Time: Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona

[Baculus]

I don't see what is bizarre in my stance Bacculus. I am pro anti-illegal immigration laws so long as they do not violate the rights of legal American citizens regardless of race.

It's bizarre because it contradicts itself. And yes, both the recent AZ law and this law could violate the rights of U.S. citizens. And this case, specially Hispanic citizens.

The AZ law I referenced will result (imho) in the large scale racial profiling of legal citizens as well as the intended targets of the law.

Yes, and so will this "birth certificate" law, because it is aimed at the children of illegal Hispanic citizens.

Assuming I understand it correctly, this new law seeks to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. I fail to see how this will impact legal American citizens as no racial profiling, stop, search, or seizure is involved.

But those children ARE citizens -- don't you get it? By law, they are citizens, and they are being denied status granted to every other person born within our borders.

Perhaps my understanding is incorrect - if so, please enlighten me, but also please spare me any racial platitudes - your "good thing we didn't have these laws when every "Tom, Dick, and Harry" from Europe were coming here and having all those "anchor babies"" comment is about as relevant to this discussion as the 1800 hairs that are on my ass - illegal immigrants weren't a serious security concern until recently, and there is an economical impact now that did not exist a century ago.

It's the truth. Maybe you don't like it, and maybe you don't think it seems relevant now that European-Americans have been the majority population, but it is the equivalent truth. Especially when you consider that, in this day and age, there are tens of thousands of illegal Europeans living in the U.S., but you don't hear anything about them.

Finally, I like the intent of this law as it aims to remove one of the reasons why illegal immigrants want to come here - that being said, I expect the law to be overturned in federal court due to what appear to be constitutional violations.

Illegals want to come here for many reasons, and not just to have "anchor babies." which is a dehumanization of this entire issue. And that is the problem -- illegal immigrants have been dehumanized by some on the Right. You don't want to "racial platitudes." but I have heard plenty of prejudiced attitudes from the anti-illegal immigrant crowd.

Yes, the law will probably overturn on a Constitutional basis, which is why I think the right-wing is hypocritical. They always want to cry "freedom" and "defend the Constitution," but when it comes to law and order, or whatever issue of the moment they are supporting, they are far to willing to trash it.

[Baculus]

And round the circle we go

:dance::effinpolitics:

We've already been here in this thread, please read the entire thread before reposting what has already been said. It is understood as of right now that this in the letter of the law is unconstitutional, per the 14th amendment (however information provided as to why the 14th amendment was created shows that it is not in the spirit of the law), that is not up for debate. This however will keep this a very hot topic and will keep attention on it, which makes people discuss, which may lead to change, which is constitutional in the constitution...actually the 14th amendment itself was a change to the constitution!

HELLO! You just proved my exact point. You are CONSCIOUSLY supporting this law, even though it is widely viewed as being un-Constitutional, both to the letter and in spirit.

And the Constitution doesn't say, "This amendment only applies to blacks." I always thought that conservative were against a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution, but I guess not.

It's just a sign of more hypocrisy.

From a civil libertarian viewpoint, I totally oppose this law.

[Baculus]

Man, today is full of this:

Pot calling Kettle Black

[ATTACH]43954[/ATTACH]

Sorry, but you ain't being clever.

[Larry]

And the Constitution doesn't say, "This amendment only applies to blacks." I always thought that conservative were against a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution, but I guess not.

(Quietly pointing out that well, many of them have already argued that the 14th doesn't apply to gays, either.)

(Running away.)

[Tweedr01]

HELLO! You just proved my exact point. You are CONSCIOUSLY supporting this law, even though it is widely viewed as being un-Constitutional, both to the letter and in spirit.

And the Constitution doesn't say, "This amendment only applies to blacks." I always thought that conservative were against a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution, but I guess not.

It's just a sign of more hypocrisy.

From a civil libertarian viewpoint, I totally oppose this law.

HELLO! It isn't widely viewed as unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. Hey, and you get another point for pointing out earlier points that have been pointed to. It doesn't say 'only applies to blacks', good job figuring that out, but if you had READ the thread you would have stumbled across the reason why the 14th Amendment was created.

Maybe my first response to you was right, please read the thread before posting, you're only looking like a spiteful person right now whose only objective is to raise everyones blood pressure.

[Tweedr01]

(Quietly pointing out that well, many of them have already argued that the 14th doesn't apply to gays, either.)

(Running away.)

Lol, please show where I said the 14th Amendment applied to gays:pfft:

[Baculus]

Again, I think that you are simply incapable of understanding my postion on this.

This would be a bad law, and unconstitutional. I dont want anyone born on US soil denied Citizenship.

That doesnt mean I dont support the underlying benefits of PROPOSING the law.

Oh brother. And I think you are incapable of understanding my position.

I KNOW what you are trying to say, so enough with the "I think that you are simply incapable of understanding my postion on this" bit. Quit acting like your position is so nuanced and deep that it's somehow "beyond" the "understanding of liberals."

I am sorry to say, but isn't that nuanced and deep, so don't behoove yourself.

It was just a few years ago I used to point out the cost of illegal immigration -- its toll on schools, hospitals, and law enforcement -- in Texas, the Southwest, and California. I used to talk about the problem with the drug gangs, Los Zetas, the School of America's, and related subjects. I have been very much against illegal immigration in the past due to the various negative impacts against the region. So none of this is new at all to me, because I have researched this long before 2010.

At this point, though, I don't care about any of that because this proposed law is a clear Constitutional violation.

This is funny, though, because during the health care debate I tried to explain a number of "nuanced" positions to you, but they seemed to be "beyond you," in that you refused to give a listen, so your entire attitude here is really befuddling.

[Tweedr01]

Sorry, but you ain't being clever.

I don't need to be with the garbage you spout:

you: i disagree with you

them: i disagree with you

you: you're narrow minded

OOoooooooooooooooo, when someone doesn't agree with Baculus they're narrow minded, EVERYONE WATCH OUT!!

[Tweedr01]

Kilmer17:

Again, I think that you are simply incapable of understanding my postion on this.

Oh brother. And I think you are incapable of understanding my position.

He must be narrow minded right?

[Baculus]

HELLO! It isn't widely viewed as unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. Hey, and you get another point for pointing out earlier points that have been pointed to. It doesn't say 'only applies to blacks', good job figuring that out, but if you had READ the thread you would have stumbled across the reason why the 14th Amendment was created.

What's your point? You are just reinforcing my position: That some people are consciously supporting the spirit of the law even though it is un-Constitutional.

It's that simple. It doesn't have to be complex or nuanced.

And why would I read the thread to "stumbled across the reason why the 14th Amendment was created"? I was a history major in college, and I was familiar with the 14th amendment a long time ago.

Just because you want to now say, "This amendment wasn't created to cover illegals and their children" doesn't change anything. As it is, in the 19th century, the question of citizenship also affected Hispanics and Asians in the West. If it weren't for the 14th amendment, we would have an even larger underclass of non-citizens due to certain factors, mainly race and descent, and there would be even more problems with equal protection.

One of the landmark cases in this issue was Hernandez v. Texas, from 1954.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernandez_v._Texas

Maybe my first response to you was right, please read the thread before posting, you're only looking like a spiteful person right now whose only objective is to raise everyones blood pressure.

Who's to say I haven't read most of this thread?

Spiteful person? Because I don't support this proposed law, and because I think some "freedom loving," "Constitution loving" people are being hypocrites? I have debated my position, and if it makes your blood pressure rise, then I can't do anything about it. But don't act like I am just here trolling because I don't agree with you.

Give me a break.

[Baculus]

Kilmer17:

Again, I think that you are simply incapable of understanding my postion on this.

He must be narrow minded right?

Kilmer (who hasn't been the most broad minded person in past debates) simply rejects my opinion as "narrow minded" because I disagree with him. Which is basically the same argument you are making.

[19Skins72]

EXACTLY. That is why the "Constitution loving" folks don't seem to understand. It IS a form of discrimination.

I can't speak for anyone else but I get "it" just fine - and who said I fall under "Constitutional loving folks"? Generalize incorrectly over someone else please.

Everyone with half a brain understands that the 14th amendment encourages illegal immigrants to come here to have a child that will be granted citizenship. I'm not saying it's the primary reason they come, but lets just say it's a damn nice reward for breaking our immigration laws

Now some people think that's a good idea (I'm guessing you fall into this category, maybe I'm wrong) and others don't (such as me, myself, and I.)

AZ cannot change the constitution, so they are attempting to stop the "anchor baby" policy at the state level. The attempt is flawed as the 14th amendment would seemingly counter anything they do, but I do not see this attempt at a policy change as discriminatory.

Now, if the law were trying to retroactively strip citizenship from legal citizens that have already benefited solely from the 14th amendment than I do not support it.

[Baculus]

I don't need to be with the garbage you spout:

you: i disagree with you

them: i disagree with you

you: you're narrow minded

OOoooooooooooooooo, when someone doesn't agree with Baculus they're narrow minded, EVERYONE WATCH OUT!!

What are you talking about? Kilmer is the one who has called me (and someone else) "narrow minded" because I don't supposedly grasp the "nuances." I just turned it back onto him . . . and onto you, since you are now being silly.

Maybe YOU need to go back and read the thread. Oh, more irony.

If you are getting upset about this, maybe you need to quit replying to me before you burst a valve.

[Tweedr01]

I can't speak for anyone else but I get "it" just fine - and who said I fall under "Constitutional loving folks"? Generalize incorrectly over someone else please.

Everyone with half a brain understands that the 14th amendment encourages illegal immigrants to come here to have a child that will be granted citizenship. I'm not saying it's the primary reason they come, but lets just say it's a damn nice reward for breaking our immigration laws

Now some people think that's a good idea (I'm guessing you fall into this category, maybe I'm wrong) and others don't (such as me, myself, and I.)

AZ cannot change the constitution, so they are attempting to stop the "anchor baby" policy at the state level. The attempt is flawed as the 14th amendment would seemingly counter anything they do, but I do not see this attempt at a policy change as discriminatory.

Now, if the law were trying to retroactively strip citizenship from legal citizens that have already benefited solely from the 14th amendment than I do not support it.

Hey now, don't generalize him, he might just generalize you right back, he's already got narrow mindedness down, don't teach him new tricks!

[greenspandan]

these last few pages exemplify the high level of discourse that i feel truly defines extremeskins.

[Kilmer17]

Kilmer (who hasn't been the most broad minded person in past debates) simply rejects my opinion as "narrow minded" because I disagree with him. Which is basically the same argument you are making.

You arent disagreeing with me. You are pretending that I have taken a postion and you are disagreeing with that.

[Tweedr01]

What are you talking about? Kilmer is the one who has called me (and someone else) "narrow minded" because I don't supposedly grasp the "nuances." I just turned it back onto him . . . and onto you, since you are now being silly.

Maybe YOU need to go back and read the thread. Oh, more irony.

If you are getting upset about this, maybe you need to quit replying to me before you burst a valve.

Lol, I've been reading and replying in this thread since it started, but you know what, you're right, I've probably just been blindly responding to posts without even reading them. Yes, I am being silly, because it's hilarious reading some of the stuff that gets posted on here, and then replying and watching the anger boil over:

Baculus: "Don't question me, I don't have to read anything, I'm a history major."

You are just passing my day at work, I should probably thank you, but then where would all your italicized, quoted, and bolded responses go?

[The Evil Genius]

I can't imagine how MLB would still allow the 2011 All Star game to happen at Chase Field if Arizona state government continues down this path.

[Kilmer17]

I can't imagine how MLB would still allow the 2011 All Star game to happen at Chase Field if Arizona state government continues down this path.

Id prefer non political entities to stay out of politics.

Otherwise you'll start seeing a raining chorus of right wingers crying for boycotts of games in San Francisco.

[The Evil Genius]

Id prefer non political entities to stay out of politics.

Otherwise you'll start seeing a raining chorus of right wingers crying for boycotts of games in San Francisco.

The NFL did move SB 27 from Arizona when they failed to recognize MLK Jr Day. So there is a precedent in major sports.

[Baculus]

I can't speak for anyone else but I get "it" just fine - and who said I fall under "Constitutional loving folks"? Generalize incorrectly over someone else please.

OK, this reply confuses me. Are you saying you aren't a "Constitutional loving person"?

My comment was in reference to the right-wingers who wave the Constitution around, but are all too willing to violate it to suite their ends.

So, is that you?

Everyone with half a brain understands that the 14th amendment encourages illegal immigrants to come here to have a child that will be granted citizenship. I'm not saying it's the primary reason they come, but lets just say it's a damn nice reward for breaking our immigration laws

But that is the reason immigrants, legal or not, come to the U.S., right?

So much, though, for Reagan's "shining city on the hill."

Now some people think that's a good idea (I'm guessing you fall into this category, maybe I'm wrong) and others don't (such as me, myself, and I.)

I am not sure if I follow you here -- are you referring to illegal immigrant's children being granted citizenship?

It is what it is, and it is in the American spirit, as we know it. Or at least it was, when millions of other immigrants came to this nation, feeling their lands for the same reasons as these Hispanic immigrants.

AZ cannot change the constitution, so they are attempting to stop the "anchor baby" policy at the state level. The attempt is flawed as the 14th amendment would seemingly counter anything they do, but I do not see this attempt at a policy change as discriminatory.

By the Wiki definition, it is discrimination:

"Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the treatment taken toward or against a person of a certain group in consideration based solely on class or category. Discrimination is the actual behavior towards another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups."

Now, if the law were trying to retroactively strip citizenship from legal citizens that have already benefited solely from the 14th amendment than I do not support it.

That is the next step, if you ask me.

By the way, here is an article which describes a recent DOMINICAN REPUBLIC law, which has also denied citizenship, and the problems it has caused.

http://www.crin.org/resources/infodetail.asp?ID=19973

More specifically, since illegal immigration won't disappear, an entire class of nation-less humans will be created.

[Kilmer17]

The NFL did move SB 27 from Arizona when they failed to recognize MLK Jr Day. So there is a precedent in major sports.

And it was a stupid move then as well.

[Baculus]

Lol, I've been reading and replying in this thread since it started, but you know what, you're right, I've probably just been blindly responding to posts without even reading them. Yes, I am being silly, because it's hilarious reading some of the stuff that gets posted on here, and then replying and watching the anger boil over:

Well, I am glad you made that admission! But really, your previous post showed that you hadn't bothered to read the last few pages, especially when suggested that *I* originally made the "narrow minded" accusations, when that was nothing of the sort.

Baculus: "Don't question me, I don't have to read anything, I'm a history major."

Oh, the snark is strong with this one.

You know, I can always tell when someone is running out of things to say to me when they put words in my mouth and can't respond directly to my specific words.

You are just passing my day at work, I should probably thank you, but then where would all your italicized, quoted, and bolded responses go?

Then you co-workers must be wondering why you are gritting your teeth and mashing your keyboard!

And hey, it isn't my fault if you can't appreciate attempts at post formatting. I supposed you would prefer one long, run-on post?

[Baculus]

You arent disagreeing with me. You are pretending that I have taken a postion and you are disagreeing with that.

I am sorry, but this makes no sense. This was the original post to which I had responded:

"Many of us voting yes dont support the law, but support the act of proposing it and the reaction it has brought."

So, are you saying that you are somehow position-less? That you have NO position, and that I am responding to some vaporous ether?

You are really being very ambiguous here.

[greenspandan]

he's saying he supports PROPOSING the law but not PASSING it. to me, this seems absurd. he supports legislative trolling?