Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals

[SmarterthanYou]

I don't think luck has anything to do with it. The 14th amendment was passed to address blacks who had been emancipated by the 13th amendment. It was passed before the legal status of an immigrant became an issue. Literally every nation in western Europe have amended their immigration laws to deny the right of citizenship to anchor babies. If we had not been turned into an entitlement society like Europe, it would never have become an issue...the fact of the matter is we are and we can not economically sustain anchor babies. You want to see "illegal" immigration dry up? Amend the 14th amendment.

I guess i'm not making myself clear. If AZ wants to enact laws like they are talking about here with anchor babies, they will have no choice but to amend the 14th.

But it also seems that my other point about the 'living constitution' is going ignored by the 'living constitution' fanatics.

 

[Canceled2]

I guess i'm not making myself clear. If AZ wants to enact laws like they are talking about here with anchor babies, they will have no choice but to amend the 14th.

But it also seems that my other point about the 'living constitution' is going ignored by the 'living constitution' fanatics.

I am pretty sure that it is understood by most that Pearce is after a constitutional amendment.

Interestingly I read that the 14th was ratified without the pre-requisite three-quarters of the states.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Interestingly I read that the 14th was ratified without the pre-requisite three-quarters of the states.

do you have a link for that? I would like to read that.

 

[Timshel]

Thanks for the admission that you're attempting to rail against something, when you don't even know what it's about.

Good job, dumbass.

Did you try to do an internet search on this, or was it to much trouble to educate yourself??

Again, YOU UNBELIEVABLE RETARD, I commented on the article. Your claim, that what I was saying was not suggested anywhere, is clearly wrong. Now, you backpedal by continuing to claim that I have not read the bill, implying that you have, when there is no bill to fucking read.

Yes, it appears the author was in error. That does not change anything. Your still the one who was wrong. What I commented on was suggested by the article.

You are an idiot and a dishonest hack. It's probably true that you have misrepresented your knowledge of the other Az bill, as you have on this one that does not yet exist. That is supported by your ignorance of the bill, in its current form and your ignorance of what it meant, in its original form.

 

[Canceled2]

do you have a link for that? I would like to read that.

This was one page, but I read others as well. The opinion of this blogger is not neccesarily mine, but the facts with regards to which states voted are true. Other pages I have read basically state that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were approved by the Northern states, but not the Southern states which were under reconstruction. Southern states were supposedly not allowed to leave reconstruction until they approved these amendments. One could argue that these amendments required 3/4ths of the states, and since none of the Southern states originally approved for these amendments, and only approved these amendments under duress, that they weren't officially approved.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Again, YOU UNBELIEVABLE RETARD, I commented on the article. Your claim, that what I was saying was not suggested anywhere, is clearly wrong. Now, you backpedal by continuing to claim that I have not read the bill, implying that you have, when there is no bill to fucking read.

Yes, it appears the author was in error. That does not change anything. Your still the one who was wrong. What I commented on was suggested by the article.

You are an idiot and a dishonest hack. It's probably true that you have misrepresented your knowledge of the other Az bill, as you have on this one that does not yet exist. That is supported by your ignorance of the bill, in its current form and your ignorance of what it meant, in its original form.

And now you do as you always do, when you've been handed your ass.
You try to appear knowledgeable abouit something, make it your new "rant-du-jour", and then when you've been shown to be the dumbass, that we all know you are, you scream and holllar that everyone else is incorrect.

Nice try, dumbass.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

I don't think the issue of birthright citizenship can be addressed by the state governments. If anything, this legislation could force a supreme court decision that would solidify birthright citizenship permanently, whereas now it is an issue that is sort of in limbo because of the 14th's lack of clarity.

Obviously migrants have human rights, but they should not be entitled to naturalization just for having a child here, and that is what birthright citizenship makes possible. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be an easier process for a qualified migrant to become an immigrant, but that shouldn't be a foregone conclusion.

It's not that I would die if we didn't clarify this issue, but I think birthright citizenship for people who enter the country illegally (or are here as guests) is a pretty big incentive for illegal immigration and ultimately a bargaining chip for amnesties, so we should be doing away with those incentives.

Our future could be full of political instability if we lose the upper hand on deciding who gets admitted to the country permanently and what the qualifications of U.S. citizens must be. If we have to make people citizens just because they're here long enough after breaking enough rules, we're only going to continue to repeat the experience and pay the price.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

This was one page, but I read others as well. The opinion of this blogger is not neccesarily mine, but the facts with regards to which states voted are true. Other pages I have read basically state that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were approved by the Northern states, but not the Southern states which were under reconstruction. Southern states were supposedly not allowed to leave reconstruction until they approved these amendments. One could argue that these amendments required 3/4ths of the states, and since none of the Southern states originally approved for these amendments, and only approved these amendments under duress, that they weren't officially approved.

I have heard this theory and not sure which side i'm on in this one. it's very plausible.

 

[Don Quixote]

as protectionist and anti-immigration i am, i still must admit that anyone born here is a citizen. we just need to enforce the law before we get into this situation, but creating a class of second class people is just wrong.

who are you and what did you do with ahz?

ok, just having fun, i totally agree with you

 

[Timshel]

And now you do as you always do, when you've been handed your ass.
You try to appear knowledgeable abouit something, make it your new "rant-du-jour", and then when you've been shown to be the dumbass, that we all know you are, you scream and holllar that everyone else is incorrect.

Nice try, dumbass.

It's really stupid for you continue this as I have acknowledged that what I was commenting on was wrong. Still, it WAS suggested by the article.

You made a claim that was clearly wrong. Nobody "has handed me my ass," especially not you, who has done nothing but lie about your knowledge of a bill that does not yet exist.

 

[Timshel]

I have heard this theory and not sure which side i'm on in this one. it's very plausible.

It's irrelevant. The 14th is the law of the land. It's not going to be overturned by the courts or by a repeal process and it can't just be ignored.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It's irrelevant. The 14th is the law of the land. It's not going to be overturned by the courts or by a repeal process and it can't just be ignored.

no doubt. I completely agree that the USSC is not going to overturn the 14th, nor probably even pare it down for this case, and there's no way this will ever make it close enough to the amendment process to be taken seriously. But that's not what I find interesting about the theory.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It's really stupid for you continue this as I have acknowledged that what I was commenting on was wrong. Still, it WAS suggested by the article.

You made a claim that was clearly wrong. Nobody "has handed me my ass," especially not you, who has done nothing but lie about your knowledge of a bill that does not yet exist.

I understand of how embarassed you are, over the stupidity that you've been trying to post.
Maybe you should have the Courts assign someone to make sure that you don't act like this.

 

[Timshel]

I understand of how embarassed you are, over the stupidity that you've been trying to post.
Maybe you should have the Courts assign someone to make sure that you don't act like this.

I am not embarrassed in the least. I made a comment on the article. You claimed there was nothing to suggest what I was saying and there clearly was. You then continued by implying you had read the bill (that does not exist and therefore this is obviously a lie) and that I had not.

You apparently did not read the article before commenting or you did not comprehend what you read. I now seriously doubt that you have read sb1070, just as you obviously have not read this bill. Your previous errant comments on sb1070 support that conclusion.

The author of the article was wrong. Fine, so I retract my comments and that's the end of it. But my comments were definitely suggested by the article.

 

[Canceled2]

It's irrelevant. The 14th is the law of the land. It's not going to be overturned by the courts or by a repeal process and it can't just be ignored.

The fact that it may have come about in an unlawful matter may prove to be moot, but the fact that it came before we had laws about illegal immigration makes it possible to be amended.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100611/us_time/08599199606400




so, all you 'living constitution' bullshit artists. Do you still believe that the constitution should be interpreted to exist within the current times? or would you now like it to mean what it actually says?

14th Amendment, Section 1. 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. 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.

If Arizona wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, they should try and pass and amendment. Refusing to give a child a birth certificate does not deny them citizenship.

 

[Timshel]

The fact that it may have come about in an unlawful matter may prove to be moot, but the fact that it came before we had laws about illegal immigration makes it possible to be amended.

It COULD be amended regardless. I doubt it will, though.

I don't like the birthright citizenship for a child of illegal immigrants because it encourages putting the child in danger. I could care less about the anchor stuff.

But then again, we could fix that by making it easier to immigrate.

 

[Canceled2]

It COULD be amended regardless. I doubt it will, though.

I don't like the birthright citizenship for a child of illegal immigrants because it encourages putting the child in danger. I could care less about the anchor stuff.

But then again, we could fix that by making it easier to immigrate.

Puts the child in danger? *eye-roll* Due to economic realities given our turning into an entitlement society, it is prudent to define the 14th amendent to reflect our laws regarding illegal alien status.

At least you hit on the lack of congruency that currently exists between the 14th amendment and laws regrading illegal alien status~~~of course I want to go in the opposite direction than you.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

What about those who enter legally? I realize you don't want to allow any legal entry, but that is not likely to happen. So, there would still be "anchor babies" even if we prevented all illegal entry.

Stop lying. Some immigration is ok. Just not the the amount that fascists like you want to drive wages to all time lows.

And yes there will be anchor babies. But i cannot justify creating "limbo children" as you were referring to. Im sure you cheap labor types would like some new form of indentured servitude class created or something. SOunds like you.

 

[Timshel]

Stop lying. Some immigration is ok. Just not the the amount that fascists like you want to drive wages to all time lows.

Okay. You are still the fascists.

I thought you were opposed to all immigration. Which sort of immigrants you would allow is still unclear. I don't really care, though.

And yes there will be anchor babies. But i cannot justify creating "limbo children" as you were referring to. Im sure you cheap labor types would like some new form of indentured servitude class created or something. SOunds like you.

Why would I refer to that concern if I wanted it to occur? That makes no sense.