearance.

[George Gervin's Afro]

it'll probably cost a lot to jail suspects until trial, and try them, and then send them to prison. seems to me that enforcing the law would be costly and difficult, if the probable cause for stopping somebody is that person's appearance.

and of course Obama would get the blame becuase they don't have the money or space to house the illegals..

[Oh, Gee!!]

and of course Obama would get the blame becuase they don't have the money or space to house the illegals..

why? the state of arizona will bear the cost on a state case

[IronMexican]

Disgusting.

[admiralsnackbar]

Disgusting.

I think Oh Gee nailed it. Despite the seeds of its own destruction being in the constitutionality of the law itself, the sheer cost of enforcement will bring this down in a hurry.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's odd when a state bothers to criminalize something that's already criminal. Odder, something like 47% of the Hispanic voters supported the last, punative immigration reform initiative in 2005.

[Oh, Gee!!]

the sheer cost of enforcement will bring this down in a hurry.

I'm assuming that the bonds will be ridiculously high, or that there will be no bonds granted, on these cases because of the risk of flight, which means that they'll be housing suspected "illegals" for months and even years until their cases are resolved. that can't be cheap.

[admiralsnackbar]

It's odd when a state bothers to criminalize something that's already criminal. Odder, something like 47% of the Hispanic voters supported the last, punative immigration reform initiative in 2005.

I'm sure you know this, but for those who may not, the Hispanic category is deceptive.

Racially, it seems be used as a euphemism for native American, but it encompasses that as well as white European, Caribbean black, Asian, etc.

Politically (in this country, at least), it suggests people with a historical connection to Mexico or Mexican culture, but the metric includes 1st generation immigrants all the way through people whose family history in the US stretches back centuries -- not to mention people of purely Spanish or Portuguese ancestry, and those from all over Latin America (which has a very ethnically and politically diverse make-up).

The net consequence is that the Hispanic label is often more diffuse than it seems, and making generalizations about the political motives of its constituents often leads to ironic results -- just look at the vagueness of this year's census, which essentially ignored the distinction between white and Hispanic for what I believe are probably these reasons.

All to say that even if a high percentage of Hispanics vote for something like this law, it shouldn't necessarily be taken as counter-intuitive.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm sure you know this, but for those who may not, the Hispanic category is deceptive.

Racially, it seems be used as a euphemism for native American, but it encompasses that as well as white European, Caribbean black, Asian, etc.

Politically (in this country, at least), it suggests people with a historical connection to Mexico or Mexican culture, but the metric includes 1st generation immigrants all the way through people whose family history in the US stretches back centuries -- not to mention people of purely Spanish or Portuguese ancestry, and those from all over Latin America (which has a very ethnically and politically diverse make-up).

The net consequence is that the Hispanic label is often more diffuse than it seems, and making generalizations about the political motives of its constituents often leads to ironic results -- just look at the vagueness of this year's census, which essentially ignored the distinction between white and Hispanic for what I believe are probably these reasons.

All to say that even if a high percentage of Hispanics vote for something like this law, it shouldn't necessarily be taken as counter-intuitive.

Actually, I didn't know that Hispanic metrics could be so dilute. Thanks for the info!:toast

[MannyIsGod]

It's odd when a state bothers to criminalize something that's already criminal. Odder, something like 47% of the Hispanic voters supported the last, punative immigration reform initiative in 2005.

Its not really. Its political pandering at its finest.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sure the board conservatives and tea party enthusiasts will be up in arms against this bill, right?

[LnGrrrR]

The net consequence is that the Hispanic label is often more diffuse than it seems, and making generalizations about the political motives of its constituents often leads to ironic results -- just look at the vagueness of this year's census, which essentially ignored the distinction between white and Hispanic for what I believe are probably these reasons.


The census was a bit ocnfusing for my wife for this very reason. Under race, it had white, black, native american, asian etc etc... but hispanic was listed under a different category. My wife is actually from Mexico, 100% full blooded. So she's like... "Uhm.. what race do I put?"

We decided to go with "Other" and then write "Mexican" in the box for her and our son. :lol

[admiralsnackbar]

We decided to go with "Other" and then write "Mexican" in the box for her and our son. :lol

Viva México, cabrones! :lol

[boutons_deux]

"from Mexico, 100% full blooded"

No European blood in her? 100% Native American aka indigenous/aboriginal blood?

The N/S American aborigines who speak Spanish doesn't make them genetic Spanish.

[LnGrrrR]

"from Mexico, 100% full blooded"

No European blood in her? 100% Native American aka indigenous/aboriginal blood?

The N/S American aborigines who speak Spanish doesn't make them genetic Spanish.

There's probably European blood somewhere down the line, but we didn't feel like doing a genealogical report for the census.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm sure the board conservatives and tea party enthusiasts will be up in arms against this bill, right?

I'm assuming the Tea Party guys wont' be. They're pretty much on the States Rights bandwagon.

[Winehole23]

It's odd when a state bothers to criminalize something that's already criminal. Odder, something like 47% of the Hispanic voters supported the last, punative immigration reform initiative in 2005.That's a very popular misconception.

Actually, I think it's generally handled as an administrative infraction, not a criminal one. The distinction is significant.

[ginobme]

I'm assuming the Tea Party guys wont' be. They're pretty much on the States Rights bandwagon.

Really, I thought big gov't = socialist nazi communist russia agenda. Doesn't this just expand big brother into what they fear?

[Winehole23]

Criminalization of immigration violations is a novelty. It's what makes the OP news.

[TeyshaBlue]

That's a very popular misconception.

Actually, I think it's generally handled as an administrative infraction, not a criminal one. The distinction is significant.

Good grief. I'm ST's misconception poster-child today. :depressed :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Really, I thought big gov't = socialist nazi communist russia agenda. Doesn't this just expand big brother into what they fear?

State's Rights = 50 nearly-big brothers.

[Winehole23]

Good grief. I'm ST's misconception poster-child today. :depressed :lolTerminology ("illegal immigration") and political cant ("lawbreakers") conspire to encourage the conflation of undocumented immigrants with common criminals.

Accuracy is a bitch.

[EmptyMan]

State's Rights = 50 nearly-big brothers.


Yeah, but my big brother can beat up your big brother. :lol:downspin:

[mookie2001]

its a good law


its language profiling, anyone who was born in america speaks english like an american, every corner from seattle to miami to san diego to maine, every barrio, every hood, every ranch, every church compound, if you born here- you speak english

even the average police officer knows that

yes there are some americans who speak ESL, Sorrrrrrry senores

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sure the board conservatives and tea party enthusiasts will be up in arms against this bill, right?
I didn't read the whole thing. I think it's stretching from what I read. All we need to do is require proof of legal residency (not citizenship) for jobs and social benefits. If border states want to include that as a means of being treated in a hospital for non emergency care, I'm game for that too. As for the jobs, sever penalties and/or jail time for employers and individuals hiring those without legal residency.

Also, if a illegal-resident alien gives birth to a child here without a husband or father of US citizenry, then the child should be denied citizenship.

[Wild Cobra]

State's Rights = 50 nearly-big brothers.
True, but you can pick which brother you like the best, instead of an all powerful one.

[Winehole23]

Also, if a illegal-resident alien gives birth to a child here without a husband or father of US citizenry, then the child should be denied citizenship. If you really think so, start a petition to amend the Constitution. Because that's the only way it's gonna happen.

[LnGrrrR]

Also, if a illegal-resident alien gives birth to a child here without a husband or father of US citizenry, then the child should be denied citizenship.


No, no, and no. Emphatically.

If you're born on this soil, then you're an American. It's clear; it's simple. I'm relatively sure that changing this distinction would have far-reaching, unintended consequences.

As well, America was founded on the backs of immigrants. To change the birthright=citizenship equation is to fundamentally, in my mind, alter the way America works.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but to imply these 'anchor babies' are less American than others born to "true Americans" is misguided and detestable, in my eyes.

[Winehole23]

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but to imply these 'anchor babies' are less American than others born to "true Americans" is misguided and detestable, in my eyes.I think WC only implied they ought to be considered less than, not that he considers them so now.

[Winehole23]

Perhaps WC only posed it arguendo -- in passing as it were -- for (about) the fifteenth time.

[Winehole23]

Is there an echo in here?

[LnGrrrR]

I think WC only implied they ought to be considered less than, not that he considers them so now.

I'm sure WC would argue that it is a matter of security and reducing ways for illegal citizens to stay in the country.

I would argue that the "otherization" of a people leads to dehumanization, even if unintended. Just as illegal immigrants are otherized, enacting such a policy would lead to otherization of their children as well, and would cause a 'witchhunt' in many quarters to determine the legality of a child's birth.

Look at what happened to Obama, then multiply that by a few hundred thousand.

[rjv]

its a good law


its language profiling, anyone who was born in america speaks english like an american, every corner from seattle to miami to san diego to maine, every barrio, every hood, every ranch, every church compound, if you born here- you speak english

even the average police officer knows that

yes there are some americans who speak ESL, Sorrrrrrry senores

wow. what a great dissertation on linguistics. even added in an implied aspect of constitional law.

[Wild Cobra]

If you really think so, start a petition to amend the Constitution. Because that's the only way it's gonna happen.
The constitution is used wrong.


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.
It's the jurisdiction aspect that is taken wrong. Citizens of a different country can be requested for being returned. The jurisdiction they fall under is their own country. They only fall under our jurisdiction if they break a law. Now if you want to say by being here illegally as opposed to legally, they are under our jurisdiction, then fine. This is a loophole clearly never intended, and everyone knows it. The fourteenth amendment was meant to give full rights and privileges to the former slaves. It was that topic it addressed, and anchor babies... Give me a break.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
All congress has to do is say anchor babies don't count as citizens. Make a distinctive line of what jurisdiction is.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The constitution is used wrong.


It's the jurisdiction aspect that is taken wrong. Citizens of a different country can be requested for being returned. The jurisdiction they fall under is their own country. They only fall under our jurisdiction if they break a law. Now if you want to say by being here illegally as opposed to legally, they are under our jurisdiction, then fine. This is a loophole clearly never intended, and everyone knows it. The fourteenth amendment was meant to give full rights and privileges to the former slaves. It was that topic it addressed, and anchor babies... Give me a break.

All congress has to do is say anchor babies don't count as citizens. Make a distinctive line of what jurisdiction is.


what if i knock up foreign chick who is visiting on a student visa? in your world should the baby to be allowed citizenship?

[elbamba]

The toughest anti-illegal-immigrant measure in a generation passed the Arizona legislature this week. If signed, as expected, by Republican governor Jan Brewer, the law will give local police sweeping new powers in regard to undocumented workers. Currently, immigration offenses are violations of federal, not state, law, and local police officers only can inquire about a person's immigration status if that person is suspected of another crime. Under SB1070, however, Arizona police will have the right to stop anyone on "reasonable suspicion" that they may be an illegal immigrant and can arrest them if they are not carrying a valid driver's license or identity papers.

Passions about illegal immigration run high in Arizona, a point of entry for thousands of undocumented workers going to the U.S. from Mexico, and tensions were heightened by the recent murder of a rancher in a remote border area where illegal crossings are rampant. With 6.6 million residents, Arizona's illegal-immigrant population is estimated to be half a million people.
(See the great wall of America on the Mexico border.)

Both proponents and opponents of the law are vociferous. "This criminalizes undocumented status and turns dishwashers, janitors, landscapers and our neighbors into criminals," says Chris Newman, legal director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "The bill constitutes a complete disregard for the rights of nonwhites in Arizona. It effectively mandates racial profiling." But state senator Russell Pearce, a Republican, says his bill "will not change a thing for lawful citizens. It simply takes the handcuffs off law enforcement and allows them to do their job. Our legal citizens have a constitutional right to expect protection of federal law against noncitizens. When those laws are not enforced, our citizens are denied equal protection."
(Will a biometric Social Security card help the immigration crisis?)

All 35 Republicans in the lower Arizona house voted for the bill, while 21 Democrats voted against it. The bill passed the state senate earlier. Law enforcement in the state is split over the legislation, with rank and file supporting the measure and the Association of Chiefs of Police in opposition, saying it could hinder investigations by making the immigrant community hesitant to speak with police.

Appalled at the bill's harsh sweep, immigrant advocates are promising court challenges. "This is the most far-reaching anti-immigration bill in memory and it turns the presumption of innocence on its head," says Alessandra Meetze, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona. "It singles out the failure to carry ID as a reason to believe you are an undocumented alien. What this means is that citizens will need to carry papers with them at all times. It means people like my mother, who has brown skin and an accent, can be arrested and detained until it is confirmed that they are legally in the country."

"This is the most anti-immigrant legislation the U.S. has seen since the House bill of 2005 which set off huge demonstrations across the country," says Newman. "The sheer breadth of this bill is going to alter the national discussion." He says the bill does four things: criminalizes undocumented status, enlists local police in illegal-immigration enforcement, allows citizens to sue police departments if citizens think the police are not being sufficiently vigilant in enforcement and forbids any city from ignoring the state law and becoming a so-called sanctuary zone. "That's before you get to racial profiling," says Newman, "because anyone who looks Latino or has an accent can be swept up, arrested and detained while their immigration status is verified."

Can the law stand up to scrutiny? "There are some things that states can do and some that states can't do, but this law threads the needle perfectly," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law professor who helped write the legislation. He believes it will withstand constitutional challenge. "In the bill, Arizona only penalizes what is already a crime under federal law," says Kobach, a Yale Law School graduate and onetime counsel to former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. "That constitutes concurrent enforcement in legal terms, which the courts have said is permissible." Says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative think tank in Washington: "The rhetoric that this bill will create a police state is ridiculous. What this does is give police officers an extra tool in their tool kit."

"Enough is enough," says state senator Pearce, speaking about the increased violence along the Arizona border with Mexico. "One family has been burglarized 18 times and a number of officers have been killed and maimed in the line of duty dealing with illegal immigrants who are criminals. Our message is very clear," says Pearce. "Illegal aliens should find another state besides Arizona to visit."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1982268,00.html#ixzz0la4hdVX8

[elbamba]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kobach

If there is a tough immigration bill in your state, this is the guy drafting it. FYI.

[Drachen]

It's odd when a state bothers to criminalize something that's already criminal. Odder, something like 47% of the Hispanic voters supported the last, punative immigration reform initiative in 2005.


You find it odd that 47% of hispanics support harsh immigration reform? I have to say that i don't find it so odd. Most of the hispanic people that I know, especially first and second generation legal immigrants, have such a disdain for illegal immigrants that it right-wing white people look compassionate.

[Drachen]

Both proponents and opponents of the law are vociferous. "This criminalizes undocumented status and turns dishwashers, janitors, landscapers and our neighbors into criminals," says Chris Newman, legal director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "The bill constitutes a complete disregard for the rights of nonwhites in Arizona. It effectively mandates racial profiling." But state senator Russell Pearce, a Republican, says his bill "will not change a thing for lawful citizens. It simply takes the handcuffs off law enforcement and allows them to do their job. Our legal citizens have a constitutional right to expect protection of federal law against noncitizens. When those laws are not enforced, our citizens are denied equal protection."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1982268,00.html#ixzz0la4hdVX8


It doesn't turn them into criminals, they are already criminals if they are here illegally.

I do, however, think that this is a little too far. I don't know what the happy medium is, though, because what we are doing now isn't working.

[LnGrrrR]

The constitution is used wrong.



I find it odd you claim sole jurisdiction of how to define this part of the Constitution. Obviously, the current interpretation has been defined by judges, who have spent lifetimes studying their craft. What gives you such special and rare insight?




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.


You're a fan of interepreting what the writers meant at the time a document was written, right? Let's see what the people arguing the Amendment had to say.

Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11)


The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

So this Amendment seems to have been passed precisely to make citizenship clear!

If you read further, they then cover the EXACT argument we're having here! Except instead of Mexicans, it's gypsies and Chinese. (Or the Mongols as they're called here.) Specifically, they quote the Chinese miners in California.

An interesting quote from the article:
"I have lived in the US for now many a year, and really I have heard more about Gypsies than I have heard before in my life. It cannot be because they have increased so much of late. It cannot be because they have been felt to be particularly oppressive in this or that locality. It must be that the Gypsy element is to be added to our political agitation, so that hereafter the negro alone shall not claim our entire attention. Here is a simple declaration that a score or a few score of human beings born in the US shall be regarded as citizens of the US, entitled to civil rights, to the right of equal defense, to the right of equal punishment of crime with other citizens, and that such a provision should be deprecated by any person having or claiming to have a high humanity passes all my understanding and comprehension."

And the very Amendment they're discussing is the one which was passed, in the same language.

Anotehr quote later, from a Mr. Johnson:



I think, therefore, with the committee to whom the matter was referred, and by whom the report has been made, that it is very advisable in some form or other to define what citizenship is; and I know no better way of accomplishing that than the way adopted by the comittee.

The Constitution as it now stands recognizes a citizenship of the United States. It provides that no person shall be eligible to the Presidency of the US except a natural-born citizen of the US or one who was in the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; it provides that no person shall be eligible to the office of Senator who has not been a citizen of the US for nine years; but there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship.

Who is a citizen of the US is an open question. The decision of the courts and the doctrine of the commentators is, that every man who is a citizen of a State becomes ipso facto a citizen of the US, but there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the US except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.

Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us-- shall be considered as citizens of the US."


The person stating this, though, isn't sure about the "subject to jurisdiction" clause, especially regarding Native Americans and taxation. There's a few pages of discussion, as Native Americans were seen as sovereign nations by some. That's the main reason they brought up the "jurisdiction" line, as they didn't wish to include Native Americans automatically as citizens since they were part of their own nation.

Anyways, you've seen the amendment was agreed to, and the arguments used for its passage are the same as the ones in use today; that those born within our borders, that are not the son of a foreign diplomat or some other rare case, are US citizens.

So tell me, how is it misinterpreted?

[LnGrrrR]

All congress has to do is say anchor babies don't count as citizens. Make a distinctive line of what jurisdiction is.

And Congress rejected that argument. Which is why you don't see the law being applied that way.

[Wild Cobra]

what if i knock up foreign chick who is visiting on a student visa? in your world should the baby to be allowed citizenship?
If you are a US citizen, yes.

[Wild Cobra]

You find it odd that 47% of hispanics support harsh immigration reform? I have to say that i don't find it so odd. Most of the hispanic people that I know, especially first and second generation legal immigrants, have such a disdain for illegal immigrants that it right-wing white people look compassionate.
I find the same thing here in Oregon.

[LnGrrrR]

Waiting for a response WC. :toast

[Wild Cobra]

You're a fan of interepreting what the writers meant at the time a document was written, right? Let's see what the people arguing the Amendment had to say.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11)

So tell me, how is it misinterpreted?
The fact that laws of immigration are left to congress and it wasn't illegal for at the time for them to be here.

Riddle me this. During that time, was there ever any prosecutions for illegal aliens?

The answer is NO. Citizens of Mexico were free to come here without immigration control them.

What you quoted was also one man's explaination. Not necessarily the definition voted on either.

[Wild Cobra]

LnGrrrR, did you read the third column of the record by chance?

[LnGrrrR]

The fact that laws of immigration are left to congress and it wasn't illegal for at the time for them to be here.

The discussion wasn't about illegal immigration though. It was about how CITIZENSHIP is generated/created/maintained etc. Which is what we were discussing.


What you quoted was also one man's explaination. Not necessarily the definition voted on either.

The amendment that the man proposed is VERBATIM to the 1st section of the 14th Amendment that currently stands. Obviously, not EVERY member of Congress will get up and say something about the bill.

Given that the bill passed, VERBATIM to the Amendment this man was arguing for, then a majority of the people signing it must have agreed with the Amendment.

[LnGrrrR]

LnGrrrR, did you read the third column of the record by chance?

That, and the following five or six pages. The man makes the same argument, roughly, that you do. Considering the Amendment passed, I'd say his argument didn't win out.

[EmptyMan]

gotdamnitt people


dey took our jarbs!

[Wild Cobra]

And Congress rejected that argument. Which is why you don't see the law being applied that way.
Congress likes to have more people who rely on them.

[LnGrrrR]

Congress likes to have more people who rely on them.

So I can chalk this up as a win then, refuting your statement that the 14th Amendment is applied improperly?

[admiralsnackbar]

gotdamnitt people


dey took our jarbs!

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

So I can chalk this up as a win then, refuting your statement that the 14th Amendment is applied improperly?
If you wish. I'm not going to waste the time going over another six pages, especially since I've been up for 27 hrs now. If you disagree with section five, as I applied it, then there is no convincing you. If you think that debate over the wording is agreeing with the arguments of the loopholes available, then there is no convincing you either. The vote was agreed to by the text vited yes to, and how the legislators thought it would be understood. Not how we apply it today.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
With section five, definitions applying to "jurisdiction" can be legislated, since it is a huge gray area.

[LnGrrrR]

If you wish. I'm not going to waste the time going over another six pages, especially since I've been up for 27 hrs now. If you disagree with section five, as I applied it, then there is no convincing you. If you think that debate over the wording is agreeing with the arguments of the loopholes available, then there is no convincing you either. The vote was agreed to by the text vited yes to, and how the legislators thought it would be understood. Not how we apply it today.

I assume that's the best I'll get out of you, so I'll take it as a W. :lol Especially since my definition IS the one currently applied, unless you know of a case where someone was born on US territory and wasn't granted US citizenship. (Barring, of course, children of foriegn diplomats)