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

[Tweedr01]

Absolutely nothing. In fact, the Constitution not only says that it can be done, it says how to go about it.

Just offhand, I'd say that I'd vote in favor of it. (I'm not rabidly in favor of it. But I'm leaning more in favor than opposed.)

Marvelous document, the Constitution. Y'all should read it, some time.

lol, sorry i thought the sarcasm was funny, never thought i'd be agreeing with you, but only because i usually just read and don't post. I don't really think its the greatest law, but I'm more for than against.

[JimboDaMan]

Uh, wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby#History_and_usage

and that's just wikipedia. Illegal aliens have child, child has US rights, child can sponsor family abroad, not a law, but a loophole. Next?

Did you read that entry?

This is an example where you are correct, and wrong. The article states that an "anchor baby" can indeed sponsor his or her parents for citizenship - 21 years later. In the meantime the baby's legal status provides no protections for halting deportation of the parents. Oh, and the baby can also sponsor its siblings for citizenship - the delay for that is 30 to 40 years.

Its not clear to me that you understood what wiki had to say about this.

[AsburySkinsFan]

And I will refer you to the 10th Amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The federal government has no jurisdiction to mandate health care, it is not within their power.

Which is completely up for debate and both sides of the issue make legitimate claims in this regard and will be settled by the SCOTUS, but there are two issues here.

1) No one is thinking that this proposed law is Constitutional.

2) This 10th Amendment debate is completely off topic.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Did you read that entry?

This is an example where you are correct, and wrong. The article states that an "anchor baby" can indeed sponsor his or her parents for citizenship - 21 years later. In the meantime the baby's legal status provides no protections for halting deportation of the parents. Oh, and the baby can also sponsor its siblings for citizenship - the delay for that is 30 to 40 years.

Its not clear to me that you understood what wiki had to say about this.

It's a classic case of an itchy google finger.

[Larry]

lol, sorry i thought the sarcasm was funny, never thought i'd be agreeing with you, but only because i usually just read and don't post. I don't really think its the greatest law, but I'm more for than against.

No, the law is the most blatant example of state-sponsored Treason in the history of the United States.

The law is the GOP wiping their Phillies on the Constitution so that they can win political points from the Republican base that likes wiping their Phillies on the Constitution.

Amending the Constitution is something I'd support. Because it's y'know, Constitutional, that way.

[JimboDaMan]

And I will refer you to the 10th Amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The federal government has no jurisdiction to mandate health care, it is not within their power. So again, you cannot complain about this being passed by a state because it is unconstitutional if you supported the federal government stepping over their boundaries and mandating unconstitutional health care. (Did all that without calling you unintelligent or getting into name calling with you, imagine that! :laugh:)

Your grasp on these topics is not what it should be. If you can find the name I called you, please let me know. I posted my opinion of your posts that ignored the facts.

There are sound constitutional arguments to support the health care bill. There are also arguments for those who feel other parts of the Constitution make it unacceptable. Its not at all a settled issue.

[Tweedr01]

Which is completely up for debate and both sides of the issue make legitimate claims in this regard and will be settled by the SCOTUS, but there are two issues here.

1) No one is thinking that this proposed law is Constitutional.

2) This 10th Amendment debate is completely off topic.

Why are you debating it if it is off topic? I'm just making a comparison between people complaining about this being unconstitutional (which it very well may be, but then again making changes in the constitution is constitutional, see Larry's post), and getting defensive of people calling Obamacare unconstitutional (which is debatable, but can be also seen as unconstitutioanl)

[Larry]

Why are you debating it if it is off topic? I'm just making a comparison between people complaining about this being unconstitutional (which it very well may be, but then again making changes in the constitution is constitutional, see Larry's post), and getting defensive of people calling Obamacare unconstitutional (which is debatable, but can be also seen as unconstitutioanl)

No, what you're trying to do is to divert attention from something which is absolutely, completely, beyond any possibility of debate, unconstitutional; by spouting untrue talking points about something which is constitutional, but there's room for people to argue against it, if they really, really, try.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Why are you debating it if it is off topic?

I gave a head nod to it sarcastically in order to draw attention to the point that it is off topic.

I'm just making a comparison between people complaining about this being unconstitutional (which it very well may be, but then again making changes in the constitution is constitutional, see Larry's post), and getting defensive of people calling Obamacare unconstitutional (which is debatable, but can be also seen as unconstitutioanl)

Here's the difference, you're the only one here arguing for the potential constitutionality of this proposed bill, heck even Kilmer17 agrees there is no way the bill is legal, there are a lot of folks here who would like this bill to be legal but you're the only one thinking that it might be...that is a big difference.

I've posted it twice now, and I'll post it again just for good measure, and this time I will simply ask for you to explain to me how this proposed law passes the standards set by the Constitution.

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.

Your turn.

[Larry]

Trying to figure out if it will be less depressing for me to assume that the 20 people who've voted their support for this law are ignorant of the Constitution, or if they're aware of it, and just don't care.

[Boss_Hogg]

I can't tell if you're joking, but just in case you're not.

You do realize that the Great Wall of China was built to slow down the Mongolian invaders, and it wasn't meant to "keep them out" right? BTW, Hadrian's Wall didn't work, the Berlin Wall didn't work, the Great Wall of China didn't work, and the Maginot Line didn't work...is it me or am I sensing a trend here?

I am joking, I mean better border control.

[Kilmer17]

Trying to figure out if it will be less depressing for me to assume that the 20 people who've voted their support for this law are ignorant of the Constitution, or if they're aware of it, and just don't care.

I voted Yes.

I support Arizona proposing it, I just dont think it's legal. the two ideas arent tied together.

[Tweedr01]

Did you read that entry?

This is an example where you are correct, and wrong. The article states that an "anchor baby" can indeed sponsor his or her parents for citizenship - 21 years later. In the meantime the baby's legal status provides no protections for halting deportation of the parents. Oh, and the baby can also sponsor its siblings for citizenship - the delay for that is 30 to 40 years.

Its not clear to me that you understood what wiki had to say about this.

So a total of 88,00 have been deported over the past 10 years...do you really believe that that is the majority of the parents? Over 10 years?!

And at age 21 they become the 'anchor baby' for their entire family, and with how terrible the system is right now they really cannot say who and who isn't their family. The only delay that takes 30 to 40 years is for those who legally try to get immigration status, my wife and her family are still working on that and they have been here almost 20 years.

Here is some more reading material for you, please remove blinders:

http://www.aim.org/special-report/6-billion-a-year-for-mexican-anchor-babies/

[Larry]

I voted Yes.

I support Arizona proposing it, I just dont think it's legal. the two ideas arent tied together.

So, you support Congress passing unconstitutional legislation, for the purposes of political publicity stunts?

That's what the Constitution is, to you? A prop to be used in a publicity stunt?

[Kilmer17]

So, you support Congress passing unconstitutional legislation, for the purposes of political publicity stunts?

That's what the Constitution is, to you? A prop to be used in a publicity stunt?

No. I dont. Apples and Porsches.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Trying to figure out if it will be less depressing for me to assume that the 20 people who've voted their support for this law are ignorant of the Constitution, or if they're aware of it, and just don't care.

Tell me about it, I never would have imagined that the support for it would be so high, and I can't tell if that makes me more sick than the fact that some dipwad in AZ actually is going to propose this law.

I voted Yes.

I support Arizona proposing it, I just dont think it's legal. the two ideas arent tied together.

A nuanced point to be sure, but I'm doubting that the others who voted in favor did so with the same nuances.

[Tweedr01]

I gave a head nod to it sarcastically in order to draw attention to the point that it is off topic.

Here's the difference, you're the only one here arguing for the potential constitutionality of this proposed bill, heck even Kilmer17 agrees there is no way the bill is legal, there are a lot of folks here who would like this bill to be legal but you're the only one thinking that it might be...that is a big difference.

I've posted it twice now, and I'll post it again just for good measure, and this time I will simply ask for you to explain to me how this proposed law passes the standards set by the Constitution.

Oh I know its not legal, I didn't mean to come off as saying it was (although I can see how you might have come to that conclusion), could you show me my post where I said it was legal? (no sarcasm, I just don't remember saying that it was)

I fully believe that is isn't constitutional, although I am for it being put into law, just getting wrapped up in the argument while at work.

[Henry]

I fully believe that is isn't constitutional, although I am for it being put into law

Er ...

... what?

[AsburySkinsFan]

I fully believe that is isn't constitutional, although I am for it being put into law,

Cognitive dissonance anyone?

[Kilmer17]

Tell me about it, I never would have imagined that the support for it would be so high, and I can't tell if that makes me more sick than the fact that some dipwad in AZ actually is going to propose this law.

A nuanced point to be sure, but I'm doubting that the others who voted in favor did so with the same nuances.

Maybe not. But the fact that it has people talking about it might be the entire point of proposing it.

[Larry]

I voted Yes.

I support Arizona proposing it, I just dont think it's legal. the two ideas arent tied together.

BTW, on the topic of props, stunts, and babies:

When I was born, one set of my grandparents (Mom's parents) came up from Oklahoma. (When I was born, Dad was stationed in Minnesota.) (I was Mom's parents' first grandchild.)

My other set of grandparents (Dad's parents) stayed in Oklahoma. (They already had two granddaughters, via another child. But I was their first grandson.)

When I was born, my parents didn't call Dad's parents to inform than that they now had a grandson. Instead, as soon as I was born, my parents took me (and Mom) out of the hospital, and drove to Oklahoma (through a blizzard which has become a family legend).

They drove me to Oklahoma City, to my grandparent's house. Set my basket on the front doorstep. Rang the doorbell, and hid in the bushes.

Grandmother came to the door. Opened the door. Looked around, puzzled. Looked down, saw a baby in a basket.

Shut the door and went back inside.

Voices from inside the house:

"Laura Del! Somebody left a baby!"

"Well, bring it inside!"

----------

I will point out that virtually the first thing I did when I came upon this Earth, was to be the prop in a practical joke.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Maybe not. But the fact that it has people talking about it might be the entire point of proposing it.

Maybe, but it sure seems from reading the article that the guy proposing it (i.e. the same one who proposed the last one) has every intention of getting it passed, especially when he says things like:

Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right."

[Tweedr01]

Er ...

... what?

changes can be made to the constitution, at some point in time something needs to be done about this. Arizona believes it is such a bad problem that they are trying to put it into law, even though it is unconstitutional. It won't pass but they are doing everything in their power to get a grip on the situation because they are receiving no help from the federal government.

[Larry]

Maybe not. But the fact that it has people talking about it might be the entire point of proposing it.

You and I both know the reason for proposing it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

changes can be made to the constitution,

And those changes can be made, but you don't pass a law you know is unconstitutional, that's reckless and irresponsible.

at some point in time something needs to be done about this.

and "this" equals what? Gonna need an antecedent here.

Arizona believes it is such a bad problem that they are trying to put it into law, even though it is unconstitutional.

No, some GOPers believe this.

It won't pass but they are doing everything in their power to get a grip on the situation because they are receiving no help from the federal government.

None?