Legislators in more than a dozen states across the nation are launching an effort to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, with Arizona to be ground zero.
Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said Tuesday the failure of Congress to “clarify’’ the 14th Amendment makes it necessary for states to take the lead.
Pearce said the details of exactly what form that will take have not yet been finalized. But he told Capitol Media Services one place the states can make themselves heard is through legislation to deny birth certificates — the necessary precursor of proof of citizenship — to children of those not in the country legally.
Lydia Guzman, president of Somos America, an immigrants rights group, said the measure, if it is signed into law, will wind up in court.
“Expect plenty of lawsuits. Expect plenty of legal fees in this,’’ she said. “This is nothing but a political ploy for political posturing.’’
Pearce said he’s not concerned.
“We know we’ll be sued,’’ he said. “We’ll be sued on no matter what you do by the left who continue to refuse to accept the laws of this land or the rights of lawful, legal citizens of this country.’’
In fact, Pearce said, that’s exactly what he wants. He said courts that have ruled on the issue in the past got it wrong in determining that citizenship can be a matter of the geography of birth. More to the point, Pearce said he is convinced that a new lawsuit will have a different result.
“With this Supreme Court, we’ll win that battle,’’ he said, saying that’s why those who want citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants want to kill the legislation before it ever gets on the books. “They know I have a 5-4 states’ rights court.’’
Separately, Pearce also told Capitol Media Services he is weighing whether to require proof of legal presence in this country before a child can be enrolled in public schools at state expense, a direct challenge to a separate Supreme Court ruling which makes such a requirement illegal.
At this point, Pearce said, there are lawmakers in 14 states who also unveiled their own plans on Tuesday for similar legislation.
The effort comes on the heels of a study by the Pew Hispanic Center estimating that about one out of every 15 children in the United States was born to a family in which at least one parent is in this country illegally.
While there are no specific figures for Arizona, researcher Jeff Passell said this state is home to about 4.2 percent of all the illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Using that as a rough estimate, it translates to more than 214,000 Arizona children from birth through age 17 who have at least one illegal-immigrant parent, with an estimated 170,000 born in this country.
Central to the debate is the constitutional amendment adopted just after the U.S. Civil War. It says that anyone born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen of both the U.S. and the state where the person lives.
Courts have interpreted that to mean citizenship is granted to those born in the U.S. regardless of whether one or both parents had no legal right to be here.
Pearce said the courts got it wrong.
He said the amendment requires not just birth in the United States but also that the person is “subject to the jurisdiction’’ of this country, a phrase he said does not apply to people here illegally.
But Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, has argued that it is Pearce who is misreading the Constitution. She said visitors, legal or otherwise, are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, just as a foreigner who commits a crime here can be prosecuted in Arizona courts.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who would have to sign any change in the law, sidestepped repeated questions Tuesday about the issue.
“I have not heard all the debate in regards to that,’’ she said, saying she wants to see the issue considered. Brewer said any comment she would have is “based on speculation’’ of exactly what would be in the measure.
“It’s hypothetical,’’ the governor said. “I can’t make an answer based on your questions.’’
The governor acknowledged Arizona already is in court defending the legality of two other immigration-related laws, one on the 2007 measure allowing states to punish companies that knowingly hire undocumented workers, and the other over this year’s legislation designed to give police more power to question and detain suspected illegal immigrants. Brewer said she “is always concerned’’ when measures lead to court battles.
“No one wants to be in court,’’ she said. “No one wants to be fighting with the federal government.’’
Any law restricting who gets a birth certificate is likely to be opposed by the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association. The organization opposed the similar plan from 2008 amid concerns about putting its facilities, which actually issue birth certificates, in a law enforcement role and eroding trust with patients.
forkedlift1 posted at 12:51 pm on Tue, Oct 19, 2010.
The demagogue at work, making use of popular prejudices, and false claims and promises in order to gain power. Is there any question why Pearce so desperately craves the position of senate president?
Never mind the state budget, decreasing state revenues, record unemployment, the declining job market, education, off-the-charts housing foreclosures, and the desperate need for the legislature to work at getting this state back on track.
Two of Arizona's immigration laws are in the higher courts now, U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals. Isn't it time to give it a rest. This one's a sure thing to be legally challenged.
If other legislators are foolish enough to be bullied into this sure disaster, how about writing a contract with Kris Kobach. If what he and Pearce write and have enacted into law fails in the courts, he and Pearce pay all the state's legal fees.
Slabside posted at 3:16 pm on Tue, Oct 19, 2010.
Go Russell Pearce! I support you 110%! It's high time someone buck this PC society of stepford wives.[beam][thumbup]
miraclegro posted at 3:23 pm on Tue, Oct 19, 2010.
The new state flag, a white sheet with a picture of Pearce on it.
Rich posted at 6:08 pm on Tue, Oct 19, 2010.
Frankly, human beings don't get much more sick and evil than this. I used to wonder how a man like Hitler could gain control of a major nation. Now I know. He told the Germans what Pearce is telling us. And the bottom of the scale agreed. Sad it should happen here where we are, really just a bunch of babies of illegal immigrants. It is the greatest trick of the devil to make us believe he does not exist.
arizonaboy posted at 7:53 pm on Tue, Oct 19, 2010.
As it should be...illegal is illegal. If your in the country illegally, your babies arn't us citizens...ship the illegals and their babies back to mexico...
LinMesa posted at 8:12 pm on Tue, Oct 19, 2010.
You're right, arizonaboy, but isn't Russell Pearce being very hypocritical calling others illegal when he has never paid for his crimes? And isn't this a really convenient time to be bringing this up, right before his election? This is the perfect time to rally all his troops, all the racists, white supremacists, hate groups, etc. Russell Pearce has had ties to these hate groups for years and is just using you people to help him attain his goals. With all the problems we have in Arizona that need attention, he is again wasting time on another bill that will end up in court wasting time and money. If Rush Limbaugh wants to see an evil man he should look at a picture of Russell Pearce.
rrjenn posted at 8:29 pm on Tue, Oct 19, 2010.
Criminals should not be rewarded. It's just that simple. You don't have to be a racist, white supremacist, hate group, etc to be against rewarding illegals with citizenship like they won the lottery. Some of you are open border, pro illegal immigration, Pearce haters who don't really care about America's future. Too bad you are in the minority and we will win. Rant on as you wish
rrjenn posted at 8:39 pm on Tue, Oct 19, 2010.
Puts a smile on my face to read your I hate Pearce BS. He's the man who's going to end your mestizo friends drain on America. Cry and whine all you want. It wont stop this mounting force from taking over this country. We are tired of letting these freeloaders suck our country dry, and the Tea Party is going to be a force to reckon with for many years to come, so get on the wagon or get out of the way. Either way we will win.
rrjenn posted at 8:49 pm on Tue, Oct 19, 2010.
Rich, I believe you exist.
rrjenn posted at 8:55 pm on Tue, Oct 19, 2010.
Hey forkedlift1 , Pearce has all the power he wants. He's not trying for more. Record unemployment, the declining job market are all amplified by illegal aliens. Mexico has a low unemployment rate due to the flood of illegals to America causing higher unemployment here. No time to rest until all the illegal criminals go home. It's not a sure disaster. It's a sure bet that more and more REAL Americans, who are sick and tired of this parasitic illegal alien problem want them to go home. By hook or by crook it will be done.
nybill38 posted at 9:25 pm on Tue, Oct 19, 2010.
its about time we put a stop to this a n c h o r baby process, and to those who don't see anything wrong with it take off your rose colored glasses and put down the bong and wake up.
Of course the illegals will be protesting this
As a previous poster mentioned, its time to put the PC stuff to bed and fix what is wrong
forkedlift1 posted at 2:24 am on Wed, Oct 20, 2010.
Arizonaboy, nybill38 and rrjenn,
What part of Constitutional don't you understand?
soricobob posted at 6:05 am on Wed, Oct 20, 2010.
My Grandfather used to tell me about people like Pearce. He said, if you can substitute another word in the sentence that person uses, and it offends you, then one day the same thing could be used against you. That is, if you substitute "Christian" for "illegal", and it bothered you, then it should offend you that someone would be trying to represent the thoughts of so many others. Most think it couldn't happen to them, but I guess that's what we all think, and if it could happen to one group then why couldn't it happen to you next. Reading about Japanese-Americans being gathered up during WWII flashes in my memory, although I wasn't born yet, all it takes is one person with a thought that is seemingly simple, easy, and sensible.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:18 am on Wed, Oct 20, 2010.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
With these words now infamously inscribed on a plaque mounted on an inner wall of the Statue of Liberty’s pedestal, the citizens of the United States once proudly declared their position in claiming to be the most blessed nation in the world. Now, with statements like those recently issued by Russell Pearce, this proud vision of a lamp being lifted beside our Golden Door fades into memory.
Where some who claim to long for bygone eras when American Values were staunchly upheld remain silent or blinded by such as Mr. Pearce, one wonders “What went wrong?” Mr. Pearce is not concerned that his proposals to contradict our heritage will bring law suits by “the liberal left who continue to refuse to accept the laws of this land or the rights of lawful, legal citizens of this country.” But what about the laws cherished by those of us conservatives who also cherish the principles first set forth in 1866 by the plain language of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing citizenship to the children of those huddled masses yearning to breathe free?
We Arizonans appear poised to elect a governor whose sole achievement has been to affix a signature on legislation sponsored by the likes of Mr. Pearce as well as to re-elect its sponsors, this notwithstanding the four likely unconstitutional provisions of that legislation. Although we freely grant Mr. Pearce his 1st Amendment right to speak up for more unconstitutional legislation, it remains up to the voters to remove Mr. Pearce and Ms. Brewer from the positions of trust given them so that neither can do more harm than good to our cherished heritage.
Slabside posted at 9:40 am on Wed, Oct 20, 2010.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
This country still honors those words... FOR LEGAL CITIZENS NOT INVADERS.
Chessmom13 posted at 11:59 am on Wed, Oct 20, 2010.
All illegals should be sent back to where they came from. I'm tired of my tax dollars paying for their education, medical, etc.... They are here illegally and breaking the law. I have no problem with those who come here legally................
Rich posted at 12:14 pm on Wed, Oct 20, 2010.
"I have no problem with those who come here legally................" Obviously you do because this whole article is about denying rights to legal citizens.
Peetz posted at 12:31 pm on Wed, Oct 20, 2010.
If I were in a foreign country (say for example in the military) and had a child born there, I would be very upset if that child was not an American citizen. Citizenship should derive from the parents no matter where the child is born! Come here legally, become a naturalized citizen, then fine, your kids become citizens. Otherwise they are citizens of whatever country you are from. As for comments making some sort of comparison between this and Adolph's NAZI Germany...you are so-o-o wrong. Not even close! That's where I'm from, and I became a naturalized citizen.
We're behind you Pearce!
forkedlift1 posted at 2:46 pm on Wed, Oct 20, 2010.
DanWhiting, your thoughtful post is one of the best I've read on this topic. It has depth seldom seen on these posts. On the practical side -- and for your stated reasons ("so that neither can do more harm than good to our cherished heritage") -- I intend to try "to remove both Mr. Pearce and Ms. Brewer from the positions of trust given to them" on Nov. 2. I shudder that Mr. Pearce is my current senator. I just got my sample ballot in today's mail.
Sociobob, appreciate your sharing the wise advice of your Grandfather, an excellent mechanism, one I subconsciously used when I first read SB 1070 six months ago. It brought to mind the mini-civil wars that occurred in Mesa about 22 years ago -- old vs. young, young vs. old -- when the city imposed an
artificial standard for people to live in their own homes, a law defined as "age specific zoning." Neighbors that got along well for years, suddenly became suspect of each other or "enemies."
Some older people in communities that years earlier had been advertised to attract retirees but which had no discriminatory deed restrictions, and which over the years gained a few younger homeowners, lobbied the city to impose that government law on all existing residents. Hence, the "mini-wars." After about two years, the city abandoned any enforcement of the law, and things got back to people treating people as people, not by the artificial criterion of their age, or older folk treating the tiny minority of younger people as "invaders."
Since the county also had the law, probably what brought it all to a head was the infamous "Dreamland Villa baby-bashing case" where a couple neighbors of a lovely grandma and grandpa opened their home to their single daughter and her 6-week-old baby, the couple's first grandchild. It was the baby that so offended a few neighbors. The county board refused to grant the grandma & grandpa homeowners a variance, so they sold their Dreamland Villa home and moved back to their home state as a family, in disbelief that people in Arizona could be so cruel.
LinMesa, it was gratifying to read your post. You've got Russell Pearce and his devious, hypocritical and self-serving motives and methods down pat. One wonders how long he would survive in another state. I wonder how many, if any, have fallen off his fear mongering bandwagon after his arrogant pronouncement to defy the 14th Amendment.
The cipher in today's newspaper is a good reflection of Russell Pearce's methods and motives and why he's gained fearful followers.
"Fear is the only true enemy, born of ignorance and the parent of anger and hate." Edward Albert
We've seen a number of examples of that on these posts.
forkedlift1 posted at 3:28 pm on Wed, Oct 20, 2010.
Chessmom13,
You are sadly misinformed. You are NOT paying for the education of "illegals." When is the last time you've seen a property tax bill?
Public education is paid for through our property taxes. If they own their own homes, they pay those taxes directly or through their mortgages, and if they are renters, they pay them indirectly through their rents, cost which is factored in by the property owner who pays those property taxes.
Now over the years, we have heard grumblings -- certainly not many, but a few -- from some senior citizens who feel they should no longer have to pay for public education for children who are "legal" citizens, since those seniors no longer have children to support at home.
Is that the kind of person/mom you are or will be, if or when you don't have children at home?
Peetz posted at 4:10 pm on Wed, Oct 20, 2010.
[wink] forkedlift1
I think Chessmom is right. You (forkedlift) give me the impression that you want readers to think you are all for supporting the current laws of the land. Hey, kids born here to illegals get citizenship because of the 14th Amd. But where is your support for the laws pertaining to illegally entering the US? I doubt if the taxes they pay even come close to the cost of educating their kids and covering their medical bills. Why are you so afraid of the enforcement of our laws? And how do you decide which laws are ok to ignore?
forkedlift1 posted at 4:35 pm on Wed, Oct 20, 2010.
Peetz,
The U.S. and many or most other countries have provisions for dual citizenship. I suggest you Google "dual citizenship." You can spend a day reading all the official information provided which includes information about circumstances when in the military. It's all very captivating and informative.
With regard to the nebulous proposal offered by Russell Pearce, wherein you or your spouse (or other female relative) -- and ALL females giving birth in an Arizona hospital or facility responsible for the administration of birth certificates -- must provide proof of citizenship for the baby to be provided with a
standard birth certificate, I take it you have no problem with that.
Do I read you correctly? It appears that this will then place hospital administrators in the position of enforcing immigration laws.
rrjenn posted at 4:45 pm on Wed, Oct 20, 2010.
Heck lets just open the border and let them all in. Unemployment, food stamps, welfare and just about everything else will skyrocket. Not unlike it already has. Sure will be fun when we too will have narco terrorists operating withing our country and not just south of the border.
Peetz, forkedlift1just doesn't want any laws that in any way inhibit illegal immigration from Mexico. I think we can all guess why. I don't think he is an American, although he sure do sound intelligent sometimes.
Rich is just a bleeding heart libertard that just wants to feed the world with other people's money. All libertards think that way. He thinks the 14 amendment gives the illegal alien's babies citizenship. Silly tard, citizenship is for Americans.
Peetz posted at 6:11 pm on Wed, Oct 20, 2010.
I knew my education was lacking when I first decided to comment.
So, I want to thank forkledlift1 and rrjenn for helping to "round" me out. (Don't you wish our politicians could say that?) Anyway, let me start by telling you that I did not yet take the time to research dual citizenship. But I did give the hospital administrator's problem some thought and came up with a solution. Free him/her of this task by out-sourcing it to a company in India. Laugh now! Seriously, our land, resources (including money and jobs) are finite. I would like all to benefit, but this just isn't possible. Immigration quotas exist for a reason. How much and how many can we support? Don't tell me that the jobs the illegals are doing are those that Americans won't do. I remember (not too long ago} when Americans did do those jobs. Big business said that giving those jobs to ill would lower and keep lower costs. Yes...for them. I never did see prices go down or stay down after they let go legitimate Americans in favor of the illegals. Continue on this course spells disaster for those good and legit Americans who were not so fortunate to become docs, lawys, engins, etc. There are only so many jobs to go around. Most of the time, the butcher, plumber, farm worker etc. is more important in our personal lives than the fortunate professionals eg docs, lawys etc. until we need them. Americans can and will do those jobs! I understand the liberal bias. It is the moral high ground. However, the moral high ground is not the pragmatic path. The tough decisions are those that go against the moral high ground and the people that implement those decisions are normally referred to as leaders. Wow, did I say that?
Rich posted at 7:16 pm on Wed, Oct 20, 2010.
"But where is your support for the laws pertaining to illegally entering the US?" Okay, first off, they're not laws, they are regulations. There is a vast difference. A city code, for example, violates half the Bill of Rights, and when you violate it you are committing a misdemeanor, not a crime. Similarly it is not a crime to enter the US without documentation, it is not a violation of law, it is transgressing regulations that change all the time. People in border towns have been doing it to go to work and come home for three centuries, the exact regulations for it have changed several hundred times over those years, on both sides of the border. The Constitution provides the limits of governmental intrusion into our lives, the amount of government allowed. To argue that a regulation should be changed is done constantly. And regulations change every time a governmental body gets together. The Constitution is changed by a long involved process. Pearce wishes to change the Constitution without the process, wants to use popular prejudice and racism to pass a State law that violates the Constitution, the agreement between the people and the government and the glue which holds us together as a nation. As a German you should know that this is how Hitler gained power in Germany. If Pearce wants to change the 14th Amendment, then he has to follow the rules. He doesn't want to because he knows he's wrong and eventually that will be seen. However, if he is able to circumvent the rules, the law, then he has a path to power. It's an old story, and outside of a few states with inadequate education, such as Arizona, won't fly.
Chessmom, you're an idiot, the last thing I want is to pay the government anything but the minimum costs to guard the shore and deliver the mail. Feed the world? Please, let them feed themselves and don't bother me about it. I find it obnoxious that they spend money keeping anybody out. I find it obnoxious that they do anything but guard the shore and deliver the mail. They are mental defectives and moral cripples, and should be slapped down to the absolute minimum necessary to maintain a minimum order, and stay the hell out of my life. And people like you who sit and cry for them to do anything else only do so from your own feelings of inferiority.
Peetz posted at 8:52 pm on Wed, Oct 20, 2010.
Rich
Thanks. My "rounding our" is not complete. i will digest all the inputs and re-evaluate the validity of the assumptions of my own logic. This may take a while.
rrjenn posted at 10:27 pm on Wed, Oct 20, 2010.
Rich
Are you retarded! First off, regulations are laws. Secondly, Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
* Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
* Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
* Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
HAS COMMITTED A FEDERAL CRIME!.
Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.
Rich, there are people in jail right now spending time for breaking these so called regulations. A misdemeanor, not a crime? Are you even serious? Even driving over the speed limit is a crime fool. BTW, it's a felony to help an alien cross the border illegally, so be careful who you give a ride to. Read up on the laws first before looking ignorant. Read on and see just how similar sb1070 and fed law really is. sb1070 is child's play compared to fed laws that Obama refuses to execute.
Federal Illegal Immigration Laws
Most Americans know our basic laws regarding illegal immigration. It is illegal to enter the United States without permission. The first time an illegal immigrant is caught in the US it is a misdemeanor civil offense. This is because we want to be able to quickly return illegal aliens to Mexico or Canada, when they are caught at the border without the rigors of a jury trial.
After the first offense, being caught a second time is a felony!
It is also against the law to overstay a visa issued by the US Government and illegal for an employer to knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
It is Illegal To Bring Illegal Aliens Into US under current Laws
It is unlawful for any person to bring aliens into the United States. Fine: $3,000 for each alien (Sec. 273. [8 U.S.C. 1323])
It is Illegal To Harbor Illegal Immigrants
. It is unlawful to bring in or harbor illegal aliens. Fine: $3,000 for each alien. (Sec. 273. [8 U.S.C. 1323] )
It is Illegal To Employ, Recruit, or Refer Illegal Aliens for Jobs
. It is unlawful for a person or other entity- to employ or recruit or refer for a fee an illegal alien in the United States. Commercial advantage or private financial gain offender can be fined under title 18, US code, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both. ...Any person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in sub paragraph (B) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. (Sec. 274A. [8 U.S.C. 1324a] )
It is Illegal To Forge Documents for Illegal Immigrants or violate Identity Theft Laws
. It is unlawful for any person or entity knowingly- to forge documents. Legal documents must be presented when entering the US.
( Sec. 274C. [8 U.S.C. 1324c] )
...Fine: not less than $250 and not more than $2,000 for each document that is the subject of a violation.
...Previous violation: not less than $2,000 and not more than $5,000 for each document that is the subject of a violation.
US Laws Declare it is Illegal To Aid or Abet Illegal Immigrants
. It is unlawful for anyone to aid or assist aliens to enter the United States. Penalty: fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. ( Sec. 277. [8 U.S.C. 1327] )
LEGAL Immigrants Must Know English, US History, US Laws, and Principles
. No person shall be naturalized as a citizen of the United States who cannot demonstrate: ... An understanding of the English language, including the ability to read, write and and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language.
... A knowledge and understanding of history, and of the principles and form of government, of the United States. ( Sec. 312. [8 U.S.C. 1423] )
Legal Immigrants Must Display Moral Character and No Crime Record
. Requirements as to residence, good moral character, attachment to the principles of the constitution, and favorable disposition to the Untied States. ( Sec. 316. [8 U.S.C. 1427] )
Legal Immigrants Must Be Investigated and Screened for past crimes and terrorism links
. Prior to a person becoming naturalized, or an employee of the service, a personal investigation is required of the individual applying.
( Sec. 335. [8 U.S.C. 1446] )
It is Illegal For Illegal Aliens to Bypass Medical and Physical Exams for illnesses and infectious diseases
. Physical and Mental Examinations are required.
Aliens arriving at ports of the United States will be detained for the purpose of determining whether they are afflicted with any of the diseases or mental or physical defects or disabilities set forth in section 212(a), or whenever the Attorney General has received information showing that any aliens are coming from a country or have embarked at a place where any of such diseases are prevalent or epidemic.
( Sec. 232 [8 U.S.C. 1252] )
Illegal Aliens Deported are ineligible for readmission to US Under Current Laws
. Distressed Aliens:
Any alien who falls into distress or who needs public aid from causes arising prior to his/her entry is desirous of being so removed. Any alien so removed shall be ineligible to apply for or receive a visa or other documentation for readmission, or to apply for admission to the United States except with the prior approval of the Attorney General.
( Sec. 250. [8 U.S.C. 1260] )
It is Illegal for Illegal Immigrants to possess a firearm or ammunition
. It is unlawful for an alien illegally in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a non immigrant visa to legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition. ( [18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n), 27 CFR 478.32] )
These LAWS were enacted by congress.
Peetz posted at 9:04 am on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
Ah! A breath of fresh air. Appreciate all the effort to share with us the quoted law. I'm off today, again, thanks to the competition we can't beat (illegal labor). This is true! But it's OK, I'll just change my occupation. Hell, I'm flexible. Why did I say "hell"? The devil doesn't exist! OK, the law is not ambiguous. The people who sneak across the border illegaly are illegals. Save the key strokes. Calling the illegals "undocumented" doesn't change anything. So, after careful consideration, I stand by all my previous statements! Oh, I almost forgot. Last night someone told me that illegals can also get food stamps, welfare etc. Is that true? Don't tell me it is, because that will really get me boiling! It seems as though once they get past I-8 and into town they are reward. No questions, no hassle!
Masterrogue666 posted at 10:18 am on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
"Never mind the state budget, decreasing state revenues, record unemployment, the declining job market, education, off-the-charts housing foreclosures, and the desperate need for the legislature to work at getting this state back on track."
Gee, seems to me that if you get rid of the all the FOREIGN NATIONAL INVADERS, that would:
-- Help decrease unemployment- US Citizens would be able to find employment were there are ILLEGAL ALIENS now. Also, that would help reduce the impact of the declining job market. As they say, get two birds with one stone...
--Education funds would be spent on the children that are CITIZENS of the US. Why should we educate the children of ILLEGAL ALIENS? US citizens should come first. Also, the student/teacher ratio would decrease, increasing the teacher's ability to assist/teach their students.
--Housing market. Gee, if all those ILLEGAL ALIENS that received loans (then defaulted) hadn't received them, I wonder how strong the market would be today....
I'm not sure I understand your point forkedlift, sounds like the legislature IS trying to improve the current situation and get things on a BETTER track than business as usual....
forkedlift1 posted at 10:19 am on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
Peetz,
Chessmom13 had said,
"I'm tired of my tax dollars paying for their education, medical, etc."
I corrected her incorrect assumption and explained how their ("illegals'") property taxes, directly or indirectly, pay for public education, stressing that Chessmom is not paying for the education of "illegals."
You then addressed me and said, "I think Chessmom is right."
You think Chessmom IS paying for the education of "illegals"?
You think that public education is NOT funded through property taxes?
You think that "illegals" who reside here do not directly or indirectly pay property taxes?
By now I thought most everyone was aware that illegals are not eligible for Arizona's publicly funded services for the poor such as food stamps, AHCCCS, etc., used in abundance by eligible citizens. There's an article in today's paper "640,000 on AHCCCS lose preventive care." That's a large number of "legal" Arizona citizens who receive medical services from the state's medicaid program.
You ask, "where is your support for the laws pertaining to illegally entering the US?"
I do support enforcement of federal immigration laws which are vast and complex and prioritize enforcement against illegals who are a danger to our society, and many or most illegals don't "enter" the US illegally. Rather they've "entered" with valid visas and have overstayed those visas.
Unlike other jurisdictions that enforce federal immigration law, Arizona's immigration law in many sections counters federal law to the extreme. Just one example pointed out by the feds in its lawsuit against the state is that "Enforcement of S.B. 1070 would also effectively create state crimes and sanctions for unlawful presence despite Congress's considered judgment to NOT CRIMINALIZE such status. S.B. 1070 would thus interfere with federal policy and prerogatives in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws."
How many times have we read from the haters that people unlawfully residing and working in our state are "CRIMINAL aliens" or "CRIMINAL Mexicans"?
Another mandate in Pearce's immigration bill, which not only counters federal immigration law but is unworkable, is the part that says, "ANY person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined BEFORE the person is released."
Imagine, if you will, Joe Blow with a Nevada drivers license being cited (arrested) for a DUI in Lake Havasu, but instead of being cited and released, the cop has to hold him or incarcerate him until Joe Blow's "immigration status" can be determined by ICE.
Afraid of enforcing our laws, our federal immigration laws? Not hardly. Not me anyway. If you and others are so caught up in and mesmerized by the loud and dishonest Russell Pearce rhetoric of fear and hate, believing that his 1076 concoction is going to pass muster in the higher courts, and that his baby bashing proposal which hasn't even been written yet will be approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, I pity you.
He's now even inferring that there's been collusion in the U.S. Supreme Court, that he has an inside track to SCOTUS, by asserting that his unwritten proposal will receive their approval by a 5-4 vote.
His confidence sounds good to you, eh? Does that appeal to you? To your fears and biases?
Those who willingly fall prey to the rants and actions of demagogues do so at their peril.
Masterrogue666 posted at 10:34 am on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
Rich: The article is about UPDATING an amendment that was written in 1868!!! Every once in a while, it's time to update a law or two. This is one of those laws.
Like it not, Pearce has a VALID point about the "jurisdiction" part of the amendment.
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"
Interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Read section 2, specifically about MALE citizens. Does that mean FEMALES should not be included? Gee, didn't they give women the right to vote in this country? Gee, I guess laws CAN BE CHANGED.
It's time to change the status quo....
Masterrogue666 posted at 10:38 am on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
Forked: It's Dale, not Dan.
And Slabside had a great point as well. The US still ALLOWS IMMIGRATION. You might not be able to understand the difference between ILLEGAL and LEGAL immigration. However, the MAJORITY of US citizens do....
Peetz posted at 11:43 am on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
And beside all of that, the state of Nevada, as well as the state of New Mexico, require proof of legal residency prior to issuing a drivers license. Only states I researched, but I have a feeling most other states do as well. So, show me your drivers license or state issued ID card, and this will establish your legal status. Police are able to confirm valid drivers licenses quickly. Not saying there is no possibility of error. ICE involvement is rediculous, and if required it should also be changed. And, over staying a visa is a crime, hence "illegal". I've been asked to show my license more than once. I'm legit...no problem, here you go officer. One more thing. It's easy to take the illegal's position when your livelihood has not been affected. Funny how one's perspective changes when one is suddenly directly affected. AND, you don't believe we pay for illegal's health care? Then who does? Hospitals and the govt complain about it all the time.
Peetz posted at 1:06 pm on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
Fordedlift1
I meant to address your last two paragraphs. Here:
I have a responsibility, as all citizens do, to weigh proposals of law or changes thereto. The discussion is not fueled or influenced by fear or hate (gotta put religion in to do that). No...this discussion's purpose is to assess the prudence and pragmatism of Sen. Pearce's proposal. Just because someone's position differs from yours is no indication of fear or hate. Bias...yes! But not because of who they are, but because of what they are: ILLEGAL. Illegal parents:Illegal children.
forkedlift1 posted at 1:42 pm on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
Constitutional law professor Paul Bender from ASU was interviewed on KAET's Horizon a couple days ago about the Pearce proposal and said that if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is what they're hanging their hat on they're doomed, that the clear language of the Amendment applies to everyone except ambassadors and diplomats who are solely subject to the jurisdiction of their own country, that they can't even be held responsible for a parking ticket. In fact Bender even laughed
at the silly notion.
rrjenn posted at 3:18 pm on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
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.
That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Citizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that requires that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States - just as is required to become a naturalized citizen. So how can it be said that the parents could possible owe allegiance exclusively to the United States when they are by nature outlaws in our land?
Can it be said that illegals owe no allegiance to anyone else but America? They send very large sums of money back to Mexico that helps prop up their economy and to some degree harms ours by taking out large sums of money from the communities that they live in. They flood past our border thereby keeping Mexico's unemployment rate under 4% when our unemployment is more than twice theirs and in some places is even 3 times Mexico's rate..
Do they try to assimilate in our American culture? No, they refuse to learn English and expect us to print everything bilingually so they can read. We take away school time for our children so that their children can learn English. Being able to read an write and speak fluent English is a requirement to become a US citizen. America is the last country except for perhaps the very liberal socialist country of Canada to rid itself of this ridicules law that was only put in place to prevent states from denying citizenship to babies of freed slaves, and was never meant to give any pregnant mestizo that hits the lottery by having her baby after sneaking across the border citizenship for an anchor baby. I really wonder about both the intelligence and citizenship of some of you libertards that spout off here.
Peetz posted at 3:55 pm on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
I missed Prof Bender's Horizon interview. With all due respect to the professor, your portrayal of him (his comments) reminded me of many people throughout history and also of some people I have had the priviledge of working with. These people are very smart, know their field-what is and isn't possible. Then along comes someone and demonstrates the impossible. Wow! They are then acclaimed as people of vision. Bender does not sound like a man of vision. It's likely that Sen Pearce will be unsuccessful in his endeavor, but at least he has the gumption of pursuing his convictions. Who knows, he may achieve the impossible. If nothing else, it may just be the inverted needle that prods the feds into action. Actually, I think they have allready increased their efforts. Long way to go.
forkedlift1 posted at 4:08 pm on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
"Illegal parents, illegal children."
Now granted, we don't know what Russell Pearce and his mentor from Kansas, Kris Kobach, will be writing for Pearce's proposed new Arizona law -- even though Pearce has assured us that it will be approved by a 5-4 vote of the U.S. Supreme Court, despite the provisions of the 14th Amendment.
He has indicated that it will have something to do with birth certificates for babies born to undocumented (illegal) immigrants, whose status will presumably have to be determined by hospital administrators.
If the parent is undocumented (illegal), the baby inherits this status, and that baby will not be issued a standard birth certificate from the State of Arizona. Supposedly it will be marked in some way to indicate the baby's "illegal" status.
When that Americanized baby becomes a parent here -- say, to three children -- their birth certificates will likewise be marked in such a manner since the "illegal" status is passed along from parent to child, generation to generation. Hence the number of "illegals" in Arizona increases exponentially with each generation. It's called the "corruption of blood."
Do you think patriotic Russell Pearce has intelligently thought this thing through?
rrjenn posted at 5:04 pm on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
Peetz, neither the republicans nor the democrats have shown any interest in addressing the problems posed by illegal immigration, and the current administration seems even less interested. It's going to be the states that take back states rights that will be the force for change at the federal level. Our efforts will be fruitful if other states do the same. If 10 to 20 states enact these anti anchor baby laws, the Southern Poverty Law Center, all the various racist Latino groups, and the ACLU will be spending a lot of lefty money fighting us in court. The more these laws go to court, the more people get involved. We have a lot more money than the lefties could ever hope to have, and the majority of Americans are on our side.
hillstreet posted at 9:54 am on Fri, Oct 22, 2010.
Hey Peetz, I know Pearce has the gumption of pursuing his conviction, so did Hitler and Stalin.[beam]
hillstreet posted at 10:02 am on Fri, Oct 22, 2010.
rrjen- "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof."
How the hell do u arrive at "not owing allegiance to..." from that?
Please tell me you are not a lawyer because if you are you need to get your tuition refunded. Those two terms have nothing to do with each other. I am in the US as I type this, therefore I am subject to US law (and Arizona law, and local law). What the hell does that have to do with who I owe allegiance to?
When you were a baby, did someone force you to place your hand on a bible and swear allegiance to the US????
Jurisdiction and allegiance are two complety different concepts.
RollerCam posted at 12:21 pm on Fri, Oct 22, 2010.
Please try this: Calm your emotional feelings. Step back from your public persona. Breathe deeply and contemplate the entire situation, then honestly ask yourself this question:
If 92% of all the illegal aliens that are living in Arizona were not of the same racial / ethnic group as your own, would you still say that keeping the offspring of illegal aliens from receiving automatic US citizenship is not in the best interest of America?
forkedlift1 posted at 2:13 pm on Fri, Oct 22, 2010.
RollerCam, you haven't carried your thought through to any conclusion, to the implementation of "keeping the offspring of illegal aliens from receiving automatic US citizenship" when born in our country.
Feelings and biases are easy to identify.
How do you suggest NOT "receiving automatic US citizenship" might best be implemented?
forkedlift1 posted at 2:32 pm on Fri, Oct 22, 2010.
Hillstreet,
You're in good company. The following is from an AP article of Oct. 19.
______________
Paul Bender, a constitutional law professor at Arizona State University, said if the lawmakers focus their argument on the "subject to jurisdiction" wording, they won't get very far because the founders only meant it to apply to the children of foreign diplomats born in the U.S.
"If the British ambassador and his wife have a child in the U.S., that child is not a citizen because he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. We cannot put him in jail, we cannot even give him a parking ticket," Bender said.
The 14th Amendment "could have easily have said you're a citizen if you owe your allegiance, but our Constitution doesn't say that," he said.
_____________
Not to forget, "Reichfuehrer Pearce" is a strong believer in the principles of the U.S. Constitution -- so he says.
Peetz posted at 2:57 pm on Fri, Oct 22, 2010.
Roller Cam: Yes. I have no negative bias for Mexicans. I just believe that they (as well as people from anywhere else) need to be here legally. It's not a hard concept to grasp. Immigration laws and quotas exist for a reason...after all, why do we even have borders? I know, its to keep Americans out of Mexico and Canada. Kinda like keeping the West Germans out of East Germany when the wall still existed.
Hillstreet: Great points, tough to work through, but try this: Any support for his (Pearce's) proposal is not an endorsement of his moral character or of his career goals. Don't know him, never met him. Just trying to ascertain the merits of his proposal. Should I invite him to a backyard BBQ?
Re Hitler and Stalin. Perhaps even these two conscience-lacking pyoids did some good things for their respective countries. So, here's a question: Was Stalin good for Russia in the eyes of the average Russian? (I didn't ask about Adolph, I know the answer.) Don't answer too quickly...I know how we in the US feel about Stalin and how the Ukrainians feel about him, as well as many other people (should have heard my mother). I'm talking about the average Russian. Keep in mind how native Americans feel about many US presidents in our history...presidents we view favorably. Also, how do Phillipinos view President McKinley? I'm referring to the Phillipino Insurrection of 1899. Look it up. Read it and also read Mark Twain's published take on this (you could use this today regarding our Iraq/Afgh situation). A "touchy" one: how do the Japanese feel about President Truman? I'm not denouncing or praising here, I'm merely pointing out that opinions about people, especially leaders guilty of heinous crimes, vary based upon where you live, how you were affected etc. They may actually have done some things considered "good" and beneficial for their countries...so atrocities get ignored! I'm not implying this is right; I'm implying that it is.
rrjenn posted at 7:31 pm on Fri, Oct 22, 2010.
hillstreet, try reading it again, I know it says a lot, but that statement is applicable to all naturalized citizens. Jurisdiction and allegiance have everything to do with being a citizen of this country. If neither parents are then how can their child be? It's just that simple.
Is this what you question? "Citizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that requires that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States - just as is required to become a naturalized citizen."
It was the argument of it's time back when the 14th was enacted. How can a child of two people who do not owe exclusive allegiance to a country be a citizen of said country?
It applies to anyone who comes here but doesn't owe exclusive allegiance to America. Why would anyone want anything else?
Do some research on the 14th and you will see that what I've stated is the truth.
rrjenn posted at 7:34 pm on Fri, Oct 22, 2010.
Peetz, in reference to your answer to Roller Cam, history is written by the winners and everyone is the hero in their own story.
Rich posted at 9:49 pm on Fri, Oct 22, 2010.
Actually rrjenn patriotism is only a veneration of real estate over morality. Even though the first codified meaning (in Dr, Johnson's dictionary) was "the last refuge of a scoundrel." The fact of the matter is that nativism has been around nearly as long as the country (Used to be called the 'Know Nothings') It's an old argument and is used throughout the world. But here we rejected it, and our successes as a nation invalidated it was the older kingdoms and empires that accepted it faded. It is a fairly persuasive argument, always has been, to the point now of venerating Pearce for shredding our Constitution in it's name. However, it has really never worked well, anywhere at all, and in a nation with no real ethnic roots it will fail with disastrous consequences. Which is why the least and worst educated of fifty states is where it has taken hold.
forkedlift1 posted at 10:48 am on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
Rich,
"Venerating Pearce for shredding our Constitution in its name" is well put, an excellent assessment, and is exactly what Pearce is encouraging for the learning disabled to mimic his twisted assertions.
Good example is the gobbledy gook rrjenn/Pearce post addressed to hillstreet that again demonstrates the unwillingness or inability to understand the distinction between "subject to the jurisdiction" and "owing allegiance to."
The pertinent "research" that the bluffing or disabled rrjenn urges has already been done. Here it is again from the originator of the 14th Amendment and its citizenship clause.
_______________
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, MAY 30, 1868 (re born citizens, 14h Amendment)
SEN JACOB HOWARD: 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 so 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 not citizens of the United States.
This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE OF 14th AMENDMENT
"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."
Peetz posted at 1:23 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
Rich,
"Foreigner" defined by Webster's does not include the phrase "subject to the laws or jurisdiction". The definition for "foreign" does. There is a difference. So, what do you suppose Sen. Howard meant by "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens..."
rrjenn posted at 1:32 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
I fully expected forkedlift1, and Rich to be be too dense to understand or at least refuse to acknowledge the facts presented. but I hope at least hillstreet is smarter than that. forkedlift1 will say anything and do anything to help his mestizo buddies stay here. He is probably a mestizo that desires his family to come here or maybe he just has anchor babies himself. Either way he is vermin that needs to be removed from Arizona just like the parasitical mestizos he argues for. He adds nothing to the facts except pure BS. I'm quite sure he was spoon fed with BS from a very young age and has nothing else in him but pure BS. And Rich, you may say what you like about Arizona starting the ball rolling, but the whole country is going to follow us, and you better move your pathetic mestizo family to either the left coast or the other left coast cause the south and middle states belong to us.
forkedlift1 posted at 1:53 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
Peetz,
It's evident by the punctuation (a comma before and after the word "aliens") that "foreigners" is merely a synonym for "aliens" and "aliens" a synonym for "foreigners" as Sen. Howard was merely clarifying his ensuing statement that it would not include persons born to ambassadors or foreign ministers.
"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 not citizens of the United States.
This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Rich posted at 2:49 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
Facts? what facts? you have never posted any rrjen. And believe me the whole, we'll rule the country nonsense is just that, nonsense. With nativism it riles the ignorant until they get distracted is all. This isn't the first time it won't be the last. And that is about the only relevant fact, been there, done that. You hurt a lot of people, and after a few years, a couple elections, court decisions, you fade into the woodwork and deny you were ever a part of it. As an practical issue it's total nonsense, you can't deport all of them, you can't even find all of them.
And just a small point, if they were not under American jurisdiction, you couldn't legally deport any of them, you'd lack the jurisdiction to do it.
forkedlift1 posted at 3:33 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
Excellent point, Rich, about not being able to deport them if they weren't subject to our jurisdiction. That's the best example yet.
Peetz posted at 4:49 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
forkedlift1
At first I thought as you did about the commas. However, his redundancy in this sentence does not read right. I re-read, this time changing the tempo and slightly the inflection, and then it reads with a different meaning. The commas are not correctly used if indeed it meant to mean what you say. The commas in this sentence are setting off a list. Each item within the commas belongs to itself. If one expects a certain meaning before reading it, it will have that meaning. Expect a different meaning and it's just as easy to have that. Had he put an "or" between foreigners and aliens and eliminated the comma after aliens, that would have made a huge difference without debate.
RollerCam posted at 9:16 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
Amazing group of posts.
It's very illuminating to observe the mindset of the OPEN BORDER people who are trying their damnedest to demonize the great Russell Pearce.
These are the very same people who constantly attempt to demonize Joe Arpaio, Jan Brewer, Paul Babeu or ANYONE who does ANYTHING that would hasten the removal of illegal aliens from America.
Judging by the amount of specious "PEARCE=HITLER" tripe that I've seen lately, this "anti-anchor baby" amendment to the Constitution seems to be the equivalent of dumping a five gallon bucket of ice water on the cabezas of these hyphenated, domestic enemies that live in our midst, and show no interest in doing anything but turning America into a close facsimile of Mexico.
Rich posted at 9:37 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
"Open Border" people? Remember Joanie Flatt who sold us Riverview with 'Cave People.' That worked out well. Thinking any American politician is anything other than an ambitious, self-obsessed moron is really reaching, and 'Great' is laughable, you have to be a high school kid or a paid blogger, no rational adult could accept what you're saying. It's ranting and name calling and it's frankly a bit ridiculous.
As to Pearce-Hitler, Pearce uses the same propaganda techniques, not nearly as well or competently, but he is willingly using them, therefore the comparison is rather obvious and in your face. The 'anchor-baby' amendment, as you call it is an ideal example, it is the same technique, well actually Goebels, not Hitler, used to break the Weimar Constitution.
It won't work and Pearce is too much of an obvious clown to make it work. But still the effort, the technique are there, so the comparison is obvious.
Peetz posted at 11:42 pm on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
Rich and Forkedlift1
I'm just guessing that you are against any changes with regard to the 14th. Is that right? Or are you just expressing views as to why you believe it can't be done? If you are against the proposed changes - WHY??? I know that the US and Canada (more that a hundred years ago) needed all the immigrants they could get in order to settle the mid-west and west. Those days are long gone. So again - WHY???
Peetz posted at 12:10 am on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
Rich and Forkedlift1
I am guessing you are against proposed changes to the 14th. Am I right? But maybe you're just expressing your views as to whether or not any changes can get through successfully. If my first guess is right and you are against any changes, then I ask you - WHY?? We know the the US and Canada needed all the immigrants they could get (over a hundred years ago) in order to settle the mid-west and west, but those days are long gone.
So again - WHY???
forkedlift1 posted at 1:57 am on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
RollerCam,
Russell Pearce has demonized himself. When is the last time you listened to him? Proposing to flagrantly violate the U.S. Constitution and boasting about it is not exactly the mark of a responsible legislator.
Arpaio has likewise demonized himself. Abusing his law enforcement power under color of law, violating state and federal laws in doing so, is a matter of public record. Those abuses are pervasive and may happen to include his unlawful enforcement practices of illegal immigration, but that's all.
He's got $46 million in claims by judges, supervisors, county employees and a private citizen hanging over his head which have nothing whatever to do with illegal immigration.
Endorsing or promoting a cover-up of their unlawful actions by attempting to label those who talk or write about them "open border people" misses the mark entirely.
Illegal is illegal, remember?
forkedlift1 posted at 2:21 am on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
Peetz,
Regarding your 4:49pm 10/23 post, I agree, that "Had he put an "or" between foreigners and aliens and eliminated the comma after aliens, that would have made a huge difference without debate."
He didn't, and U.S. Supreme Court rulings have consistently reflected Howard's intent....generally, that anyone born here except the children of foreign ambassadors and diplomats is a U.S. citizen.
You can check out the following cases;
1898 U.S. v Wong Kim Ark
1939 Perkins v Elg
1967 Afroyim v Rusk
The 1982 case Plyler v Doe case also made reference to the citizenship clause although it was other provisions of the 14th Amendment that were at issue.
forkedlift1 posted at 3:41 am on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
Peetz.
Regarding your last two posts, Pearce says he will be proposing a law to knowingly and deliberately violate the clear language of the 14th Amendment, that he WANTS the state to be sued....(again). That is unconscionable and the mark of an irresponsible legislator.
If he and other state legislators want to have the language of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment changed, then let's call a spade a spade. That's the only way Pearce's flash-in-the-pan, defiant, cowardly, costly and irresponsible proposal will fly. And that will require an act of Congress and all the legal requirements to follow. That has not (yet) occurred. Such an act will then be fully discussed before it would be ratified. There are no short cuts.
Maybe your suggestion that the US has all the immigrants it needs will be persuasive. But the issue, if it even is an issue, has not been addressed nationally.
At this point, I think it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but we haven't heard all the arguments.
Pearce's proposal for Arizona, to supposedly place Arizona's hospital administrators in the position of being immigration agents and then doctoring birth certificates, is ill-conceived. Based on the existing case law supporting the clear language of the 14th Amendment, his "idea" violates the Constitution that we hold dear.
Rich posted at 7:21 am on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
Peetz
You're asking more than one question, tacitly. The 14th Amendment is much broader than the question of Hispanic immigration. To change it you begin in Washington D.C. then have states take it up debate it, discuss and ratify or reject the change one by one. To begin with a state law is just bad government to start with and is being done for sound bites, not any material change in anything at all.
If you're asking a personal take on the immigration question, I believe we are a melting pot and each different addition to the pot is always, in the long run a plus. In fact, I think if we ever decide we are finished, and attempt to end the pot, we will decline rapidly and precipitously.
Peetz posted at 9:37 am on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
Rich and Forkedlift1
Being an immigrant myself (only English I knew when I got here was "hi" and "OK") I like your reason for "- WHY". I also agree that the "melting pot" resulted in a society which is the envy of the world. But, unfortunately, it seems the "pot" is rapidly approaching the limits of its capacity.
The Supreme Court has the right and responsibility to presume the intent of an absentee author's written words. We, however, are relegated to presuming that the author knew the meaning of the words he/she used and the proper use of punctuation to accurately convey his/her meaning. As Supreme Court Justices change, so do presumptions. Presumptions are often influenced by current events and/or needs as well as countless other factors. (I'm paraphrasing J. Hoffman, presiding federal judge in the Chicago Seven trial, 1969.)
forkedlift1 posted at 3:31 pm on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
Peetz,
Your post brought to mind a couple recollections from the past.
In the early to mid-1980's, when it seemed like Mesa was annexing county land from here to New Mexico, and objections were raised by many citizens, then Mayor Don Strauch pondered over the objections, that it reflected an interesting attitude, something to the effect....."Now that I'm here and the recipient of Mesa's city services, shut the gate. We shouldn't try to accommodate all those new "foreigners" who will be encouraged to move to Mesa from out of state."
You mentioned the Chicago Seven trial, something I did not follow. But I did reflect on a book I just received from a Chicago friend "Chicago's Forgotten Tragedy." It chronicles the tragic Chicago Stock Yards fire of Dec. 22, 1910, coming upon the 100th anniversary of that fire, and memorializes the 21 Chicago firemen killed in that fire. It was the variety of identifiable national ethnic (European) surnames of those firemen that struck me, all working for a common cause. Many Irish, also Polish, German, English, at a time when they could have been first or second generation immigrants.
Peetz posted at 4:30 pm on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
Forkedlift1
Your comment is well-taken. I did a lot of soul-searching before I posted it, knowing full well that I'd probably get some "barbed" feedback for it. You didn't say I was selfish, though you could have and probably, in a round about way, did. OK, I admit there is some selfishness, I'm human. But I did not violated any laws when I came here. Neither did I foul up immigration quota limitations. And, and this wasn't mentioned before, when I came here I fully intended to become an American. Not a German-American. An American! Had someone offered the driver license test in Deutsch, I would have been insulted. And if they actually had that test in Deutsch, I would have been humiliated. The desire to fully assimilate! Lawfully! I believe you will find that the vast majority of folks who come here legally share that same desire...no matter where they come from.
rrjenn posted at 11:30 am on Fri, Oct 29, 2010.
Well put Peetz. Illegal is illegal, and this flood of aliens from the south is doing great harm to our economy at a time when we can least afford it. It is also creating a country withing our country that will never assimilate into the greater culture. Do any of you really believe that a majority Latino population wouldn't want to make Spanish the official language of Arizona? These criminal aliens represent an economic drain and a political bombshell that we need to stop now!
forkedlift1 posted at 11:18 am on Thu, Nov 11, 2010.
Piyush Amrit "Bobby" Jindal, the current governor of Louisiana and former U.S. Congressman, is an "anchor baby" -- the derisive term concocted by backwards Russell Pearce.
Both of Jindal's parents were citizens of Punjab, India, and when they arrived in the U.S. his mother was four months pregnant with "Bobby" who was born in Baton Rouge on June 10, 1971.
Also, Jindal's wife was born in New Delhi, India and moved to Baton Rouge with her parents when she was four years old.
Sound familiar?
Were it not for the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, its clear language and its well-documented intent -- the opportunities and freedoms it presents for ALL who are born in our country -- we'd be a much poorer nation.
BTW, the gifted Bobby Jindal, a Republican, reportedly has a 77% approval rating by the citizens of his state.
rrjenn posted at 4:38 pm on Sat, Nov 20, 2010.
So forky can come up with names of people who were anchor babies that made good. There are countless anchor babies who went on to rob or rape citizens for every one he can say did well. Doesn't really mean a thing though. We still need to remove the rewards for breaking our immigration laws. Refining the language so that even your most retarded lefty can understand that the law doesn't apply to these illegal aliens is the next step. Half the states are in the process of doing that now. In a few years we will be able to fix it at the federal level as well.
RollerCam posted at 12:40 pm on Mon, Nov 29, 2010.
Forky: You LIE!
Jindal's parents didn't tie pieces of carpet to their shoes to evade the Border Patrol and they sure didn't sneak over the Mexican border--- they came here legally. They are IMMIGRANTS, not illegals like the class of lawbreakers that you perpetually champion.
Bobby Jindal is not an anchor baby in any sense of the word!
RollerCam posted at 12:58 pm on Mon, Nov 29, 2010.
Bobby Jindal on Illegal immigration:(from Wikipedia)
"As a son of immigrants, Jindal has stated that legal immigration brings many benefits to the United States. He has, however, criticized illegal immigration as a drain on the economy, as well as being unfair to those who entered the country by legal means. He has voted to build a fence along the Mexican border and opposes granting amnesty for illegal aliens."
All of you "Viva La Razaistas" might want to look elsewhere for a poster boy for your consistently failed "open borders" push.
rrjenn posted at 2:37 pm on Sun, Dec 5, 2010.
RollerCam, thanks for doing the homework. I was ready to give forky the benefit of the doubt on that one as even one good anchor baby doesn't change the facts. After re-reading his lies, I notice he says Russell Pearce concocted the term anchor baby. Forky is so full of cr*p it's squishing out his ears.