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

[Tweedr01]

uhm... because it is specifically outlined that way in the constitution?

the CHILD born in Arizona IS a citizen of the Untited States. period.

You're a little late, we know this, please read the entire thread before posting, thanks!:laugh:

[The 12th Commandment]

Off topic, is your sig Samurai Champloo? If so, whatever happened to that show? I remember watching it....then getting old and not being able to stay up....then it was never on AS anymore.

The whole series is on Hulu. Good anime!

ON topic, all this talk about security, and the law yet no one will acknowledge that there is NOT a major security threat to those of us who live on the border due to illegals or too little border security.

I think Destino hit it on the head with the fact that the politicians who are beholden to employers don't do the constitionally correct thing and go after them. Poor fugitives make a much easier target than a rich spa owner who probably contributes heavily to various campaigns. Targeting and blaming just the illegals is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. Or just plain ignorant.

Build a way for them to come legally and they will. Of course then they'll have to be paid more and that's not popular. It's tantamount to the way the russian mob treats their hookers. Bring them in illegally and they have no recourse to complain about being abused. There are differences, of course, but bottom line is frighteningly similar and no one sees it or it's ignored.

[mcsluggo]

Yep you are right , if you can't see the flaw in what you just created you're lost. I'm a US Citizen who accidentally got caught speeding....I'm not a US Citizen who just got caught purposefully and illegally breaking your laws and then trying to use your laws against you so I can have your rights.

Whatever, and again, they can leave their children here so their children can have a better life. Its not the kids fault, but the anchor baby is used so the parent can get the benefits too, uh duh.

this is PRICELESS :laugh:

[JimboDaMan]

I'm not going to again post the info I did when I first posed the question to you, by doing your merry go round it looks like you just don't want to respond, thats cool, no worries guy!

I wouldn't repost it either if I were you, instead I'd be looking for something that backed up my argument by illustrating how "anchor baby" parents are less likely to be deported than other illegal aliens.

There are no legal protections to allow those parents to stay. Its possible, as Kilmer said, that there are informal reasons why they might not be deported as readily as other illegal aliens. But you have not shown that to be true.

[Flipsyde]

I have a dumb question:

If an illegal immigrant is deported after having a baby in the U.S., what happens to the baby?

Personally, I think this proposed law is a bunch of trash. The 14th amendment agrees.

As to the "anchor babies" argument, can the parents of the baby petition to stay in the U.S. as the baby has no other family in the States to take care of him/her? I think I remember reading something about that, but I could have my head full of nothing right now.

[Tweedr01]

The whole series is on Hulu. Good anime!

ON topic, all this talk about security, and the law yet no one will acknowledge that there is NOT a major security threat to those of us who live on the border due to illegals or too little border security.

I think Destino hit it on the head with the fact that the politicians who are beholden to employers don't do the constitionally correct thing and go after them. Poor fugitives make a much easier target than a rich spa owner who probably contributes heavily to various campaigns. Targeting and blaming just the illegals is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. Or just plain ignorant.

Build a way for them to come legally and they will. Of course then they'll have to be paid more and that's not popular. It's tantamount to the way the russian mob treats their hookers. Bring them in illegally and they have no recourse to complain about being abused. There are differences, of course, but bottom line is frighteningly similar and no one sees it or it's ignored.

Off topic:

Oooooo good call, lol, now I just have to convince my wife that I'm watching anime on my laptop all day...

On topic:

He may be going about it the wrong way, but he's probably of the mindset that something has to be done. This may be just the tip of the iceberg, it may lead to discussion such as this, and then lead to going after the employers who make it so enticing for the illegal aliens to jump ship to the US. I'm not sure, I don't live in AZ so it doesn't directly affect me, but I'm sure while the way they are going about it isn't the greatest, they have come to their wits end.

[Larry]

I have a dumb question:

If an illegal immigrant is deported after having a baby in the U.S., what happens to the baby?

He goes with his parents. (I suppose that the parents could put him up for adoption. But let's just assume that that option isn't acceptable for one reason or another.)

And, when he turns 18, (or sooner, I suppose), he can apply for, and receive, his US passport. And come and live in the US, with all or the rights of a citizen. (Because he is one.)

In fact, when he's old enough, he can run for President.

[Flipsyde]

Thanks for clarifying Larry. I remembered wrong.

So help me out here...

If the child of the illegal immigrant parents go back to their originating country if the parents are deported and then can sponsor said parents later for legal immigration, isn't that is exactly what people are calling for?

I mean, everyone agrees (or at least I hope they do) that our immigration system needs a healthy dose of Major Reform (patent pending). But it seems to me that, while this does stretch the letter of the law, it doesn't violate the spirit of it. Besides, as anecdotal evidence shows, it can take many years to get citizenship without a natural-born child. This just gives people another way to go through the system. Isn't going through the system what people want?

[Tweedr01]

Thanks for clarifying Larry. I remembered wrong.

So help me out here...

If the child of the illegal immigrant parents go back to their originating country if the parents are deported and then can sponsor said parents later for legal immigration, isn't that is exactly what people are calling for?

I mean, everyone agrees (or at least I hope they do) that our immigration system needs a healthy dose of Major Reform (patent pending). But it seems to me that, while this does stretch the letter of the law, it doesn't violate the spirit of it. Besides, as anecdotal evidence shows, it can take many years to get citizenship without a natural-born child. This just gives people another way to go through the system. Isn't going through the system what people want?

lol, I'm not sure if you are for or against this law. This is my interpretation of the law, so please understand that before you read, but I don't believe this law was setup so that people could come here illegally, procreate, wait a few years, and then bring their entire family over as all legal US Citizens. It was created with good intentions for legal immigrants who are not citizens, but are here legally, and have a child. That child then becomes a US Citizen and has all the rights of a US Citizen. It's a slap in the face for people who legally waited years and years to come to the United States. There are people who are in refugee camps that wait through much harsher environments than those who decided to come over illegally.

[mcsluggo]

Thanks for clarifying Larry. I remembered wrong.

So help me out here...

If the child of the illegal immigrant parents go back to their originating country if the parents are deported and then can sponsor said parents later for legal immigration, isn't that is exactly what people are calling for?

I mean, everyone agrees (or at least I hope they do) that our immigration system needs a healthy dose of Major Reform (patent pending). But it seems to me that, while this does stretch the letter of the law, it doesn't violate the spirit of it. Besides, as anecdotal evidence shows, it can take many years to get citizenship without a natural-born child. This just gives people another way to go through the system. Isn't going through the system what people want?

How in the WORLD does this not violate "the spirit of the law"?

the child is a US citizen. the way that we ALL generally represent the fact that a child is a US citizen is to present the child's birth certificate. This law forbids the issuance of a birth certificate (for the citizen CHILD).

there is NO interepretation possible for this law other than it is a simple attempt to denigrate the citizenship of a child. It is at its base simply mean-spirited and spiteful, and nothing else. its SOLE purpose is to get the peanut gallery to go "sheet cha! glad they are finally doin something!" when "they" are not doing ANYTHING.

What is the PURPOSE of denying the basic documentation of a fact here? The citizenship cannot be called into question.. THAT is fact. This law is designed to make it as difficult as possible for this citizen to CLAIM their citizenship.

[The 12th Commandment]

He may be going about it the wrong way, but he's probably of the mindset that something has to be done. This may be just the tip of the iceberg, it may lead to discussion such as this, and then lead to going after the employers who make it so enticing for the illegal aliens to jump ship to the US. I'm not sure, I don't live in AZ so it doesn't directly affect me, but I'm sure while the way they are going about it isn't the greatest, they have come to their wits end.

It's just making political hay. Arizona doesn't suffer more, and I'd argue they benefit, from the illegal aliens that live there than anyone else. The rancher getting killed was a travesty, no arguement, but it's being used as rational for a big political stink being made that accomplished two goals the AZ GOP very much likes. 1. The false hyperbole makes the Obama's admin look bad if you believe it which many idiots do, and 2. Their own home grown idiots are full of anger and blame and who better to unleash those on (to make your own political brownie points) than a group of people who have no influence or power at all. CHeap tricks.

[The 12th Commandment]

He goes with his parents. (I suppose that the parents could put him up for adoption. But let's just assume that that option isn't acceptable for one reason or another.)

And, when he turns 18, (or sooner, I suppose), he can apply for, and receive, his US passport. And come and live in the US, with all or the rights of a citizen. (Because he is one.)

In fact, when he's old enough, he can run for President.

More often than not, at least from what I've seen here, they stay with relatives who are legal. You have to consider these families are a. catholic so they're very large and b. they've been going back and forth for centuries for visits, work and shopping.

Abuelita doesn't do as a good a job of keeping little Juanny out of gangs as mom and dad would, however, so there is a societal cost to that. Course it's cheaper to just lock 'em up than let their folks here to work and pay taxes.

[Tweedr01]

It's just making political hay. Arizona doesn't suffer more, and I'd argue they benefit, from the illegal aliens that live there than anyone else. The rancher getting killed was a travesty, no arguement, but it's being used as rational for a big political stink being made that accomplished two goals the AZ GOP very much likes. 1. The false hyperbole makes the Obama's admin look bad if you believe it which many idiots do, and 2. Their own home grown idiots are full of anger and blame and who better to unleash those on (to make your own political brownie points) than a group of people who have no influence or power at all. CHeap tricks.

Such is politics though, can't get in stir because both sides do it. It really is juvenile to call people idiots who don't agree with your ideology though.

[Hubbs]

How in the WORLD does this not violate "the spirit of the law"?

the child is a US citizen. the way that we ALL generally represent the fact that a child is a US citizen is to present the child's birth certificate. This law forbids the issuance of a birth certificate (for the citizen CHILD).

there is NO interepretation possible for this law other than it is a simple attempt to denigrate the citizenship of a child. It is at its base simply mean-spirited and spiteful, and nothing else. its SOLE purpose is to get the peanut gallery to go "sheet cha! glad they are finally doin something!" when "they" are not doing ANYTHING.

What is the PURPOSE of denying the basic documentation of a fact here? The citizenship cannot be called into question.. THAT is fact. This law is designed to make it as difficult as possible for this citizen to CLAIM their citizenship.

Well put.

[Predicto]

It's just making political hay. Arizona doesn't suffer more, and I'd argue they benefit, from the illegal aliens that live there than anyone else. The rancher getting killed was a travesty, no arguement, but it's being used as rational for a big political stink being made that accomplished two goals the AZ GOP very much likes. 1. The false hyperbole makes the Obama's admin look bad if you believe it which many idiots do, and 2. Their own home grown idiots are full of anger and blame and who better to unleash those on (to make your own political brownie points) than a group of people who have no influence or power at all. CHeap tricks.

Nativism flares up in the US every few years. I guess it's that time again.

In reality, no country benefits more from liberal immigration policies than the US. We have been cherry picking the best and brightest and most ambitious and most driven from around the world for a couple of centuries, and it has made us the great nation we are. It's sad when people lose sight of that.

[greenspandan]

they can't make a law that says the child isn't a citizen, so they are making it as hard as possible for that child to PROVE they're a citizen. it's a petty, ugly, and hateful peice of legislation.

[Tweedr01]

they can't make a law that says the child isn't a citizen, so they are making it as hard as possible for that child to PROVE they're a citizen. it's a petty, ugly, and hateful peice of legislation.

be that as it may, more than half of the votes are for the law.

[The 12th Commandment]

Such is politics though, can't get in stir because both sides do it. It really is juvenile to call people idiots who don't agree with your ideology though.

I didn't refer to an individual as an idiot, just generalized that people who believe rhetoric and base their views of such a complex and multi-sided set of circumstances, with absolutely no consideration given to the rational concept that we share blame in the mess, are. I stand by that. Juvenile, IMO would have been to use some other words I can think of, which I did not.

[The 12th Commandment]

they can't make a law that says the child isn't a citizen, so they are making it as hard as possible for that child to PROVE they're a citizen. it's a petty, ugly, and hateful peice of legislation.

So then when Abuelita gets pulled over driving him to school they can send him back too, or at least make things really difficult (and incur some more expense to the taxpayers). That's productive.

[AsburySkinsFan]

be that as it may, more than half of the votes are for the law.

Gee that makes me feel better about America, where 50% of the people actively support a petty, ugly, and hateful piece of legislation.

[Tweedr01]

Gee that makes me feel better about America, where 50% of the people actively support a petty, ugly, and hateful piece of legislation.

Well NOW its 50%, before it was like 51.127% to 48.873%, what did you finally put your vote in? (for sarcasm Mr. K (was that Tommy Lee Jones' name))

[Predicto]

they can't make a law that says the child isn't a citizen, so they are making it as hard as possible for that child to PROVE they're a citizen. it's a petty, ugly, and hateful peice of legislation.

be that as it may, more than half of the votes are for the law.

I guess that makes it right. :whoknows:

[Tweedr01]

I didn't refer to an individual as an idiot, just generalized that people who believe rhetoric and base their views of such a complex and multi-sided set of circumstances, with absolutely no consideration given to the rational concept that we share blame in the mess, are. I stand by that. Juvenile, IMO would have been to use some other words I can think of, which I did not.

Welcome to the United States!

[ATTACH]43936[/ATTACH]

[Tweedr01]

I guess that makes it right. :whoknows:

Doesn't make it legal, but enough people believe its a problem that we have a discussion and a divided poll, that something needs to be done. This doesn't mean this will be the law, but it means that it isn't just going away now either.

[DixieFlatline]

Given that this fly so much in the face of how we operated currently, I wonder if one of the main reasons they want to push this is to have a constitutional fight. I've read a number of places where people question the interpretation of the 14th amendment saying it wasn't meant to cover aliens of other countries. They use quotes from some of the authors of the amendment to support their side. I haven't done enough research to know one way or the other. Certainly in practice, this isn't the case.

Another interesting point I've read is that many believe this interpretation could be changed by legislation from Congress given the wording in the amendment. I would think this viewpoint probably has wider support given the Democrats in Congress have talked about passing legislation to end the 'anchor baby' practice.