another fight shaping up in Arizona

Discussion in 'Politics' started by pinoybaptist, Jun 12, 2010.

  1. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals


     
  2. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    more from the link on Arizona's new immigration law in the making.

    This is going to be interesting.
     
    #2 pinoybaptist, Jun 12, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 12, 2010
  3. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,074
    Likes Received:
    217
    Its interesting as to the "headline".
    Why are the children being called a target?
    If the wife of the Ambassador from Germany has a child while in the US, we wound never even think of that child being an Americian, as he would be a German - just like Sen McCain was ie a citizen of the country of his parents.

    Anyways thumbs up to Ariziona - they are doing what Washington should be doing.
     
  4. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can thank Lincoln for this situation. It would take a constitutional amendment to change it. How come all you strict constitutionalists don't know what is in it?
     
  5. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't know, really, how to react to this bill.
    On the other hand, a pregnant mexican woman from, say, Juarez, can simply give birth to a baby two yards into American soil and have an "anchor" baby already.
    Touchy.
    And really touchy because if they do not use wisdom then even those who are here legally and give birth to their children here could be affected.
     
  6. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,074
    Likes Received:
    217
    Amendment XIV

    Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


    The question is if a person born of non-citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the State and US
     
  7. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Or of legal immigrants who are not yet citizens of the US.
     
  8. 1Tim115

    1Tim115
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hats off to Arizona! They're taking on the tuff issues concerning them and the rest of us.
     
  9. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    What a shame! There is a state denying rights to United States Citizens. I do not like the interpretation of our Constitution in regards to who is and is not a citizen. I actually disagree with the modern interpretation. However, it is law.

    So, we either change the Constitution or we allow these citizens rights to include proof of their birth.
     
    #9 Ruiz, Jun 16, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 16, 2010
  10. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Last century was it the legislature of North Dakota that declared pi to be equal to 3 instead of 3.1415926535 . . . one of the northern plain states. Makes as much sense as Arizona unilaterally countermanding the Constitution - and a lot handier.
     
  11. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    Seems pretty clear to me. This relates to American citizens. A non-citizen of the United States cannot make citzens of the United States by simply having babies here.
     
  12. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reformed,

    I agree with you on the interpretation, however this is not how it has been interpreted for quite some time as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. As a result, in order to clarify this amendment, you have to pass another amendment.

    While I agree with you, I also agree that this is poorly worded.
     
  13. thegospelgeek

    thegospelgeek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    The ambassador would not be "under the jurisdiction" of the US so the baby would not be a citizen.
     
    #13 thegospelgeek, Jun 16, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 16, 2010
  14. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >The ambassador would not be "under the jurisdiction" of the US so the baby would not be a citizen.

    He has diplomatic immunity. Illegal and other legal aliens do not have immunity and therefore are under US jurisdiction.
     
  15. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't the interpretation subject to the intent of the amendment?

    Would anyone argue that it was the intent to reward foreign lawbreakers with automatic citizenship for their children which in turn becomes the excuse for allowing the same foreign lawbreakers to remain in the U.S.?
     
  16. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,278
    Likes Received:
    780
    except they didn't do that.
     
  17. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's correct. This proposal is so unconstitutional I can't fathom how someone could propose it.
     
  18. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,074
    Likes Received:
    217
    You are off base a bit. Diplomatic immunity pertains to a foreign govt official being immune from arrest (in most situations) and from other legal obligations (be issued traffic citations, being subpoenaed as a witness, ect)
     
  19. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    It has been the accepted interpretation of the law but it is not the intent of the law at all! The issues of the times - the context - have been removed from the interpretation and applied to different circumstances. Children born within our territory to parents here illegally should also be considered to be here illegally and removed along with their parents.
     
  20. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dragoon,

    The context of the law were slaves born in the United States. They were not considered citizens because their parents were not citizens. The amendment was passed post-Civil War to say that since they were born in the United States, they are citizens.

    I agree with you that the law needs to be changed, but we should not change the law by ignoring the law. We should change the law by making a new Constitutional amendment.

    Yet, the Arizona law is a terrible law because it violates the Constitution like the other law they passed on immigration. Yes, we need to do something about illegal immigration but we should not violate our Constitution in the process.
     

Share This Page

Loading...