Reply With Quote
Isn't it manifestly uncons utional?
Non-starter?
A challenge to the current interpretation of the 14th amendment. I do like the idea of this bill, but it will likely be shot down as uncons utional.
(CNN) -- A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents.
The bill comes on the heels of Arizona passing the nation's toughest immigration law.
John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Cons ution.
"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.
Under federal law, children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' residency status.
Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative, strongly opposes the bill.
"Unlike (Senate Bill) 1070, it is clear this bill runs immediately afoul of the U.S. Cons ution," she said.
"While I understand that folks in Arizona and across the country support S.B. 1070, they do so because we have seen no action from the federal government," said Sinema. "Unfortunately, the so-called 'anchor baby' bill does nothing to solve the real problems we are facing in Arizona."
Arizona Republicans are expected to introduce the legislation this fall.
Isn't it manifestly uncons utional?
Non-starter?
When can states pass state laws that override the Cons ution?
When can states grant/revoke US citizenship?
Any state that has Sharron Angle as a candidate is one ed up state.
Meanwhile, McLiar declares himslef the unMaverick and flip flops on every single position he has ever taken in desperation to keep his Senate seat. A principled man. McCain-Feingold anyone?
Good law.
This is wonderful. They won't have US birth certificates. Since they weren't born anywhere else, they won't have any other birth certificates. It's like we get to treat these demon hispanic babies like they aren't even people. How moral.
They just don't like brown people.
-the left
For a long time, illegal immigrants have been rewarded for beating the system. The women cross the border 9 months pregnant to have the child and stay in our country. I'd like to see statistics on what they contribute to the rest of the country or if we simply support them through social problems. Let's get some facts out instead of reducing the arguments to racism.
Also, is the 14th amendment created explicitly to be used by illegal immigrants in the way it has been or was it designed to help blacks during the Reconstruction?
Well I guess that is what they plan to do. They KNOW there will be a cons utional challenge if they pass this law, so perhaps they are trying to create a scenario in which it will have to go to court for challenge. Maybe they feel confident about their chances.
conservatives don't care about illegal babies..
Removing incentive may stop 9 month pregnant women from making a harrowing journey across the desert to give birth. Additionally, they can retain their Mexican citizenship.
why don't we reduce the incentive for anyone to come over? Let's start jailing people who hire the illegals! I'm serious... COnservatives want to punish the people coming over while ignoring the businesses who hire them.. if your serious about solving the illegal immigration problem it probably would be a good idea to take the incentive away.. A novel concept I know
I wholeheartedly agree. I just think that "both" is a better option than "one".
Then where do meat packing and other industry plants get their cheap workforce from? THOSE illegals are actually putting in work and the industry just gives names/addresses to law enforcement to arrest a few at a time instead of raiding the plants. There's only a limited amount of plants in the whole country, if you screw with one and take out 1/2 their workforce then the whole country suffers.
I would say it's not uncons utional. We've discussed this before idea before. I will probably stay out of this debate rather than arguing the same points again, I'll probably just see how it plays out.
Mexico allows US born of Mexican women, citizenship without question. I don't know about other countries. Remember, they aren't all Mexican.
That has been my primary argument all along. If you deny them the ability to find work, deny them most social services, they will go home on their own accord.
So conservatives are hoping for an activist judge to make new law.
It's uncons utional. As WC well knows, this specific issue was discussed by the very same Congress that passed the bill in question. The idea of birth to illegal immigrants was brought up, and whether or not to disallow these children. Since it obviously wasn't included in the bill, those voting on it agreed that children of illegal immigrants should be allowed citizenship.
It's going to take a Cons utional Amendment to change it.
I did the research in another thread, but that instance was brought up way back when they were debating the 14th Amendment. Of course, they used "gypsies" back then instead of hispanics, but the specifics of the situation were the same.
Well WC is stict constructionist who doesn't like activist judges so short of an amendment his side is f*cked.
Pretty much. This is inherently uncons utional, I cannot see the SC ruling otherwise.
Cool, I do no research which is why I ask.
I still fail to see why people get all up in arms about it being "uncons utional" other than the fact that its a state trying to go above the federal guidelines. Why not discuss changing the amendement itself? The founders knew that changes would have to be made as the country matured. They probably did envision a cir stance such as the pursuit of civil rights for blacks and incoming immigrant children, but to have the system taken advantage like this was not something I believe they'd agree with. What is wrong with replacing an outdated amendment with a new amendment to stop something that's obviously cost us more than its helped?
Has it cost more?
How much?
Why do some people only post questions?
Because the lack of answers speaks volumes.
People like you can't handle it and get all pissy and start complaining.
It is as predictable as it is fun to watch.
No question.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
