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

[The 12th Commandment]

Welcome to the United States!

[ATTACH]43936[/ATTACH]

"It's been a rough day. I got up this morning, put on a pimp jacket and a button fell off. I picked up my ho stick and the handle came off. I'm afraid to go to the bathroom." Vanilla Snow (New Orleans) :pfft:

[Tweedr01]

"It's been a rough day. I got up this morning, put on a pimp jacket and a button fell off. I picked up my ho stick and the handle came off. I'm afraid to go to the bathroom." Vanilla Snow (New Orleans) :pfft:

HAHAHA, awesome, see we can still have fun with this! Just need to get Kay (imdb'd MIB and that was Tommy Lee Jones' name in the movie) to lighten up and stop being so super serial[ATTACH]43937[/ATTACH]

[Jeeb]

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.

Strict Constructionist fail.

[Jeeb]

Maybe Arizona should use their right to defend their border from invaders since the Federal Govt. Isn't doing anything about it.

"Evil Government Is Evil, Hey, Wait, I Can't Fix This! FIX THIS FOR ME EVIL GOVERNMENT!"

I'm sure they'd probably be crying about federal gov't infringing on state's rights, if they actually had done something by now.

[Destino]

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

So what? You type this as if it matters. The US is not a direct democracy and the constitution already has rules in place for making changes to it. That simple majority simply doesn't have the power to change the rules on this issue. This isn't an accident either, stuff like this is supposed to be extremely difficult to change so that an ignorant simple majority can't **** everything up.

[ABQCOWBOY]

So what? You type this as if it matters. The US is not a direct democracy and the constitution already has rules in place for making changes to it. That simple majority simply doesn't have the power to change the rules on this issue. This isn't an accident either, stuff like this is supposed to be extremely difficult to change so that an ignorant simple majority can't **** everything up.

This is a valid point. The Bush/Gore election is further proof of what you are saying here. Unpopular for many Democrats and you certainly can understand why but it does speak to the point you are making.

[NavyDave]

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.

Strict Constructionist fail.

Aw Shucks I guess we should just let illegals take advantage of an amendment that most of us who took black history in gasp "public school" knew what it was meant for.

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted after the Civil War as one of the Reconstruction Amendments on July 9, 1868.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

The amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions. This clause later became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.

Liberals claiming to be strict Constructionists yet can some how see that there is a Constitutional right to kill babies in or partially out of the womb, ban law abiding citizens from owning guns

[The 12th Commandment]

I think the claim is that the government (or society) shouldn't tell a woman what to do with her body. Nice to see you have a socialist view on SOMETHING Dave.

-gun totin' dem

[Larry]

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.

All persons born . . . in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Seems really clear, to me.

But I have absolutely no doubt that the racist panderers pushing this legislation would love "a constitutional fight".

They would love to yell "Look! The Republicans are passing (blatantly unconstitutional) laws to fight illegal immigration (of US citizens)! And a Democrat is opposing it (by pointing out that it is blatantly unconstitutional)."

The ignorant base that this bill is directed a would love to attack a President who's "crime" is to defend the Constitution.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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.

I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of the thread. That's clear as clear can be.

"Any person born...."....baby qualifies.

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."....baby qualifies unless you are an idiot and think that we can't arrest illegal immigrants who break the law.

So...what's the argument?

[Larry]

Aw Shucks I guess we should just let illegals take advantage of an amendment that most of us who took black history in gasp "public school" knew what it was meant for.

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted after the Civil War as one of the Reconstruction Amendments on July 9, 1868.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

The amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions. This clause later became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.

Liberals claiming to be strict Constructionists yet can some how see that there is a Constitutional right to kill babies in or partially out of the womb, ban law abiding citizens from owning guns

So your strict constructionist view, there, Chief Justice Dave, is that the words "All persons born . . . in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States." really means "All black persons born, if they were born prior to this amendment being passed, . . . "?

Is that the point that your feeble ranting was trying to make, there?

[nonniey]

Can't agree with this. Children born in the US are native born citizens - simple as that.

[Larry]

I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of the thread. That's clear as clear can be.

"Any person born...."....baby qualifies.

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."....baby qualifies unless you are an idiot and think that we can't arrest illegal immigrants who break the law.

So...what's the argument?

Actually, I'd bet that Predicto can tell us, but I believe that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause was put in there because they didn't want it to apply to Indians on reservations. (Which were within the US, but were immune from a lot of US laws.)

Just my theory.

[DixieFlatline]

Seems really clear, to me.

I'd like to get a lawyer's take on the wording, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", since I've seen different interpretations of that phrase. This page has the most succinct description of a different view that I've seen.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters4608

And this quote seems to back their interpretation

"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

[The Sisko]

This is AZ screaming out for attention from the Federal government, they are understaffed on the borders and the state is tired of with dealing with international issues with what is perceived by many as a lack of national assistance.

I understand. However aren't the same folks that typically support laws like this the same ones pushing for state's rights? If so, let them handle it on their own...as long as they do so within the bounds of the Constitution.

Of course this couldn't be yet another case of "do as I say, not as I do" from the far right could it? I mean, they're all for state's rights, right up until such time as their state needs something from the Feds at which point they all turn into bawling welfare queens.

Because the CHILDREN ARE LEGAL US CITIZENS just like it says in the CONSTITUTION of the United States. You know...that convenient document that is there to point and scream at when demanding we follow the intention of the Founding Fathers, but the one we conveniently ignore when we want to deny public services from US citizens because of something their parents did.

Arizona’s “solution” to this issue is a slippery slope that opens up a Pandora’s box of crap that I don’t think anyone really wants.

If the government is allowed to take away one’s citizenship based on this arbitrary reason, who’s to say there won’t be another “compelling” reason down the road to take away the citizenship of others….like say domestic terrorists. Bear in mind that isn’t limited to terrorists of the Islamofascist variety. It also includes abortion bombers/assassins, some racial hate groups like the KKK/Aryan Nation, as well as pretty much anyone that makes certain types of threats.

OK, so maybe you’re fine with that. So which group is next? Be careful, you might be a member of the next group.

Even more interesting, how many of you have grandparents that were born at home and have no state issued birth certificate? If that’s the case, your grandparent would be an illegal alien thus removing citizenship from at least one parent…and hence, you as well. Depending on how far back one wants to go, that might apply to anyone. Sure it's silly, but then so is this proposed legislation.

I support this, at the present moment, unconstitutional law... I'm fully aware that it goes against the constitutional rights of the children being born in this country BUT until people quit ****ing and complaining about every effort made to solve this problem and begin offering possible solutions that are more just and equitable... I will continue to support any and all efforts.

Please see this.

Someone mentioned earlier the idea of actually going after business owners that hire illegal aliens. THAT is the real way to stop the problem. After all, if they couldn't get jobs here, the flow of illegal immigrants would slow to a trickle.

Unfortunately, there are several problems with this solution. First, the good, upstanding, businessmen that would "unfairly" be made criminals by such enforcement, are also in many cases political contributors. Given the choice between going after political contributors or powerless illegal aliens, which do you think any pol is going to pick?

Moreover, even if some brave politician actually did do such a thing and had success with it, who do you think would get blamed when many of the farms and businesses couldn't find anyone to pick their produce or do their menial labor? Well, at least until they raised wages a lot which would result in major price increases for goods and services which would also cause a major political backlash.

So obviously even though it doesn't work, we'll continue to target the aliens rather than the source of the problem…and continue to beyotch and whine about it.

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.

So true.

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.

This. Except I don’t have a problem calling the idiots who spew this kind of rhetoric idiots.

Speaking of people being driven by demagoguery and idiotic rhetoric rather than common sense and facts, I ranted about that elsewhere just a few days ago. In short, when you take your cues to solving complex problems from idiots like Beck, Palin, Faux News, DoucheBaugh, etc., you put yourself in some pretty sad company that ultimately calls your own intelligence into question.

[NavyDave]

I think the claim is that the government (or society) shouldn't tell a woman what to do with her body. Nice to see you have a socialist view on SOMETHING Dave.

-gun totin' dem

It was a liberal interpreting that preventing mothers of killing their unborn baby was a violation to the right of privacy, but as I've said I starting to have no problem with liberals reducing their numbers with this method since its an effective "legal" way of reducing the useless from society.

Yeah I'm so Socialist that I'm for eliminating outdated taxes, subsidies,welfare and putting a limit on unemployment payments

[Jeeb]

It was a liberal interpreting that preventing mothers of killing their unborn baby was a violation to the right of privacy, but as I've said I starting to have no problem with liberals reducing their numbers with this method since its an effective "legal" way of reducing the useless from society.

Yeah I'm so Socialist that I'm for eliminating outdated taxes, subsidies,welfare and putting a limit on unemployment payments

You really need to pick a consistent "liberal" stereotype.

Liberals are violent AND

Liberals are limp-wristed *******

Liberals are lazy, welfare-sucking do-nothings AND

Liberals are the ruling elite, using their almost limitless power to destroy America

Liberals are a tiny minority with no voice AND

Liberals run the entire news media, in addition to Hollywood

Liberals are hateful, vicious people AND

Liberals all want to sing Kumbayah and hold hands around a campfire

FYI, I'm not really liberal either.

[Burgold]

Ya gotta remember, ND only believes about a third of what he types half the time he types it.

[The Sisko]

Regarding your sig...

Liberalism, Where you are guaranteed to not only find a LIAR but SLIME as well.

I have no comment on this other than to say it speaks for itself...and no, I'm not a "Liberal".

I also own up to similar mistakes in the past. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqcou

So by posting that Reagan clip you're saying your life was/is run by a psychic advisor and you're in the advanced stages of mental decline? Well, that certainly explains a lot.

[The Sisko]

Ya gotta remember, ND only believes about a third of what he types half the time he types it.

I get that vibe from plenty of folks but not Uncle Ruckus.

[Jeeb]

I get that vibe from plenty of folks but not Uncle Ruckus.

I don't see how someone with such a bleak view on the world hasn't just jumped off a cliff yet, I wonder if he has a positive view on anything at all.

[sacase]

Not sure how this is legal. I don't agree with the fact that if you are born on US soil to two foreign parents then you are a US citizen. But right now its the law. However, If they are truly interested in the whole anchor baby issue then once again just enforce the laws that are already on the books. Just because the baby is a US citizen doesn't mean that the parents have a right to collect benifits in the US and care for the child. The child can either go back to the parents home country and come to the US when they are 18 or they can be put up for adoption. Simple solution that protects the rights of US citizens. The Amazing thing is, if we actually enforced the laws that are already on the books then the problem would be for the most part solved. Sadly we don't and look to create new laws that no one will enforce anyways in an appempt to curry favor amongst voters instead of doing the right thing and demand that federal agencies do their friking JOB. Sadly the issue is about politics pure and simple. Look at ASF's comment. He wants amnesty passed so that they can vote out the GOP.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Look at ASF's comment. He wants amnesty passed so that they can vote out the GOP.

I was speaking specifically about Arizona's GOP who seem to only wish to pass one awful law after another, and they WILL pay the price for that mistake, because make no mistake Caucasians will soon no longer be the majority race in America, that's a fact that many are going to have a VERY difficult time coming to grips with.

[The Sisko]

I was speaking specifically about Arizona's GOP who seem to only wish to pass one awful law after another, and they WILL pay the price for that mistake, because make no mistake Caucasians will soon no longer be the majority race in America, that's a fact that many are going to have a VERY difficult time coming to grips with.

**DING** We haave a weeener Alex.

I don't know for sure but I suspect that the GOP has ridden the anti-abortion pony with Latinos for about as far as they can take it. For now and the forseeable future, I think most Latinos will probably be voting as a bloc for the Donkeys....which is a shame. It's the same mistake Blacks in this country have made...maybe we independents can help save them from that fate.

[thebluefood]

I'd like to consider myself a pretty strict constitutionalist and after reading and have a pretty good understanding of the 14th Amendment, I gotta say this law is cutting way too close for my tastes.

Yes, illegal immigration is a problem, but if the GOP's going to promote itself as the "champion of the Constitution"; this isn't the way to do it.