Emboldened by passage of the nation's toughest law against illegal immigration, the Arizona politician who sponsored the measure now wants to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to undocumented parents.
Legal scholars laugh out loud at Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce's proposal and warn that it would be blatantly unconstitutional, since the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.
But Pearce brushes aside such concerns. And given the charged political atmosphere in Arizona, and public anger over what many regard as a failure by the federal government to secure the border, some politicians think the idea has a chance of passage.
"I think the time is right," said state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican from suburban Phoenix who is chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. "Federal inaction is unacceptable, so the states have to start the process."
Earlier this year, the Legislature set off a storm of protests around the country when it passed a law that directs police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. The law also makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant. The measure, which takes effect July 29 unless blocked in court, has inflamed the national debate over immigration and led to boycotts against the state.
An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. as of January 2009, according to the Homeland Security Department. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as of 2008, there were 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country whose children are U.S. citizens.
Pearce, who has yet to draft the legislation, proposes that the state of Arizona no longer issue birth certificates unless at least one parent can prove legal status. He contends that the practice of granting citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. encourages illegal immigrants to come to this country to give birth and secure full rights for their children.
"We create the greatest inducement for breaking our laws," he said.
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, reads: "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." But Pearce argues that the amendment was meant to protect black people.
"It's been hijacked and abused," he said. "There is no provision in the 14th Amendment for the declaration of citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens."
John McGinnis, a conservative law professor at Northwestern University, said Pearce's interpretation is "just completely wrong." The "plain meaning" of the amendment is clear, he said.
Senate candidate Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and darling of the tea party movement, made headlines last month after he told a Russian TV station that he favors denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
A similar bill was introduced at the federal level in 2009 by former Rep. Nathan Deal, a Georgia Republican, but it has gone nowhere.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform, based in Washington, said Pearce's idea would stop immigrants from traveling to the U.S. to give birth.
"Essentially we are talking about people who have absolutely no connection whatever with this country," spokesman Ira Mehlman said. "The whole idea of citizenship means that you have some connection other than mere happenstance that you were born on U.S. soil."
Citizenship as a birthright is rare elsewhere in the world. Many countries require at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident.
Adopting such a practice in the U.S. would be not only unconstitutional but also impractical and expensive, said Michele Waslin, a policy analyst with the pro-immigrant Immigration Policy Center in Washington.
"Every single parent who has a child would have to go through this bureaucratic process of proving their own citizenship and therefore proving their child's citizenship," she said.
Araceli Viveros, 27, and her husband, Saul, 34, are illegal immigrants from the Mexican state of Guerrero. He has been in Phoenix for 20 years, she for 10, and their 2- and 9-year-old children are U.S. citizens.
"I am so proud my children were born here. They can learn English and keep studying," Viveros said in Spanish.
She said her husband has been working hard in Phoenix as a landscaper, and their children deserve to be citizens. The lawmaker's proposal "is very bad," she said. "It's changing the Constitution, and some children won't have the same rights as other children."
topo posted at 12:15 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
Congratulations AZ !!
For strong leaders like Pearce.
I have lived in CA for over 40 years,
and we are overwhelmed with
Social problems because of
the unrestrained flood of
Illegal Immigrants.
Our lack of foresight has
created an economic,
and social
nightmare that may
never be resolved.
Your willingness to
address this issue
will protect your
future from the many
problems we are
now facing.
I support your stance
on Illegal Immigration
Tom
san jose , CA
Accuracy posted at 12:20 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce takes aim at automatic citizenship
Birthright citizenship in the United States of America: Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states:
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.
Now, Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce isproposing a measure that would make Arizona the first state to stop the practice of giving citizenship to children who are born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents.
An effort to deny automatic citizenship to native-born children of those who entered the country illegally. Granting citizenship to "anchor babies," as they are sometimes called.
Some might agree with Pearce that "birthright citizenship" damages the national interest. But the problem is that this view doesn't conform to the clear, concise language of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
Rich posted at 12:46 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
It's funny how far radicals get from even reality when they get a bit of power. Is the Constitution the law? If so, Pearce is breaking it. What don't his followers understand about illegal? Aside from that going after newborn babies is just plain sick. Maybe their parents didn't have a choice or a chance, but they do and denying that to them is just depravity.
angryivan posted at 1:02 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
Accuracy, your name is a misnomer at best. You said, 'Some might agree with Pearce that "birthright citizenship" damages the national interest. But the problem is that this view doesn't conform to the clear, concise language of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.'
And i say, the intent of the 14th amendment was to keep the States from deporting former slaves back to Africa who were brought here against their will. What is happening now is far from the original intent & purpose of the 14th amendment. That is exactly why this 'right' will be changed.
I predict it will be changed within the next 5 years by the Federal Government or Supreme Court because that will be where it ends up if Mr. Pearce gets his law passed in Arizona. I happen to agree with Pearce on the anchor baby problem but it will have to be overturned by the Supreme Court or US Congress. Maybe getting the Supreme Court to consider this law is his real goal?
allamer posted at 4:31 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
Article I, section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. This is the constitutional basis for naturalizing immigrants. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with immigration. It was enacted after the Civil War to establish the citizenship status of the former slaves and Native Americans who were here at the time. Prior to the 14th Amendment the citizenship of former slaves and Native Americans was uncertain. The amendment made it certain.
ConcernedNaz posted at 5:03 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
rich???
Who would know the meaning better than the person that wrote the amendment?
Senator Jacob M. Howard
During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Howard said:
[The 14th amendment] 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 person. 1868
Rich posted at 6:39 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
"The 14th amendment] 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 person."
Pretty much exactly. People whose ancestors have been here off and on since San Juan, NM was founded by Juan de Onate in 1598 are, quite definitely an 'other class of person,' and no doubt are covered by the amendment. Admittedly over four hundred plus years some disputes have arisen, but you certainly can't discount four centuries for the convenience of Russell Pearce and his never ending quest to have the rest of us devote our lives to his aggrandizement.
Slabside posted at 8:43 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
Rich, your spin and strawman building of ConcernedNaz's facts does nothing but show how desperate you are to paint Arizona and Pierce as radical and uncaring. So what if there were Hispanics here hundreds of years ago? Pierce and his followers are trying to stem the flow of illegals coming here to drop their children on U.S. soil on the American's tab. No one is going after infants. You are such a drama queen.
ConcernedNaz posted at 9:04 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
"People whose ancestors have been here off and on since San Juan, NM was founded by Juan de Onate in 1598 "
off and on? are you suggesting that if an ancestor was here (USA territory) and moved back to mexico, their later generations would have a claim of citizenship?
if so, that is a stretch. aliens are just that, a legal definition.
what I have always got a kick out of, was the slogan, "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us"
it your ancestors stayed in USA territory after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, then they are US citizens, if they went back to mexico, they are mexican citizens. not both.
Marcus Gallio posted at 9:10 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
This Law Professor from Northwestern University, John McGinnis, was knee deep in trying to get the Noble Peace prize for imprisoned Illinois Governor, George Ryan. Ryan allowed 6 children to be killed by his corruption of the Secy of State's DMV office. Ryan then cleared out death row in Illinois in an attempt to pollute his potential jury pool of minority jurors. Thank goodness it didn't work. He's now rotting in a federal prison. But guys like McGinnis consider Ryan their hero. Of course, McGinnis would be against honorable men like Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Legislator Russell Pearce.
Marcus Gallio posted at 9:12 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
This is an excellent 2nd step in our movement to improve State of Arizona. The third step is to rid the courst of Shariah Law (Muslim terrorist Law). Here is what Oklahoma is doing:
Oklahoma lawmakers are asking voters to weigh in on a proposal that would ban local courts from considering Shariah or other international law in their rulings.
The unusual measure calling for an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution was approved in late May by the state Senate, sending the issue to voters in the fall in the form of a ballot question.
Though the question's supporters have not pointed to any specific outbreak of Shariah, or Islamic law, being considered in the U.S. judicial system, they describe it as an encroaching threat. State Rep. Rex Duncan, author of the measure, has called the ballot question a "preemptive strike" against Shariah coming to his state.
RollerCam posted at 9:25 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
His latest action now officially qualifies Russell Pierce for ICON status.
I think a granite statue of Mr. Pierce should be commissioned and placed somewhere in the state where it can be seen by all Arizona citizens and given the honor that this great man deserves.
You are truly a leader and a statesman, Mr. Pierce.
You renew my faith in humanity and, to a lesser extent, government.
Sunsfan45 posted at 9:35 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
This Guy is a complete Loony...and a typical Arizona Law maker.... he was Raised by The Nazi Party and continues to go to its mtgs and is best buds with Hitlers Love Child aka Sherriff Joe..... this has been a law since the 1800's...whats next...is he going to go after Blacks?????? Jews????? Arabs?????? when will this guy stop??? oh yeah thats right...when only "The Master Race" is left in the US[sad] and to clear it up now IM WHITE AND AN AMERICAN
Rich posted at 9:36 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
"it your ancestors stayed in USA territory after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo" Suppose they lived in Tucson? In truth the border did cross them and many are descendants of the 80,000 guaranteed citizenship who, despite the treaty had their lands stolen, in both the treaty area and the later Gasden purchase. Since the United States has already affirmed the principle in the Middle East with Israel it would be hypocritical not to apply it here.
Slabside,
A village lose it's idiot somewhere? You come up with the silliest things. Pearce found a nonsense cause and runs with it to the point of picking on newborns. NAZ at least has some background for discussion. Strawman? Please do you even know what it means? Or do you just parrot? I'm not desperate to portray anything. In fact, because of people like you, it is merely a source of humor. However I will say that any man who picks on babies is a sleaze-bag, no matter how you slice it.
Slabside posted at 11:17 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
Okay then Rich, post your proof Pierce is going after newborn babies. I'll wait....
America First posted at 11:33 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
Rich you are such a liar. First the most radical group Pearce ever belonged to were the Boy Scouts of Amerioca and the Fraternal Order of Police.
Illegal is not a race, it is a crime and the 14th Amendment was high jacked. It has "nothing" to do with aliens legal or illegal. You should read a little about it before you comment. The two professors they quoted clearly have not read the Constitution, the debate at time of ratifacation or the court decisions. In the 1800's the Supreme Court handed down two decisions; The Wong Kim Ark decision and the Slaughterhouse decisions. In the 1800's there was no "illegal" in the U.S. and the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with aliens at all. They ruled the alienage of the mother and her legal domicile was to determin the childs citizenship. it was to do with Afican Americans who had a right to citzenship as they were under the U.S. jurisdiction.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is an essential part of the definition.
American Indians, despite the obvious location of their birth,did not receive U.S. citizenship until it was conferred by Conressional acts long after ratification of the 14th Amendment.
For nearly two centuries, the Supreme Court faithfully construed citizenship consistent with the Constitution and the intent of the our Founders. In 1888, in Elk v. Wilkins, the Couirt held that: "Indians born within the territorial limits of the U.S., member of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the U.S., are no more "born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction therof," with the meaning of the first secton of the 14th Amendment, that the children of subjects of any government, or the children born within the U.S., of ambassadodrs or other public ministers of foreigh nations.
azloki posted at 4:19 am on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
Mexican citizenship requirements:
Mexico uses the long history of "Right of Soil" and "Right of Blood." These principles were established during the Napoleonic era to determine who was a citizen or natural of which country.
The Right of Soil determines that a person is a citizen is born within a certain area. ie Mexico
Right of Blood is based on the concept that someone can be a citizen if they are born to another citizen, regardless of location.
By this definition I believe that all "anchor babies" of Mexican Nationals born in the USA are citizens of Mexico...
Rich posted at 6:22 am on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
"First the most radical group Pearce ever belonged to were the Boy Scouts of Amerioca and the Fraternal Order of Police." Going after babies is radical, it is beyond even civility, Pearce is a radical out of his own mouth. And, what he advocates is quite clearly illegal. As you cite, the Wong Kim Ark case settled this long ago by Supreme Court decision. To advocate the illegal actions that Pearce does, against babies no less is a radical position in and of itself whether it comes from a former boy scout or not.
"Illegal is not a race, it is a crime..." As Pearce Arpaio etc use it it is an ethnicity, Hispanic. Arpaio isn't holding his "crime suppression sweep" at Lee Lee's or checking the VISAs of Australian businessmen on the first tee at the Phoenician. It is a cover for racism and that is rather obvious. And it isn't a crime. In Pearce's case it is done to cover up the crimes of his family here against Hispanics. After Hidalgo and Gasden, Pearces' family and others stole lands belonging by the treaty and the purchase to Hispanic families. They were the real illegals. Racism can be rather popular, if you can disguise it well enough.
Really can't figure where you are going America First most of what you're saying supports the other side of the argument you present.
Slabside "anchor BABIES" are you following a script? Like a) charge racism b) blubber contradictions c) ask for proof of something that's already in your face. As I said, you're comic relief.
azloki
Mexican law, as you state, is based on the Code Napoleon. Ours is based in English Common Law. I suggest that, if you prefer the former you move to a country that uses it. We don't.
listenertoo posted at 7:10 am on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
Here is some information from Wikipedia about the psychological definition of projection:
Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings.
Or, to quote dear old Shakespeare, "Thou protest too much." Why is it that Pearce so vehemently hates illegals? Does he have something to hide?Anyone who has lived in Arizona for any length of time knows, and has known, people who are here illegally but cannot get the necessary papers, for whatever reason, to be here legally. They contribute far more to the economy than they ever take out. Most have learned to fly under the radar. Aren't the illegals who are commiting violent crimes the ones we don't want here? Is is okay to have violent white citizen crimanals here, though?
So why the hatred? Why, too, if Pearce is claiming to be upholding the law does he attack the 14th amendment which is law? Russell, you can't pick and choose.
Please note, too, that the spelling of his name is Pearce. It is more than ironic than that many of you misspell his name as Pierce, but I seriously doubt you will get that.
Shatmeister posted at 8:40 am on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
I'm afraid that I see it not as Pearce having hatred for illegals, but as Pearce having a love for his state and country. All he is trying to do is force the illegals to become legal... Unfortunately, he has to battle the Federal government as well as the "poor, poor" illegal protectors.
There are just too many people that put the rights of those who technically should have no rights, over the US Citizens that do. I'm not saying that illegals have no human rights, but that is much different than having rights as a US Citizen. Frankly, I'm just tired of supporting a society that fails to support itself.
You can play the racists cards all day. I can see racism almost everywhere. For example, go to the Books section in Wal-mart. I see religious sections, I see Hispanic/Latino sections, i see African-American sections... where's the Caucasian section (or as I refer to myself, European-American).
Also, keep in mind that the constitutions and it's amendments are living documents, meaning changes can be made. Today's situations, are not always reflected by yesterdays. Laws consistently need updating and personally I see this as a means to an end.
It's gonna get uglier before it gets better...
brilor posted at 10:04 am on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
"Citizenship as a birthright is rare elsewhere in the world. Many countries require at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident."
So the United States policy is "RARE". This means the USA is the exception and the rest of the world does things differently. If the rest of the world thinks our method is wrong, we should reconsider.
Accuracy posted at 10:57 am on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
Made in the USA
Sen. Russell Pearce's proposal is against "Birthright Citizenship" by denying automatic citizenship to native-born children of those who entered the country illegally.
The idea of birthright citizenship goes back to British law, articulated in the 1608 decision Calvin's Case, and affirmed by the Supreme Court 300 years later (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898). Language of the Constitution's 14th Amendment (adopted in 1868), which is certainly broad enough to include the children born in the United States of illegal as well as legal immigrants.
"Birthright Citizenship" in the United States is now (and has always been) a matter of federal law, governed by the United States constitution.
Attempts to deny US citizenship to any native-born children, regardless of their parentage (legal as well as illegal immigrants), makes no sense constitutionally, practically or ethically.
Masterrogue666 posted at 11:59 am on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
"since the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship" -- Not true. It's assumed, but not directly written as such.
Rewarding one family member because another family member or members broke the law just isn't logical.
listenertoo posted at 12:16 pm on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
If Russell Pearce was a character in a movie the critics would say he was one-dimensional and over-the-top, and of course, he would be the villain. They are the bad guys who go after the helpless and innocents. They go after the babies.
In all of history the trick to doing evil to others was to claim that others (re:illegals) were not human, so it's okay to goafter thier babise since they aren't like "us". so that I guess we know where Russell learned that trick.
forkedlift1 posted at 12:49 pm on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
Boy if nothing else solidifies the firm belief by residents of all other state that Arizona is overflowing with wackos, the majority of these irrational comments will do the trick. The results are in. Arizona wins the "Stupidest State" trophy.
DrunkenMonkey posted at 1:45 pm on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
I guess only the smart people get it...
Masterrogue666 posted at 1:50 pm on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
Rich/listenrtoo: You claim it's going after babies? How about blaming the ones that are most responsible, the parent(s)? I guess personal responsibilty means nothing to you?
Now, as for stolen land. The USA and Mexico went to war. The USA won, taking Mexico City in the process, which caused the Mexican Cession of 1848, at the cost of $15 million. So, it wasn't stolen. By the way, before the land became Mexico's, it was Spain's. Maybe we should give it back to them?
During the war, and Mexico's revolution, Mexico borrowed from other countries, and could not pay off it's debt. France took offense, and also took over Mexico City. The USA HELPED Mexico with arms and equipment, et al. So in a sense, Mexico owes thanks to the USA for CINCO DE MAYO.
So, "stolen" is incorrect, as most of your comments are....
forkedlift1 posted at 2:19 pm on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
These bizarre comments should be sent to Time since they, in conjunction with CNN, already did an article on it, "Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals"
Rich, I appreciate your comments refuting the "don't confuse me with the facts" folks. Not only sharing your knowledge of history, but particularly your research into what Russell Pearce's family had done.
It adds much insight into Pearce's obsession with Hispanics and his abnormal behavior, totally devoid of reason. He and his "followers" are headed for a train wreck and they don't realize it. Full steam ahead!
Listenertoo, your comment also was excellent.
What makes irrational people tick? For the "rule of law" folks (the latest in their passed along buzz words) one of your comments is worth repeating.
"So why the hatred? Why, too, if Pearce is claiming to be upholding the law does he attack the 14th amendment which is law? Russell, you can't pick and choose."
The hypocrisy is astounding. Add to that the deliberate misconstruing of Sen. Jacob Howard's words of "intent" for that section of the 14th Amendment, taking them out of context, no mention of Howard's clarifying words a week later reported in the Congressional Globe, and foremost the refusal to acknowledge U.S. Supreme Court case law on the topic beginning in 1898.
Put it all together and their fervent rants imposing fear, hate and loathing don't appear to be anything connected with illegal immigration per se; but instead to be a skewed general attempt to promote white supremacy of European ancestry for the entire United States, not just Arizona.
Faux-patriots who choose to deny the actual "rule of law."
Rich posted at 2:43 pm on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
Masterrogue666
As always bizarre. Blame the parents who took the responsibility to attempt to assure their children a better life? I mean even calling it blame is bizarre reasoning. These people took the personal responsibility to give their children a better life. That's, like, bad? Weird reasoning my friend, incredibly weird.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the subsequent Gasden purchase guaranteed ownership of personal lands to 80,000 people. The title to be traced back to a Spanish grant. This has nothing to do with the government, but rather with the title to the land. It is these rights that were stolen. You really have to read more. In other words before making a blanket denial of another's facts, at least extend yourself to Google it.
Slabside posted at 3:35 pm on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
Just as I concluded Rich, all of this hubbub is just your anti-Pearce hysteria. No one is attacking newborns like you charged. No where did I say anchor babies so you can't even keep up with the posts. No matter which way you spin this you can't come out on top. Illegal is illegal.
AZMomma posted at 4:05 pm on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
Senora Viveros, YOU and your husband are ILLEGAL, breaking US law and have deliberately chosen to put your children right in the line of legal fire. Shame on you for using your children as pawns to remain in the US.
I truly hope that you and your spawn are sent packing back across the border. When you kids are legally of age, they can knock on the US door and present themselves as Citizens. Unless the law changes.
If it changes, they lose their Free Pass, and you all go back to Mexico until hell freezes over.
forkedlift1 posted at 4:06 pm on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
A must read is Laurie Roberts' well researched column in today's (6/16/10) Arizona Republic, "Denying babies citizenship won't fix issue."
The column must be read in full to appreciate how totally wrong Russell Pearce and zealous followers are. However, her concluding words are worth repeating here.
"I doubt Pearce and Kavanaugh will achieve a different result, except to cement Arizona as a place and a people willing to prey on defenseless babies.
"But if we ARE going down this road, if we're going to talk about how the framers of the 14th Amendment could never have envisioned the scope of the very real illegal-immigration problem we now face, perhaps we might also consider other modern-day problems. Perhaps we ought to consider whether the framers of the Second Amendment could have envisioned Uzis in an era of musket balls. Or maybe we ought to reconsider the First Amendment, given the rise of talk radio.
"Or maybe we should focus on the problem, which is the border, not the document that is the foundation of what makes this country great.
"Times change, but the Constitution doesn't.
Or at least it shouldn't."
Rich posted at 4:08 pm on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
Slabside
You're not making sense...again. Illegal defined how? As a felony? It's not. As a misdemeanor then 90+% of all adults qualify, and it's no big deal. As opposing the laws of this country, then Pearce qualifies. Gertrude Stein said a Rose is a rose, and added that it is also a rose, which actually makes more sense than you just did. And Pearce is attacking new born babies. Rather obviously, in a straight forward manner, denying the legal rights they are entitled to under the Constitution and affirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court. The question that might be raised is whether, if they are given the chance to re-consider, the Supreme Court would void the earlier decision. Jeez, at least pay attention before you post.
forkedlift1 posted at 4:29 pm on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
Slabside,
"Illegal is illegal." So how do YOU view the 14th Amendment with regard to "all persons born in the United States" and Pearce's harebrained proposal?
Is his proposal in conformity with the 14th Amendment?
Accuracy posted at 7:05 pm on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce is not the only lawmaker looking to end birthright citizenship.
There is the "Birthright Citizenship Act" (H.R.1868) which was introduced in the House last year by Rep. Nathan Deal's (R-Ga.). The "Birthright Citizenship Act" bill which is seeking to prevent citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants. Under the bill, only children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, a legal permanent resident, or an undocumented immigrant serving in the military would be considered citizens.
Also in Oklahoma, State Rep. Randy Terrill is considering introducing similar legislation, calling natural-born citizenship the "holy grail of illegal immigration."
But, they are all are tackling the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, that guarantees citizenship to everyone born in the U.S. For sure it will bring legal challenges in all of the cases.
Slabside posted at 8:40 pm on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
Fork and Rich, I believe the 14th Amendment and it's intent are being abused by illegals. The article states, "Pearce, who has yet to draft the legislation, proposes that the state of Arizona no longer issue birth certificates unless at least one parent can prove legal status." I personally do not have a problem with what Pearce is introducing. You two are so worried about babies of illegals (as if Pearce is picking them up with a pitch fork), how do you feel about the millions slaughtered by abortions in America annually?
Rich posted at 8:58 pm on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
Slabside,
You're not the first American to disagree with the law or the Supreme Court. It is, however, highly hypocritical, not to mention egotistical, to label other people doing the same thing "illegal" while not admitting to the same label yourself. They are only guilty of a misdemeanor, you and Pearce are attempting to dismantle over a century of American law. If as you state, illegal is illegal, please don't be hypocritical enough to leave yourself, and Pearce out of the equation.
Slabside posted at 9:16 pm on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
Rich, please take into consideration the burden illegals put on the American taxpayer, our heathcare system, the stolen identities, the killing of our police officers, the rapes etc. I don't think I'm being hypocritical. You on the other hand need to remove your blinders.
forkedlift1 posted at 2:51 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Oh but Slabside, you ARE being hypocritical. Rich is correct. You and others have sanctimoniously and repeatedly proclaimed, "Illegal is illegal. There are absolutely no excuses, no allowances and no extenuating circumstances that are acceptable for a person to violate federal immigration law so as to be unlawfully present in this country. The law is the law."
Just two weeks ago, Pearce said, "I've always been pretty passionate about the rule of law and our sovereign state and our sovereign nation."
His words ring hollow. Simultaneously he willingly and knowingly publicly proposes to violate the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land of our sovereign nation.
Holding others to standards that you yourself flagrantly refuse to abide is indeed hypocrisy of the worst sort.
Shatmeister posted at 5:26 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
SPIN... SPIN...SPIN...
Getting dizzy... It's amazing how some people get one idea in their heads and no matter how stupid it is or sounds, they keep repeating it over and over as if just saying it makes it so... "attacking newborn babies"... WHAT A LAUGH!!!
No one is attacking newborn babies... as a matter of fact, let's spin in the other way... by protecting the illegals, YOU are attacking newborn babies... Every dollar spent on an illegal is a dollar NOT spent on LEGAL newborns. To continue funding programs benefiting illegals is removing funding for US LEGAL citizens. So you guys put down the pitchforks and stop stabbing babies... (that's MY new spin) and get to the real point of the issue.
And for those of you insisting on using multiple avatars/users to try to make it sound like someone agrees with you... you should know it's VERY transparent... LOL I agree with DrunkenMonkey!!!
Shatmeister posted at 5:33 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Out of curiosity forkedlift1, how is Pearce breaking this law again?
It's not even a proposal, and when it is, I'm sure it will be researched to insure it is lawfully executed.
Of course, you can't uphold an unconstitutional law, but you can amend the constitution, then pass the law. I'm sure this is where it's headed... so... how is he breaking the law again?
Shatmeister posted at 5:34 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Or should I have asked one of the "others"
Rich posted at 6:50 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Slabside
"...the burden illegals put on the American taxpayer, our heathcare system, the stolen identities, the killing of our police officers, the rapes etc."
Let's look:
All stats show that the so-called "illegals" contribute more to the economy than they receive, in other words the are profitable to the taxpayer.
As to healthcare, their use of emergency rooms, which are federally subsidized make hospitals possible in many areas that wouldn't have one, as we are seeing with the closure of some of them now the economy doesn't support the "illegals" as well.
Stolen identities are a problem when they are used in expensive frauds and scams. As used by most "illegals" They simply add to taxes and social security and are never claimed and/or boost the earnings of the person they are stolen from so they can claim higher benefits. Overall more plus than minus.
If you'll look more closely, police officers are killed by criminals and rapes are committed by rapists. Basically felons and passing laws to bolster misdemeanors aren't going to stop any of that. In fact it is horribly naive to assume it helps, it just allows criminals more cover, and focuses police on misdeamnor rather than felony crime, which actually promotes it, as we see with MCSO and the fact that felony is so common where they concentrate on misdemeanor.
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:37 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Rich:
Thanks for conforming two of my hunches. First hunch: When in doubt, attempt to insult. Second hunch: I was correct that you don’t believe in personal responsibility. You believe in entitlement. So it’s ok to break the law in order to support your family? Heck, maybe I should rob a bank on your say so. Your reasoning isn’t logical.
For the record, I would expect a parent to try and better their life, and those of their children. However, I don’t expect said person to break the law doing it. To believe otherwise is bizarre or weird.
As for: “You really have to read more. In other words before making a blanket denial of another's facts, at least extend yourself to Google it.” – I did. Here’s the links I used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Cession
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War
What say you now?
Shatmeister posted at 7:42 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
It all depends on which source you are using to state the facts... Most just pick the source that supports their opinion.
So in essence, what some of you are saying is that being here "illegally" should NOT be a crime? Because it's only a itty bitty one? Or that it's OK to steal identities, but only if its to pay in social security and taxes?
Why don't we just compromise? How about telling the illegals that the free ride is over? Why don't we tell them either apply to become legal, or get the heck out? Why don't we reclaim the safety and security of our southern borders?
See? My compromise would lead to "legal" immigration status, no need for additional laws, and no need to steal identities. OR... You could just wait on the Federal Government... maybe until 2012?
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:47 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Rich: Many ILLEGAL ALIENS have been caught, and crossed the border more than once. At that point, it's a FELONY! Many go on to steal US citizens Id's, and many carry drugs across. Many also participate in human smuggling. So, it's not just one minor law that is ignored/broken.
How many laws must be broken before it's okay to take LEGAL action? I've yet to get an answer from anyone. Sorry, I almost forgot, you think they are entitled to ignore our laws......
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:51 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
forkedlift1 -- We've discussed the 14th amendment before. And just like before, you've quoted a very small part of it. There is a part in it about Foreign nationals. Did you forget our debate on this already?
How many want to bet that I don't get a response from forkedlift1?
Shatmeister posted at 7:58 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Rich
If an illegal alien obtains and uses my SSN, works, pays taxes and social security benefits, he is also increasing the total taxable income reported to the IRS.
Over a period of time, the IRS will notice that I am not claiming the entire amount of income, they show I am receiving. It is very possible that I will be subjected to an audit and accused of income tax evasion. I can't see where that would be in any way supplemental to increasing my benefits.
Not to mention if the illegals went as far as to obtain credit cards, (commit fraud) (wreck my credit), a drivers license (get a ticket and fail to pay) (increase insurance premiums), purchase a weapon, or any other means of fraud...
Rich posted at 8:39 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
"I was correct that you don’t believe in personal responsibility. You believe in entitlement. So it’s ok to break the law in order to support your family? "
This is contradictory. Proofread before posting it might help.
"Many go on to steal US citizens Id's, and many carry drugs across. Many also participate in human smuggling. "
"Many" are this, "many" are that, as you use it "many" loses it's meaning. Basically this is just silly. "Many" will become saints. "Many" hold the cure to cancer.
"How many laws must be broken before it's okay to take LEGAL action?"
One. However to concentrate on misdemeanors while letting felonies go is poor and incompetent law enforcement and advocating it be done that way is mindlessly silly.
"How many want to bet that I don't get a response from forkedlift1?"
Don't really know whether he'll answer you, though according to one poster we are supposed to be the same person. However, in the spirit of helping out here are a couple links to arguments held in the Supreme Court on the subject.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765&q=United+States+v.+Wong+Kim+Ark,&hl=en&as_sdt=802&as_vis=1
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12565118578780815007&q=United+States+v.+Wong+Kim+Ark,&hl=en&as_sdt=802&as_vis=1
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12010798883027065807&q=United+States+v.+Wong+Kim+Ark,&hl=en&as_sdt=802&as_vis=1
There are dissents here that, while not as extreme as your position, can be argued. Realize your position is currently an illegal one, however you do have arguments at your disposal, the dissents above being the best of them. Should you be answered, of course. If not, you can argue against the Court's decisions, doing so, however, validates the rights of your opponents to argue the merits of the laws as well. Thus you defeat your major point of "illegal is illegal" by your assertion that it is not.
forkedlift1 posted at 8:48 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Accuracy,
Thank you for those incredible revelations and your thoughts on this topic, that there are others besides Russell Pearce who are out to sabotage the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for the stated purpose of denying a newborn minority infant born in this country (i.e. one whose birth mother is an undocumented immigrant) a certificate of live birth unless one of those three conditions exists. I did a Google search on that H.R. 1868 introduced by Republican Georgia congressman Nathan Deal but perhaps didn't go far enough because I didn't find a copy of the bill itself, just a summary and general news reports.
Then you said there is that Oklahoma state legislator "considering" introducing a similar measure in his own state. Makes you wonder what ties these three elected representatives (men from GA, OK and AZ) together that each is coming up with the same wicked "idea" in the same general time frame.
Essentially, their mutual brainstorm tells an undocumented immigrant mother or mother-to-be, "You and your baby are scum and will be treated as such. Your baby will be regarded as a stillborn infant. We will do everything possible to assure that your kind will not reproduce in OUR country. It might be best for you to seek a late-term abortion or go have your baby in a back alley, and we of course discourage prenatal care for your kind. As far as we're concerned your baby does not exist."
Most curious to me is one of those exceptions provided in that Georgia congressman's bill. The baby's birth WILL be officially recognized if one of the baby's parents is an undocumented immigrant serving in the military. I didn't realize that undocumented immigrants were recruited to serve in our military.
Leading up to passage of his SB 1070 bill, all we heard and read from Russell Pearce was a litany of his "statistics" -- criminal acts performed by undocumented immigrants, such as great numbers of undocumented Mexican sex offenders crossing the border daily into our country, multiple shootings of police officers by undocumented immigrants, etc., etc.
Why are these bad people, undocumented immigrants, recruited to serve in OUR military? And isn't our military then in violation of Arizona's employer sanctions law?
Poorman posted at 8:57 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Good idea,but it will never happen,alot of illegals come here just to hatch their kids at our expense,knowing we will pay for it and the kids will be citizens,and mostlikely the parents if caught,won't be deported cause of the little rug rats. And it would require an amendment to the US constitution. They need to come here the leagal way as my parents did.
listenertoo posted at 9:17 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Shatmeister said, "And for those of you insisting on using multiple avatars/users to try to make it sound like someone agrees with you... you should know it's VERY transparent..."
I've never heard of that although I have suspected Pearce of doing that especially when we have seen the nauseting comments of slavish gratitude to his heroism.
Ask any English teacher (Mike McClellen where are you?) and they will tell you that each writer has a "voice", or individual writing style. A good teacher can recognize that style because it is as individual as a fingerprint. Trying to stray from one's own "voice" leads to awkward writing.
Here is another "tell" in writing; the far-righters (and far-writers, too) have a tendancy to see the world in absolutes. Things,according to them, are either right or wrong. If only life were that simple.(Ask any psychologist and that is the thinking of the average 5th grader.)
There is, legally speaking, a world of difference between a manslaughter and first-degree murder, for example. The illegals who are not taking more than share, who will never get the social security they contributed to, and will never be part of main-stream health care, are people who have committed a crime, but not a crime to hurt or intentionally damage someone else.
The drug-runners and smugglers are criminals, whether illegals or citizens, and they are purposely breaking the law for gain. Remember the Gilbert and Sullivan song, "Let the Punishment Fit the Crime"? So when someone says, "illegal is illegal" that is not a legal definition because, according to the law, there are different shades of illegal.
As of today babies born to illegals are legal citizens. My advice to Russell Pearce is to get over it and actually start to serve the people who you represent rather than yourself. I am in your district and the one time I did call you, you didn't even bother to respond. Shame on you. You work for me, remember?
Shatmeister posted at 9:37 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Another "tell" is when one author allows the "alter-ego" to continue the same writing style or thought process.
Much like handwriting, you can change the way you write some letters, but the writing style is not easily changed.
It's especially transparent when viewing the numerous posts and how often this occurs as well as the proximity of the posts...
Either way, i say it like I see it, whether I'm agreed with or not... but personally... I think you should all just agree with me... LOL (just keeping it light)
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:50 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Rich:
I checked your links. It was court cases in TX, CA, and LA. I don't have the time to read all of it. Where they stopped at the state level, or did they go to the federal level?
In either case. Laws can be altered, thanks to the wisdom of our founding fathers. Considering the support behind SB 1070, I don't doubt there are some major changes coming.
forkedlift1 posted at 10:47 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Shatmeister,
I haven't yet read all of the posts that have come in, but I assure you I am not a "multiple avatar
user" on these Trib posts. So your "transparency" accusation (at least with me) is unfounded since I only have one screen name.
Interestingly, the day the Trib changed its website, I was alarmed that somebody had hijacked my screen name {forkedlift) and was posting comments that expressed thoughts which were the compete opposite of my own beliefs. I worked it out with the Trib people when I notified them of the "theft" of my screen name, which they fixed somehow, and to be on the safe side they recommended the "forkedlift1" screen name. I don't play insidious games such as those you suggest.
Rich posted at 10:56 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Masterrogue666
UNITED STATES
v.
WONG KIM ARK.
No. 132.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 5, 8, 1897.
Decided March 28, 1898.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
Mr. Solicitor General Conrad, with whom was Mr. George D. Collins on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Maxwell Evarts and Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, for appellee. Mr. Thomas D. Riordan filed a brief for same.
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES.
THE BUTCHERS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF NEW ORLEANS
v.
THE CRESCENT CITY LIVE-STOCK LANDING AND SLAUGHTER-HOUSE COMPANY.
PAUL ESTEBEN, L. RUCH, J.P. ROUEDE, W. MAYLIE, S. FIRMBERG, B. BEAUBAY, WILLIAM FAGAN, J.D. BRODERICK, N SEIBEL, M. LANNES, J. GITZINGER, J.P. AYCOCK, D. VERGES, THE LIVE-STOCK DEALERS' AND BUTCHERS' ASSOCIATION OF NEW ORLEANS, AND CHARLES CAVAROC
v.
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, ex rel. S. BELDEN, ATTORNEY-GENERAL THE BUTCHERS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF NEW ORLEANS
v.
THE CRESCENT CITY LIVE-STOCK LANDING AND SLAUGHTER-HOUSE COMPANY
Supreme Court of United States.
44*44 Mr. John A. Campbell, and also Mr. J.Q.A. Fellows, argued the case at much length and on the authorities, in behalf of 45*45 the plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. M.H. Carpenter and J.S. Black (a brief of Mr. Charles Allen being filed on the same side), and Mr. T.J. Durant, representing in addition the State of Louisiana, contra.
PLYLER, SUPERINTENDENT, TYLER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
v.
DOE, GUARDIAN, ET AL.
No. 80-1538.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued December 1, 1981.
Decided June 15, 1982.[*]
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
204*204 John C. Hardy argued the cause for appellants in No. 80-1538. Richard Arnett, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for appellants in No. 80-1934. With them on the briefs were Mark White, Attorney General, John W. Fainter, Jr., First Assistant Attorney General, and Richard E. Gray III, Executive Assistant Attorney General.
Peter D. Roos argued the cause for appellees in No. 80-1538. With him on the brief were Larry Daves and Vilma S. Martinez. Peter A. Schey argued the cause for appellees in No. 80-1934. With him on the briefs were Al Campos, Larry Mealer, and Jane Swanson.
Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Reynolds, and Edwin S. Kneedler filed a brief for the United States in No. 80-1934 and for the United States as amicus curiae in No. 80-1538.[†]
Butters posted at 12:06 pm on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
forkedlift1 wrote: Boy if nothing else solidifies the firm belief by residents of all other state that Arizona is overflowing with wackos, the majority of these irrational comments will do the trick. The results are in. Arizona wins the "Stupidest State" trophy.
We, the American Citizens of the USA and the state of Arizona, are proud to present the First Place Wacko Trophy to former teacher and legend in her own mind, none other than Arizona's #1 Wacko, Forkedlift1.
listenertoo posted at 12:22 pm on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Butter,
How would you know this, and what's the point? It just makes you look mean and snarky, and therefore not very believable. It makes you sound paranoid. Maybe you aren't but that's what is coming across.
Let's all stick to the topic and keep personal vendetta's out of this.
These discussions can be eye-opening, especially if opposite sides are willing to listen to another point of view. You probably have pertinent things to say but the in sniping you have shot yourself in the foot.
Accuracy posted at 12:31 pm on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
• Shatmeister posted: "See? My compromise would lead to "legal" immigration status, no need for additional laws, and no need to steal identities. OR... You could just wait on the Federal Government... maybe until 2012?"
Your compromise sounds a lot like Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's and Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon's “amnesty”, they have condemned the Arizona immigration law and called on federal lawmakers to deal with the issue.
In 2007, Oklahoma's HB 1804 was considered the most far-reaching immigration law in the United States; to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen.
That title was reassigned when Arizona passed its immigration law. Even State Legislatures in 45 states introduced nearly 1,200 bills and resolutions relating to immigrants, illegal aliens and refugees during the first few months of 2010.
But, at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, June 14, 2010 in Oklahoma City, the Mayors condemned Arizona's new immigration law set to go into effect in July. In Oklahoma City, they passed two resolutions condemning the new Arizona immigration law. Urging Congress to take up comprehensive immigration reform and called for the federal government to act swiftly to pass illegal alien "amnesty".
Rich posted at 1:15 pm on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Butters
We calmed down into a rather nice discussion here. Links to ideas, cases, no we don't agree, but none of us is taking off any more on paranoid flights of fancy. Now you. You come off like a foaming at the mouth lunatic. Read some of the links, review the cases, have your point make sense. Not every discussion here needs to be punctuated with personal attacks and slogan induced nonsense.
Shatmeister posted at 1:35 pm on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Accuracy,
my post was thinly laced with sarcasm... however, without advocating amnesty (which means a pardon without consequence), the idea is to not only secure the borders, but to insure that all illegal immigrants come to our country legally.
Given that, I don't care if we deport the illegals and let them return using the proper channels... OR... save ourselves additional expense and allow the illegals to come forward, complete the application, fulfill the process, and pay a fine for their crimes. Those willing, would in my book, be welcome.
Those not willing to become legal immigrants, should be chain ganged for border cleanup for at least 2 months before deportation. At least that would be a slight reimbursement for deportation costs.
This is NOT amnesty as there is a consequence to their actions and they are not pardoned of their crimes.
The problem is between the Federal Governments inaction on the issue, the frustration of the Arizona residents, the news media's constant and blatant distortion of the facts, the media stars and starlets that want additional exposure, and of course, all of the city and state politicians (from other states) that are jumping on the bandwagon sanctioning and boycotting Arizona (election year's coming up you know), no one wants to make a reasonable compromise.
If fact, the more I hear about it, the more I discuss it, the more idiots I see in the media that are condemning our states actions (obviously without even reading the law), well the madder I get. The madder I get, the less likely I am to being open to compromise myself.
Butters posted at 1:51 pm on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
To you, the socialist progressives, who like to rant about what amounts to your flawed perception of how illegal aliens are unfairly treated in this country, let me ask you this...Where were all of you when over 20,000 Mexican citizens, including children, were being shot, beheaded, disenbowled, and just plain murdered by their fellow countrymen in just the past two years? Do any of you fully understand why Senator Pearce and 70% of Arizona's LEGAL American citizens want SB 1070? We don't want our state to become like Mexico, or like the left coast state known as California. If the few of you who are against this law, some of whom do NOT live in our state, then by all means, please pack up and MOVE to Mexico or California. The MAJORITY of US are not going to allow a minority group of leftists socialist progressives, dictate to us, as to how we are going to enjoy life, libery and the pursuit of happiness.
Rich, you and the other shills need to be honest by telling everyone what state you reside in and who you represent.
To those of you who live outside of Arizona, MYOB. Don't come here if you don't agree with us and many of us will be sure not to visit your state or spend any money there. I myself am boycotting Calfornia, and other members of my family are doing the same and also not taking anymore trips to Rocky Point until the madness caused by illegal aliens and those who support them comes to an end.
For those of you who fail to understand the meaning of the word "assimilate", as it applies to immigrants, it means to learn our American culture and live our way of life. It does NOT mean to come here illegally, overload our hospital emergency rooms as though they are the free clinic, apply for benefits you are NOT entitled to receive, steal the identity of American citizens, suck the life our of our local economy by overtaxing our police departments, or sending US Currency back to Mexico, instead of spending it where you illegally earned it. Assimilate also means that when you move into a rented home or apartment, or a house you bought by way of mortgage fraud and identity theft, that you take care of that home and the property surrounding it, including NOT blaring mariachi music late at night so the people living three blocks over can hear it, or that you sit in front of your homes and party until four in the morning or you pass out. Assimilate also means that YOU take care of raising your own children, which does NOT mean that the whole neighborhood is the babysitter for your young children, or that we are the caretakers for your dogs that you allow to roam all over the neighborhood. You can also show some respect by NOT parking your cars on your front lawns, as though this is East L.A., because it's NOT East L.A., nor it is it the barrio from where you came.
Arizona is an "ENGLISH" only state. I think it's time we started enforcing that, including making it illegal for companies and government offices, to offer the "press 2 for Espanol" option. In my book, PC means Protecting Citizens, not catering to one ethnic group of people, especially when doing so is BLATANT DISCRIMINATION, which by the way, IS AGAINST THE LAW.
Shatmeister posted at 2:12 pm on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
OK Butters... You're my hero for the day! This is the second time today that I have to say "well said"
hillstreet posted at 2:14 pm on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Why doesn't the the AZ Legislature just get this over with all at once, rather than nickel-and-diming the state? Here's a thought; first, get Arpaio to set barricades at all highways leading into the state and turn around anyone with a brown face. Second, establish concentrations camps and round up every Latino we see and stick 'em all in there. Yeah, some may be US born citizens but what's a little trampling of the Constitution here and there.
Third, ensure every Hispanic gets a tattoed serial number on their arm as they arrive to the camps, specially those pesky anchor babies, so we have a record. The last step you can guess if you know your history.
I estimate it would take but for a few years to eradicate every brown face from the state. Heck, with a little more work from Russell Pierce and co. we could even get rid of white people with brown hair and eyes, reducing the state's population to blond Nordics, the master race.
DrunkenMonkey posted at 2:17 pm on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Guess it's time to stock up on Ammo and organize the Minutemen again...
Redneck rabbit hunt... take them to the desert.... give them a case of beer... load up the rifles.... set up the spotlight.... shoot anything that moves!!!
DrunkenMonkey posted at 2:20 pm on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
OHHH OHHH OHHHH... and we can pitchfork those newborn babies toooo!!!
Don't forget that...
Rich posted at 3:07 pm on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
"Rich, you and the other shills need to be honest by telling everyone what state you reside in and who you represent."
I reside in Arizona, born here, raised here and,since I'm retired, don't represent anyone but myself.
What I notice is that you aren't from Arizona Butters. How? "You can also show some respect by NOT parking your cars on your front lawns."
You see Butters, here in Arizona, before air conditioning, we understood what it was to live in a desert. We planted trees to park under. In fact, in the fifties tracts and sub-divisions advertised the trees in the front yard as being big enough to park under. The reason is rather simple, a car left in the sun here in the summer is a killing machine. The temperature it reaches swells your brain and you drive impaired, in fact the impairment is a good deal greater than the legal limit for alcohol, and we didn't want to kill each other because parking in the driveway "looked" better than parking in the shade of the tree in the front yard. Then a bunch of know-it-alls moved in and decided things like killing each other was preferable to our neighborhood "looking bad."
Butters, you are one of those "know-it-alls" that came along lately, took the free state of Arizona, where a few of us were raised, and turned it into a sink hole of corruption, know nothings, and nit picking infringements on our freedom and our lives every place we look, you can't even have a smoke and a beer here, just like in Nazi Germany. People we've got along with for two centuries are now "illegal immigrants" while people like you who obviously moved in with the freon get a free pass to destroy our desert and our lifestyle. Assimilate? Butters it's you and your ilk who aren't doing that. It's a desert, you park in the shade. You've got enough Spanish to understand and appreciate another culture. You know how to live in a desert, which includes cooperation and interdependence. You respect the law and the Constitution and don't advocate breaking it when your prejudices find it convenient.
Take it back to the Midwest or California or where ever you came from. Hey, welcome to Arizona, now go home.
Butters posted at 4:54 pm on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Rich, you obviously live in a DUMP, have junk cars in your front and back yard, and your house is just full of junk because you're a hoarder. I've lived in Arizona for over thirty years now. I've sent my children to school here and paid my fair share of taxes and continue to pay. What attracted me to this state was the fact that is was mostly conservative and wasn't a trashy ghetto like most of it is now becoming.
You go ahead and sit in your lazyboy while doing nothing to protect the AMERICAN CITIZENS who live in Arizona. There are those of us who will do whatever we legally can to rid our state of the trash that is destroying it and giving it a bad name, such as the "Murder, Kidnapping & Extortion Capitol of The World".
I see you for what you are, Rich, a lazy do nothing mush-mouth, who talks but never does anything to solve the problems causing the decline in the quality of life in our state. You can go aright ahead and debate this all day long, because that's what people like you do, you talk each other to death. As for Senator Pearce and the rest of us AMERICAN CITIZENS who support him, the time for talk is over and now is the time for action.
Rich posted at 9:31 pm on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Butters,
Let's see. You're not a native Arizonan, you have absolutely no rational argument so you resort to a personal attack and repeat nonsense slogans. So just to satisfy your charges, I'll take a step toward solving the quality of life problems here in Arizona. Find all the people who feel the way you do, and get together with them and arrange for all of you to go back home. Things were great here before people like you showed up, so great that I came back here to retire. Only to find the place destroyed by immigrants from California and the Midwest. Immigrants like you, sir. The ones from Mexico are fine. Most of them honorable hard-working people, unlike you and your ilk who destroyed our freedoms, the quality of life that made this desert even without air conditioning, the best place in the country to be.
You and your fellow immigrants trashed paradise, and now you want to blame people who've been around for two centuries for your racism, feelings of inadequacy and inability to live a decent life with decent people. Pack up, contact your friends and go home, you're the immigrant we don't need here. Welcome to Arizona, now go home.
ConcernedNaz posted at 10:40 pm on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Rich, "The ones from Mexico are fine. Most of them honorable hard-working people, unlike you and your ilk who destroyed our freedoms"
ConcernedNaz posted at 10:52 pm on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Rich, "The ones from Mexico are fine. Most of them honorable hard-working people, unlike you and your ilk who destroyed our freedoms" YOU mean the ones that broke in to my house on 5-17-06 or the hard-working people the broke in to my neighbors car and we chased them down and turned them over to the police 2-23-09? or the honorable person that gunned down my nephew and ran back to mex, only to be arrested (under a different name) a year later? or the 9 families that live in 4 houses on my block? yes, you are right, all great and honorable people. my suggestion to all illegal aliens is to leave while you still can. Sheriff Joe is coming, if he can not do it, the people will take this matter in to their own hands.
forkedlift1 posted at 11:49 pm on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
Shatmeister,
I didn't say Pearce is violating the law (read my posts again). I said he's publicly proposing to violate the law, i.e., the 14th Amendment.
Masterrogue666,
It's unclear to me what you're seeking a response to. If you want to know what the 14th Amendment says, try a Google search or Wikipedia and read it. The applicable section of the Amendment is contained in this article. Also, "Legal scholars laugh out loud at Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce's proposal and warn that it would be blatantly unconstitutional, since the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S." and "John McGinnis, a conservative law professor at Northwestern University, said Pearce's interpretation is "just completely wrong." The "plain meaning" of the amendment is clear, he said."
If you still have any questions about its meaning, ask a constitutional lawyer. (Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years at the university but I don't imagine he'd be at your disposal to discuss the matter with you….nor with me.)
Listenertoo and Rich,
Appreciate your comments to Butters about his pointless off-the-wall comment. A couple hours earlier I'd posted to someone about my original forkedlift screen name having been hijacked when the Trib changed its website, and apparently I flushed out the thief (Butters). Frankly, I think he's a little teched, very insecure, seems to thrive on personal attacks.
Accuracy,
Your posts are always gratifying to read because of the verifiable back-up you provide. About the time Brewer signed SB 1070 I'd read about Oklahoma's travails with their overreaching immigration enforcement law(s) they'd enacted in Dec. 2007. I don't remember what it all entailed but had read that they'd been through the courts for over two years, with about 2/3 of their law finally being ruled unconstitutional in Feb. 2010 by the U.S. Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit. Attorney's fees must have been prohibitive for the taxpayers of Oklahoma for their two-plus years of litigation, and I remember bracing for the same thing or worse to be occurring with Arizona's law. The only ones to come out ahead are the lawyers.
forkedlift1 posted at 1:34 am on Fri, Jun 18, 2010.
Hillstreet,
I thoroughly enjoyed your post: light, graphic…and deep. Most satisfying was seeing that you "get it."
Russell Pearce's apparent promise to introduce his "no birth certificates for certain babies" bill next session might prove to be a blessing in disguise. Sometimes it takes something like that -- from Mars or the netherworld -- to awaken people who have been lulled into submission.
hillstreet posted at 9:20 am on Fri, Jun 18, 2010.
Russel Pearce's connection to JT Ready and his other Neo-Nazi buddies should be ample justification for anyone with half a brain to know where he is coming from. Spare me the noble motives; if you look like a duck and walk like a duck and talk like a duck...hey, you ain't no goose.
Any by the way, every time Russell talks about the "rule of law" someone should ask him why he was canned from MVD. This is the last person who should be preaching the law to anyone.
forkedlift1 posted at 10:58 am on Fri, Jun 18, 2010.
How right you are, Hillstreet. We often see those who self-righteously pontificate about "the rule of law" and point fingers at others are those who have many law-breaking actions hidden in their own closets. The self-righteousness is a smoke screen that hides their own wrongdoing or errors in their ways
Besides his own unlawful action at MVD, fudging the DUI record of the holder of an Arizona drivers license, I won't forget Pearce's remarks after his own son, also an MVD employee, was caught doctoring birth dates on drivers licenses issued or to-be-issued to his friends.
With feigned humility, Pearce forgave his son because he apologized to his parents. Nothing about the severity of the son's wrongdoing in doctoring drivers licenses, or any hint of apologizing to the citizens of Arizona for his crime.
In Pearce's mind, the fact that the son apologized to his parents was all that was necessary to obtain legal forgiveness.
I too see a clear connection between Pearce and white supremacy or boastful neo-Nazi organizations and individuals that continually associate themselves with Pearce. Pearce tries to generally deny the connections and overlapping belief systems, but they keep oozing through the cracks of Pearce's pronouncements.
I thought the following comment about Pearce on an Arizona Republic columnist's blog yesterday was well worth heeding.
"The primary problem is that Russel Pearce "knows" he is right. I have no interest in getting into the issues of illegal aliens and babies born to foreign parents. My concern is Russel Pearce. He is so driven by his beliefs that the Supreme Court or God Almighty can not change his beliefs. A person so driven, if not kept in control, very often becomes a very dangerous person. They do not become serial killers so much as leaders of dogmatic, narrow minded religious groups or dictators. In my long years I have seen, both up close and at a long distance, people who are so driven by their own self-anointed righteousness. They are not driven by the lust for power so much as the "knowledge" that they are the only ones that can cure or correct all the evils around them."
avsolar posted at 1:27 pm on Sat, Jul 17, 2010.
Make the law retroactive 300 years and send Europeans all back, I'll be good with that. We were here first, get a clue you racists.