Good grief. I'm ST's misconception poster-child today. :depressed :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Printable View
Good grief. I'm ST's misconception poster-child today. :depressed :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
State's Rights = 50 nearly-big brothers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ginobme
Terminology ("illegal immigration") and political cant ("lawbreakers") conspire to encourage the conflation of undocumented immigrants with common criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
Accuracy is a bitch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
Yeah, but my big brother can beat up your big brother. :lol:downspin:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
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.
True, but you can pick which brother you like the best, instead of an all powerful one.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
If you really think so, start a petition to amend the Constitution. Because that's the only way it's gonna happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
No, no, and no. Emphatically.Quote:
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'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.
I think WC only implied they ought to be considered less than, not that he considers them so now.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Perhaps WC only posed it arguendo -- in passing as it were -- for (about) the fifteenth time.
Quote:
Is there an echo in here?
I'm sure WC would argue that it is a matter of security and reducing ways for illegal citizens to stay in the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
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.
wow. what a great dissertation on linguistics. even added in an implied aspect of constitional law.Quote:
Originally Posted by mookie2001
The constitution is used wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
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.Quote:
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.
All congress has to do is say anchor babies don't count as citizens. Make a distinctive line of what jurisdiction is.Quote:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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/arti...#ixzz0la4hdVX8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kobach
If there is a tough immigration bill in your state, this is the guy drafting it. FYI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbamba
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.
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?Quote:
The constitution is used wrong.
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.Quote:
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.
Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
So this Amendment seems to have been passed precisely to make citizenship clear!Quote:
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.
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:And the very Amendment they're discussing is the one which was passed, in the same language.Quote:
"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."
Anotehr quote later, from a Mr. Johnson:
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.Quote:
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."
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?
And Congress rejected that argument. Which is why you don't see the law being applied that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
If you are a US citizen, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
I find the same thing here in Oregon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drachen
Waiting for a response WC. :toast