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

[Kilmer17]

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

Again, it's not a simple position to understand, so I can see why it's difficult for some people.

PROPOSING the law has benefits.

ENACTING the law would be unconstitutional.

I dont think it can be dumbed down any farther than that.

[CallMeGreen]

Just for FYI

Originally Posted by Constitution 14th Amendment

"All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Resting one's argument on a Constitutional Amendment is not sufficient by itself. There have been 27 Constitutional Amendments. That only underscores that our founding father's couldn't predict every possible scenario into the future.

The fact that amendments were added to the original Constitution shows that our bylaws are a work in progress. The precedent set by the 21st Amendment (which directly repeals the 18th Amendment [Prohibition]) could mean that to "fix" the holes of the 14th Amendment, we only need to craft and ratify the 28th Amendment.

In fact, it has already been established that the 14th Amendment was flawed (or should I say incomplete) and parts of that amendment have been overridden by two subsequent amendments. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment has some language in it pertaining to voting rights and representation being granted for males 21-and-above. The 19th Amendment (Woman's sufferage) and the 26th Amendment (18-year old voting rights) fix "flaws" (or short-sighted rulings) built into the 14th Amendment.

The 28th Amendment could allow that only persons born within the US who are children of US citizens would be granted US-born status. Nothing says these persons could not later become naturalized citizens.

A different option might be to let the current trend continue. Allow those pregnant mothers who have sneaked into the US have their children here and let the children become US-born citizens. The citizenship rights would be held by the "border-crossing babies", but still aren't held by the illegal alien parents. If the parents are found to be harboring illegally in this country they could still be deported to their native land. The children would become wards of the state, where they could then be adopted locally through the proper guidelines already in place.

While it sounds harsh, losing your child might be the proper deterrent to what's going on right now. Don't necessarily take the baby away the night they're born, but give the parents reasonable time to return to their own countries.

[greenspandan]

Resting one's argument on a Constitutional Amendment is not sufficient by itself. There have been 27 Constitutional Amendments. That only underscores that our founding father's couldn't predict every possible scenario into the future.

ah, a fellow liberal! i salute you!

[Larry]

Resting one's argument on a Constitutional Amendment is not sufficient by itself.

It is when there is zero argument that disputes it.

Tell ya what. I'll base my argument solely on the clearly worded, direct statements of the Constitution.

You base your argument on "well, the Constitution isn't perfect, that's why there are amendments" and vague conjecture about what some hypothetical future amendment might say.

[Baculus]

Again, it's not a simple position to understand, so I can see why it's difficult for some people.

You should actually make an effort to explain yourself further instead of repeating this again.

PROPOSING the law has benefits.

I can see how some Arizonans feel that radical action needs to be taken -- to focus attention on the border problem - but I am not sure if this is the best way to go about doing it.

ENACTING the law would be unconstitutional.

But what if it passes? Are you going to say, "Oh, we REALLY didn't mean for that to happen."

I dont think it can be dumbed down any farther than that.

Well, some of us who would oppose this law believe this debate has been "dumbed down" as well. This South Park episode says it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls

And now you know how it feels like, from the opposite side of the political aisle, when we all nuances from an argument have been removed.

"If you support the Palestinians, you support terrorists!"

"You either support the troops/war, or you are against them/supporting the terrorists/are traitorous!"

"Supporting health care reform makes you a communist!"

"If you aren't for the border fence, you want illegal immigration!"

So welcome to our world, if that is how you feel. :-)

[Kilmer17]

I;ll go into detail.

if this does pass, it will be overturned and it SHOULD get overturned.

If you are born on US soil, you are an American. PERIOD.

By proposing this law though, it keeps the spotlight on the issue in AZ. And it might create the illusion that it is law for those in Mexico thinking about coming here JUST to have kids, so it might slow that wave.

[Burgold]

By proposing this law though, it keeps the spotlight on the issue in AZ. And it might create the illusion that it is law for those in Mexico thinking about coming here JUST to have kids, so it might slow that wave.

Don't you generally consider a law like this a frivolous waste of tax payer money? Think of all the millions or hundreds of millions that are going to go into this court battle, the costs of the initial implementation, and all the other nonsense involved.

Is it worth the drain on resources to pass of a law that you believe should and must be overturned?

[Tweedr01]

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.

Just made sure to confirm that you did originally use narrow minded, although it was in reply to 'narrow views', and a sarcastic response, so the snark shall pass (I feel the need to use the word snark today, mainly because it is in the urban dictionary)

Oh, the snark is strong with this one.

Lol, I think I'll take that as a compliment, the snark was running amuck (sp? word?) yesterday in The Tailgate as it was, with Haynesworth screwing me over in my reading of The Stadium

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.

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 making sure I post your previous statement, which basically says I don't have to read anything I WAS a history major in college....A LONG TIME AGO. You're 40 now...was the 14th amendment around when you were a history major or has it been made since?

[Tweedr01]

Don't you generally consider a law like this a frivolous waste of tax payer money? Think of all the millions or hundreds of millions that are going to go into this court battle, the costs of the initial implementation, and all the other nonsense involved.

Is it worth the drain on resources to pass of a law that you believe should and must be overturned?

Pretty sure Obama just did the same thing with another issue, although I can't put my finger on it, I'll post again on this if I find something.

[Baculus]

Just made sure to confirm that you did originally use narrow minded, although it was in reply to 'narrow views', and a sarcastic response, so the snark shall pass (I feel the need to use the word snark today, mainly because it is in the urban dictionary)

You misrepresented me twice -- you framed the discussion as if (1) I had originally made the "narrow minded" remark, and (2) as if I said I didn't have to read the discussion to "know history," after you had suggested I should read the discussion to understand the 14th amendment. Which, frankly, was presumptuous statement to make as well.

Of course, you've said nothing at all to the person who made the original "narrow minded" comment, which isn't surprising.

Agree, disagree with me, but don't put words in my mouth. Of course, you wouldn't be the first person to do that, and to use snark, instead of replying to my position.

If you don't agree with my position, then respond to the content of it -- debate me on its merits or its flaws. That's is all I ask!

Just making sure I post your previous statement, which basically says I don't have to read anything I WAS a history major in college....A LONG TIME AGO. You're 40 now...was the 14th amendment around when you were a history major or has it been made since?

I ain't that old. :-) As far as I know, the amendment hasn't changed at all.

The only thing that's changed is how people now want to interpret it!

[19Skins72]

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

I'm a "Living Constitution" kind of guy. I love my country, and I like most of what is in the constitution. I love that we can continue to fix that which is not perfect. Fair enough?

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?

That is not me. I do not want to see our constitution violated. Ever. I do however support the amendment process. Let's just say that I wouldn't mind seeing some more amendments added on.

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

I imagine the majority come here to try to improve their lives. Some do it legally, some don't. I have no issue with anyone doing it legally.

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.

I am pro legal immigration by all heritage groups. I am anti illegal immigration by all heritage groups. We have laws against illegal immigration, for reasons that you may or may not support. The 14th amendment encourages illegal immigrants to break our immigration laws by offering citizenship to the children of these illegal immigrants if they are born on our soil. If you are fine with the status quo that is your right. I am not. I do not want the 14th amendment revoked, I'd like to see it...further amended.

Regardless, this AZ law will not change the 14th amendment (I rather expect the 14th amendment to be the reason this law is crushed) so I'll end this and get back on topic.

By the Wiki definition

Quoting wiki is like quoting Fox or MSNBC - instant credibility issue imo.

<edit> I didn't want to just attack the source on this point. IMO we are rewarding criminals for criminal behavior. You seem to see removing that reward as discrimination. We could go round and round on this forever with no resolution, so I'll spare us both with the obligatory "we'll have to agree to disagree on this one."

That is the next step, if you ask me.

I hope not.

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.

I'm not surprised by any of that, but it does not change my opinion on this issue.

[Tweedr01]

I'm a "Living Constitution" kind of guy. I love my country, and I like most of what is in the constitution. I love that we can continue to fix that which is not perfect. Fair enough?

That is not me. I do not want to see our constitution violated. Ever. I do however support the amendment process. Let's just say that I wouldn't mind seeing some more amendments added on.

I imagine the majority come here to try to improve their lives. Some do it legally, some don't. I have no issue with anyone doing it legally.

I am pro legal immigration by all heritage groups. I am anti illegal immigration by all heritage groups. We have laws against illegal immigration, for reasons that you may or may not support. The 14th amendment encourages illegal immigrants to break our immigration laws by offering citizenship to the children of these illegal immigrants if they are born on our soil. If you are fine with the status quo that is your right. I am not. I do not want the 14th amendment revoked, I'd like to see it...further amended.

Regardless, this AZ law will not change the 14th amendment (I rather expect the 14th amendment to be the reason this law is crushed) so I'll end this and get back on topic.

Quoting wiki is like quoting Fox or MSNBC - instant credibility issue imo.

<edit> I didn't want to just attack the source on this point. IMO we are rewarding criminals for criminal behavior. You seem to see removing that reward as discrimination. We could go round and round on this forever with no resolution, so I'll spare us both with the obligatory "we'll have to agree to disagree on this one."

I hope not.

I'm not surprised by any of that, but it does not change my opinion on this issue.

Lol, I agree

Too bad I have class today or I'd give a better response, but gots to go!

[Baculus]

I'm a "Living Constitution" kind of guy. I love my country, and I like most of what is in the constitution. I love that we can continue to fix that which is not perfect. Fair enough?

Sounds fair enough to me. Without knowing anything else about your political views, I can't make any other comments.

That is not me. I do not want to see our constitution violated. Ever. I do however support the amendment process. Let's just say that I wouldn't mind seeing some more amendments added on.

Fair enough as well.

I imagine the majority come here to try to improve their lives. Some do it legally, some don't. I have no issue with anyone doing it legally.

From the get go, maybe we need to draw a distinction between "illegal immigrants" and "undocumented immigrants," because there is a difference in some situations.

I think most of us would prefer legal immigrants. Unfortunately, that is not the reality. Thus, the ongoing debate, and to how we resolve this without resorting to draconian measures, including ones that could, or would, violate legal Americans civil liberties.

And that is part of the debate, away from the issue of illegal immigrants -- how is that going to affect legal Americans? Like the War on Drugs, are we willing to risk personal liberties for the War on Illegals? How far does this go? Mass deportations for ten million people? Citizenship stripping? We better know before we embark on a slippery slope.

Conservatives had "slippery slope" concerns about health care reform -- shouldn't we also have such concerns when we start to propose all sorts of laws, in respect to controlling immigration?

I am pro legal immigration by all heritage groups. I am anti illegal immigration by all heritage groups. We have laws against illegal immigration, for reasons that you may or may not support. The 14th amendment encourages illegal immigrants to break our immigration laws by offering citizenship to the children of these illegal immigrants if they are born on our soil. If you are fine with the status quo that is your right. I am not. I do not want the 14th amendment revoked, I'd like to see it...further amended.

The AZ challenges the 14th Amendment -- that is the problem.

Also, as the link to the article discussing the Dominican Republic law indicated, there are problems with children lacking citizenship of any kind, if they were born here in the U.S. to parents of illegals. What is their status? If they worn born to Mexican citizens, but weren't born in Mexico, then what are they? Who will take them? What if Mexico doesn't? Are we going to have internment camps, like the ones in Florida for all the other illegals from the Caribbean, for these people?

I assume your modification would involve the requirement of at least one legal American citizen to gain citizenship. If this is the case, with the above situation I described, what happens with those who are born on this soil, but parented by illegals? Do the children become wards of the state? Are they deported with their parents (who are left with no birth certificate for their child)?

We have to think about all of the unintended consequences (of which some of you may say that illegal "citizens" are one of them).

Quoting wiki is like quoting Fox or MSNBC - instant credibility issue imo.

Wikipedia is now generally accepted as a reasonable source. Are you telling me that Wikipedia is wrong, and that their definition is not correct? Or did it make you feel uncomfortable with your stance?

(BTW, I would trust MSNBC far before Fox News . . .)

I didn't want to just attack the source on this point. IMO we are rewarding criminals for criminal behavior. You seem to see removing that reward as discrimination. We could go round and round on this forever with no resolution, so I'll spare us both with the obligatory "we'll have to agree to disagree on this one."

We will have to agree to disagree as well. But I also wanted to add this: With your statement, you are now putting children into the ranks of "criminality" for being born on our soil, and for their parents for crossing into our territory. It is, IMO, a bit harsh.

To be honest, I would venture to bet that modifying the 14th amendment wouldn't change a lot of illegal's motivations for coming here. They would still come, except their children would also be illegal . . . but living here. And what happens if they have children? Are we going to have millions of "generational" illegals living in the U.S.?

It reminds me of the book, "A Brave New World," where we would have an entire underclass of illegals being born here, working here, and living in their own "illegal" communities. I would venture to guess many of them would probably fill our military ranks (which they currently do right now) to gain citizenship.

[19Skins72]

Bacculus, my shot at wiki (not you) is that it can be edited by anyone which is problematic from an accuracy POV.

We'll have to agree to disagree on Fox/MSNBC. I see them both as propaganda machines appealing to different tastes - Fox just appeals to a much larger crowd of idiots than MSNBC does. Perhaps it's a Howard Stern-esque effect? Or maybe the female fox reporters are just plain hotter and it has nothing to do with the nature of the propaganda :whoknows:

Come to think of it, if it's the hot female reporters that drive Fox's ratings, maybe I'm the idiot for not watching!

I'm certain this new proposed AZ law is DOA however I'll agree with you that I wouldn't be pleased if it went all the way to SCOTUS and survived.

What a mighty can of worms that would be...and not just for immigration issues in AZ.

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

The results of this poll make me sick. This legislation along with sb1070 serve no constructive purpose other that to inflame already bubbling tensions between whites and people of color.

We'll see what toon your singing come 20-30 years from now when we are the majority and your power has diminished even further. Instead of inclusion and logic prevaling; fear and ignorance rule the day.

Just unnecessary.