Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (3 Viewers)

[videoguy505]

...As it stands now, someone in this country illegally pretty much has to show up at an INS facility with a plane ticket to Veracruz and ask if he can get a ride to the airport to get shipped out of here.

I wasn't joking

The landmark settlement has prompted the Correction Department to dump scores of illegal immigrants on the streets, since federal officials often fail to pick them up within the required two-day window.

Federal immigration agents have office space on Rikers Island, and the city allows them to interview roughly 4,000 inmates each year. They put a hold, or "detainer," on 3,200 of those inmates who they discover are illegals.

But ICE often fails to transfer those detainees within the required 48 hours of their criminal cases being resolved, multiple jail sources said.

"We just release them now," one high-ranking jail supervisor said. "It's ICE's problem to go find these guys."

Still not joking

Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona

A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports.

"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton told the newspaper.

The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, he said, and not a patchwork of state laws.

The law, which criminalizes being in the state illegally and requires authorities to check suspects for immigration status, is not "good government," Morton said.

In response to Morton's comments, DHS officials said President Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to examine the civil rights and other implications of the law.

"That review will inform the government's actions going forward," DHS spokesman Matt Chandler told Fox News on Friday.

Meanwhile, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said ICE is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

"ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel," Napolitano said. "It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own."

Morton, according to a biography posted on ICE's website, began his federal service in 1994 and has held numerous positions at the Department of Justice, including as a trial attorney and special assistant to the general counsel in the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and as counsel to the deputy attorney general.

Border apprehensions in Arizona, where roughly 500,000 illegal immigrants are estimated to be living, are up 6 percent since October, according to federal statistics. Roughly 6.5 million residents live in Arizona.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, said it appeared the Obama administration is "nullifying existing law" and suggested Morton may not be the right person for his post if he fails to enforce federal immigration law.

"If he feels he cannot enforce the law, he shouldn't have the job," Sessions told Fox News. "That makes him, in my view, not fulfilling the responsibilities of his office."

Sessions said the U.S. government has "systematically failed" to enforce federal immigration law and claimed Morton's statement is an indication that federal officials do not plan on working with Arizona authorities regarding its controversial law.

"They're telegraphing to every ICE agency in America that they really don't intend on cooperating with Arizona," Sessions said. "The federal government should step up and do it. It's their responsibility."

A Homeland Security official just up and says he's not necessarily going to enforce federal law as written. Just gonna pick and choose, at his discretion, what he's going to do. Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

 

[perry147]

Interesting article in the ABA Journal detailing lhucks' boy, Sheriff Arpaio's attack on the rule of law, culminating in a lawyers' protest on the courthouse steps after the attempted arrest of a sitting judge who wasn't ruling the way the sheriff wanted. Fairly long article, but suffice it to say that I don't think I'd be trusting this guys opinion on much of anything.

Link

On Dec. 21, in the afternoon sunshine that passes for winter in Phoenix, several hundred well-dressed protesters—most of them lawyers—gathered on the Maricopa County courthouse plaza.

Summoned by an e-mail from a local lawyer, they brought handmade signs that were quaint by protest standards: “Rule of Law!” “Free Judges/Free People.”

Holding handouts, they recited the oath they gave when joining the bar, their voices rising for the last section: “I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding that shall appear to me to be without merit or to be unjust.”

The immediate cause of their concern was a charge of bribery filed against a local superior court judge. Announced in vague terms at a news conference some days earlier, the charge was brought without indictment by the local prosecutor, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

But the criminal complaint against Judge Gary Donahoe was the last straw for these Phoenix-area lawyers, who had watched hardball politics overpower Maricopa’s courts.

The day after the protest, Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, whose offices had been drawn into the mess in Maricopa, wrote in the Arizona Republic: “I can no longer sit by quietly and watch from a distance. ... I am conservative and passionately believe in limited government, not the totalitarianism that is spreading before my eyes.”

Alongside Thomas, at the center of all this, is Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the 77-year-old lawman whose caustic and controversial approach to crime and criminals has earned him the moniker “America’s toughest sheriff.” To the glee of Maricopa County voters, “Sheriff Joe” has become nationally famous for his “tent city” jail, chain gang labor and very public inmate marches designed to humiliate—featuring pink handcuffs and pink underwear.

This guy is insane. He needs to be removed from office.

 

[timschochet]

Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

This is a good thing. I like the fact that immoral laws are difficult to enforce.

 

[videoguy505]

Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

This is a good thing. I like the fact that immoral laws are difficult to enforce.

Just so we're clear, the ICE also ignores illegals caught in NY in the other example. So your position is all immigration laws in this country are immoral, right? I know you're for open borders with no controls, just want to be sure I know what your statement means.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

A Homeland Security official just up and says he's not necessarily going to enforce federal law as written. Just gonna pick and choose, at his discretion, what he's going to do. Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

Should not the Department of Homeland Security decide for itself how to allocate the resources provided by tax payers in order to use their discretion to best enforce all federal laws as opposed to one federal law? And if yes, why should the state of Arizona be allowed to trump that discretion?

 

[videoguy505]

A Homeland Security official just up and says he's not necessarily going to enforce federal law as written. Just gonna pick and choose, at his discretion, what he's going to do. Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

Should not the Department of Homeland Security decide for itself how to allocate the resources provided by tax payers in order to use their discretion to best enforce all federal laws as opposed to one federal law? And if yes, why should the state of Arizona be allowed to trump that discretion?

The cop shows up at Immigration and Customs with an illegal in custody... how is that more demanding on ICE resources than them going out and hunting them on their own?

If an illegal alien, handcuffed and dropped off on their doorstep, is too much trouble for them, what else are they doing there? Why even have ICE if they can't be bothered to handle a giftwrapped prisoner?

 

[jonessed]

The uglier this gets the better for the Republicans. They can turn what was a low priority issue into a front-runner in December with a lot of the Midwest swing states behind them.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

A Homeland Security official just up and says he's not necessarily going to enforce federal law as written. Just gonna pick and choose, at his discretion, what he's going to do. Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

Should not the Department of Homeland Security decide for itself how to allocate the resources provided by tax payers in order to use their discretion to best enforce all federal laws as opposed to one federal law? And if yes, why should the state of Arizona be allowed to trump that discretion?

The cop shows up at Immigration and Customs with an illegal in custody... how is that more demanding on ICE resources than them going out and hunting them on their own?

If an illegal alien, handcuffed and dropped off on their doorstep, is too much trouble for them, what else are they doing there? Why even have ICE if they can't be bothered to handle a giftwrapped prisoner?

Well if ICE officers are sitting around playing WW in the FFA making this place go downhill fast, then maybe you have a point. But if ICE officials are actually busy doing something, anything then you need to prove that they have misguided priorities and the state of Arizona has better sense of priorities for them.

 

[videoguy505]

If they changed their name to just Customs Enforcement, then fine. At this point, it seems they've decided "Immigration Enforcement" is not part of their duties at Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

 

[timschochet]

The uglier this gets the better for the Republicans. They can turn what was a low priority issue into a front-runner in December with a lot of the Midwest swing states behind them.

While it may be good for the Republicans short-term, shifting demographics (i.e. ever increasing numbers of Latinos especially in the southwest) indicate that it is TERRIBLE for Republicans long-term.

 

[timschochet]

Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

This is a good thing. I like the fact that immoral laws are difficult to enforce.

Just so we're clear, the ICE also ignores illegals caught in NY in the other example. So your position is all immigration laws in this country are immoral, right? I know you're for open borders with no controls, just want to be sure I know what your statement means.

I have previously stated that I am willing to accept compromise here. In exchange for some sort of path to legality for those already here, I'd be willing to approve tighter restrictions.Not that it matters what I think, but just saying...

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If they changed their name to just Customs Enforcement, then fine. At this point, it seems they've decided "Immigration Enforcement" is not part of their duties at Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

You base this conclusion on the fact that they may have a different set of priorities in how they allocate resources than what the state of Arizona has decided is best?

 

[dynasty central]

While I don't agree with the federal governments decision I can understand their argument against deporting individuals given to them by the AZ police. Until the govt determines the legality of the Arizona statue they can't take or deport those individuals because they would be violating the law themselves.

 

[videoguy505]

If they changed their name to just Customs Enforcement, then fine. At this point, it seems they've decided "Immigration Enforcement" is not part of their duties at Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

You base this conclusion on the fact that they may have a different set of priorities in how they allocate resources than what the state of Arizona has decided is best?

It's not just Arizona. It's NY too in the above example. The issue I'm talking about isn't the AZ law in particular, it's the attitude that ICE has taken here with regards to enforcing immigration law as a whole.

Local law enforcement has always been authorized to detain people for federal crimes. If a city cop hears you threaten the life of the president, sees you pass counterfeit notes, or commit any other federal crime that isn't necessarily a state crime, he can arrest you. I don't think anyone is arguing that local law enforcement doesn't have that authority.

Generally, they arrest someone then turn them over to the feds. The issue here is that ICE officials have decided not to do their jobs... enforce immigration. Not that they've decided not to enforce "that Arizona law" (which, in itself, creates no new law of its own, only requires local LEOs to enforce existing federal laws), but that ICE has seemingly decided not to enforce any immigration law. An illegal immigrant caught in NYC and held at Rikers is ignored by ICE when they get the call that "Hey, we caught one of the guys you're supposed to be looking for". Thousands of times a year.

What is the point of having an ICE department if the IE part is ignored even in the states that this official doesn't have a beef with?

 

[videoguy505]

While I don't agree with the federal governments decision I can understand their argument against deporting individuals given to them by the AZ police. Until the govt determines the legality of the Arizona statue they can't take or deport those individuals because they would be violating the law themselves.

See above, 1) The AZ statute doesn't create any new immigration laws. It only tasks local LEOs to enforce existing federal laws. 2) ICE is ignoring NY's captured illegals as well.

 

[RCon]

Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

This is a good thing. I like the fact that immoral laws are difficult to enforce.

I think laws against guns on airplanes are immoral, as are laws against discrimination in hiring, embezzlement, and fraud. We should stop enforcing those too.

 

[RCon]

The uglier this gets the better for the Republicans. They can turn what was a low priority issue into a front-runner in December with a lot of the Midwest swing states behind them.

While it may be good for the Republicans short-term, shifting demographics (i.e. ever increasing numbers of Latinos especially in the southwest) indicate that it is TERRIBLE for Republicans long-term.

I do agree with you on this. Even though the GOP is in the right (IMO) on the issue, it's a long term vote loser. I still think it should be pursued, as doing what's right should always take precedence over doing what's politically popular.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It's not just Arizona. It's NY too in the above example. The issue I'm talking about isn't the AZ law in particular, it's the attitude that ICE has taken here with regards to enforcing immigration law as a whole.Local law enforcement has always been authorized to detain people for federal crimes. If a city cop hears you threaten the life of the president, sees you pass counterfeit notes, or commit any other federal crime that isn't necessarily a state crime, he can arrest you. I don't think anyone is arguing that local law enforcement doesn't have that authority.Generally, they arrest someone then turn them over to the feds. The issue here is that ICE officials have decided not to do their jobs... enforce immigration. Not that they've decided not to enforce "that Arizona law" (which, in itself, creates no new law of its own, only requires local LEOs to enforce existing federal laws), but that ICE has seemingly decided not to enforce any immigration law. An illegal immigrant caught in NYC and held at Rikers is ignored by ICE when they get the call that "Hey, we caught one of the guys you're supposed to be looking for". Thousands of times a year.What is the point of having an ICE department if the IE part is ignored even in the states that this official doesn't have a beef with?

Again, your point is that if they don't enforce one particular law (or set of laws) to your satisfaction they aren't enforcing any laws, they aren't doing their job. This may or may not be true, but it is not a conclusion that you can draw logically from the available information. Again absent evidence that they have the available resources to allocate to this task either sitting around doing nothing and/or wasting time performing lower priority task then no intelligent conclusion can be drawn from the statement. Sure you can make a guess, even an educated one based on your biases on the nature of government, but that is the limit to the value of your incredulous comments.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

The uglier this gets the better for the Republicans. They can turn what was a low priority issue into a front-runner in December with a lot of the Midwest swing states behind them.

While it may be good for the Republicans short-term, shifting demographics (i.e. ever increasing numbers of Latinos especially in the southwest) indicate that it is TERRIBLE for Republicans long-term.

I do agree with you on this. Even though the GOP is in the right (IMO) on the issue, it's a long term vote loser. I still think it should be pursued, as doing what's right should always take precedence over doing what's politically popular.

It shouldn't matter. They're not citizens and they should never be citizens. The mere fact that none of them probably understand that all most people want is for them to go through the proper channels and pay taxes like everybody else makes me wish it wasn't even an option. If these people are so valuable, why don't they make their own country a better place? It really speaks volumes about the current state of this country when a political party will lose votes because they would prefer that our citizens actually play by the rules.

 

[Statorama]

A Homeland Security official just up and says he's not necessarily going to enforce federal law as written. Just gonna pick and choose, at his discretion, what he's going to do. Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

Should not the Department of Homeland Security decide for itself how to allocate the resources provided by tax payers in order to use their discretion to best enforce all federal laws as opposed to one federal law? And if yes, why should the state of Arizona be allowed to trump that discretion?

The cop shows up at Immigration and Customs with an illegal in custody... how is that more demanding on ICE resources than them going out and hunting them on their own?

If an illegal alien, handcuffed and dropped off on their doorstep, is too much trouble for them, what else are they doing there? Why even have ICE if they can't be bothered to handle a giftwrapped prisoner?

You'd think they'd be grateful for the help.Oh, right, it's that darn spotlight on the fact that they don't do their jobs that's a killer for them.

 

[Card Trader]

Already paying off! http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/201...aw-schools.html

 

[LHUCKS]

Already paying off! http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/201...aw-schools.html

....or we could be fiscally irresponsible like California...no thanks.

 

[Card Trader]

Already paying off! http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/201...aw-schools.html

....or we could be fiscally irresponsible like California...no thanks.

Yep, this is going to be great for this State. California isn't the model any state should follow.

 

[Christo]

Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

This is a good thing. I like the fact that immoral laws are difficult to enforce.

immoral

 

[Christo]

A Homeland Security official just up and says he's not necessarily going to enforce federal law as written. Just gonna pick and choose, at his discretion, what he's going to do. Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

Should not the Department of Homeland Security decide for itself how to allocate the resources provided by tax payers in order to use their discretion to best enforce all federal laws as opposed to one federal law? And if yes, why should the state of Arizona be allowed to trump that discretion?

What do you mean by "trump?"

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

A Homeland Security official just up and says he's not necessarily going to enforce federal law as written. Just gonna pick and choose, at his discretion, what he's going to do. Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

Should not the Department of Homeland Security decide for itself how to allocate the resources provided by tax payers in order to use their discretion to best enforce all federal laws as opposed to one federal law? And if yes, why should the state of Arizona be allowed to trump that discretion?

What do you mean by "trump?"

As in "out rank" or "supersede".

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Already paying off! http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/201...aw-schools.html

Adios!

 

[Card Trader]

Already paying off! http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/201...aw-schools.html

Adios!

 

[Christo]

A Homeland Security official just up and says he's not necessarily going to enforce federal law as written. Just gonna pick and choose, at his discretion, what he's going to do. Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

Should not the Department of Homeland Security decide for itself how to allocate the resources provided by tax payers in order to use their discretion to best enforce all federal laws as opposed to one federal law? And if yes, why should the state of Arizona be allowed to trump that discretion?

What do you mean by "trump?"

As in "out rank" or "supersede".

How does this particular legislation do that? All it does is require Arizona cops to do the work the Feds are choosing not to do. It doesn't require the Feds to do anything.

 

[timschochet]

Already paying off! http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/201...aw-schools.html

Adios!

Hopefully they will come west. Your loss is our gain.

 

[timschochet]

Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

This is a good thing. I like the fact that immoral laws are difficult to enforce.

immoral

There are other words that would work just as well: insipid, foolish, unenforceable, anti-American, unpatriotic, or just plain "bad".But immoral certainly fits.

 

[Card Trader]

Hopefully they will come west. Your loss is our gain.

Your schtick is the best. No one believes that you are serious about this

 

[Christo]

Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

This is a good thing. I like the fact that immoral laws are difficult to enforce.

immoral

There are other words that would work just as well: insipid, foolish, unenforceable, anti-American, unpatriotic, or just plain "bad".But immoral certainly fits.

 

[Christo]

Hopefully they will come west. Your loss is our gain.

Your schtick is the best. No one believes that you are serious about this

I know, timmy can offer to house a few so they can settle into the community.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

A Homeland Security official just up and says he's not necessarily going to enforce federal law as written. Just gonna pick and choose, at his discretion, what he's going to do. Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

Should not the Department of Homeland Security decide for itself how to allocate the resources provided by tax payers in order to use their discretion to best enforce all federal laws as opposed to one federal law? And if yes, why should the state of Arizona be allowed to trump that discretion?

What do you mean by "trump?"

As in "out rank" or "supersede".

How does this particular legislation do that? All it does is require Arizona cops to do the work the Feds are choosing not to do. It doesn't require the Feds to do anything.

They have to do something, want to or not, appropriate or not for the tasks they are working on with those dumped on their doorsteps.

 

[whoknew]

Link

Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals

By ADAM KLAWONN / PHOENIX

Sat Jun 12, 10:00 am ET

"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?)

But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave.

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "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." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.

But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.

Those who oppose the bill say it would lead to more discrimination and divide the community. Among them is Phoenix resident Susan Vie, who is leading a citizen group that's behind an opposing ballot initiative. She moved to the U.S. 30 years ago from Argentina, became a naturalized citizen and now works as a client-relations representative for a vaccine company. "I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create - and it's creating it now - a separation in our society." She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now." Vie's citizen initiative would prohibit SB 1070 from taking affect, place a three-year moratorium on all related laws - including the anchor baby bill - to buy more time for federal immigration reform. Her group is racing to collect 153,365 signatures by July 1 to qualify for the Nov. 2 general election.

Both sides expect the anchor baby bill to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court before it is enacted. "I think it would be struck down as facially unconstitutional. I can't imagine a federal judge saying this would be OK," says Dan Barr, a longtime Phoenix lawyer and constitutional litigator. Potentially joining the anchor baby bill at the Supreme Court may be SB 1070, which Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law in April. It is set to take effect July 29, but at least five courtroom challenges have been filed against it. Pearce says he will win them all.

 

[Don't Noonan]

Like I said, it's pretty hard to actually get deported from the US.

This is a good thing. I like the fact that immoral laws are difficult to enforce.

immoral

There are other words that would work just as well: insipid, foolish, unenforceable, anti-American, unpatriotic, or just plain "bad".But immoral certainly fits.

The fact that over 70% of AMERICANS agree with this new law shows that you are in the minority on this one. How is it anti-American if the people we are trying to get out are not Americans? I enjoy reading your posts but I am amazed at your opinion on this.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Stumbled upon this while looking for international crime rates for the "Eye for an Eye" thread-

Amazing results for this law in at least addressing the crime rate issues.

 

[Phurfur]

Stumbled upon this while looking for international crime rates for the "Eye for an Eye" thread-

Amazing results for this law in at least addressing the crime rate issues.

I didn't see any data on illegals, did I miss it?

or does it mean Sheriff Joe's crime sweeps are working.

 

[bigbottom]

Link

Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals

By ADAM KLAWONN / PHOENIX

Sat Jun 12, 10:00 am ET

"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?)

But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave.

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "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." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.

I don't see how such a law could survive constitutional challenge.

But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.

Okay, but that's not the issue being addressed by the proposed anchor baby bill.

 

[TommyGilmore]

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "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." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.

I don't see how such a law could survive constitutional challenge.

1. Could Arizona argue that the children are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.?2. Could Arizona say "Yes, we admit that they are technically citizens......but we won't issue birth certificates to them"?

 

[Christo]

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "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." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.

I don't see how such a law could survive constitutional challenge.

1. Could Arizona argue that the children are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.?2. Could Arizona say "Yes, we admit that they are technically citizens......but we won't issue birth certificates to them"?

No and noEdit: Let me restate that. Yes, AZ could argue those points. But they wouldn't be successful.

 

[Statorama]

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "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." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.

"The kids can stay, but you have to go"

 

[Christo]

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "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." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.

"The kids can stay, but you have to go"

There's a thread somewhere discussing this issue. I have no problem with it.

 

[perry147]

Link

Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals

By ADAM KLAWONN / PHOENIX

Sat Jun 12, 10:00 am ET

"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?)

But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave.

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "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." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.

But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.

Those who oppose the bill say it would lead to more discrimination and divide the community. Among them is Phoenix resident Susan Vie, who is leading a citizen group that's behind an opposing ballot initiative. She moved to the U.S. 30 years ago from Argentina, became a naturalized citizen and now works as a client-relations representative for a vaccine company. "I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create - and it's creating it now - a separation in our society." She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now." Vie's citizen initiative would prohibit SB 1070 from taking affect, place a three-year moratorium on all related laws - including the anchor baby bill - to buy more time for federal immigration reform. Her group is racing to collect 153,365 signatures by July 1 to qualify for the Nov. 2 general election.

Both sides expect the anchor baby bill to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court before it is enacted. "I think it would be struck down as facially unconstitutional. I can't imagine a federal judge saying this would be OK," says Dan Barr, a longtime Phoenix lawyer and constitutional litigator. Potentially joining the anchor baby bill at the Supreme Court may be SB 1070, which Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law in April. It is set to take effect July 29, but at least five courtroom challenges have been filed against it. Pearce says he will win them all.

I wonder if police officers will raid hospital maturity wards, yanking babies out of incubators in the neonatal intensive care units and throw them on the floor.Maybe read them their rights -opps I forgot they do not have any.

 

[TommyGilmore]

I wonder if police officers will raid hospital maturity wards, yanking babies out of incubators in the neonatal intensive care units and throw them on the floor.Maybe read them their rights -opps I forgot they do not have any.

They should create a "No Citizenship Zone" within the hospital, and force pregnant illegal immigrants to give birth there.

 

[urbanhack]

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "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." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.

"The kids can stay, but you have to go"

You forgot to mention Obama.

 

[Statorama]

Obama administration to sue Arizona for enforcing the law

Could be the final nail in Barry's coffin. "HOW DARE YOU ENFORCE THE LAW!!! HOW DARE YOU TRY AND FIND OUT WHO'S HERE ILLEGALLY!!!!!"

 

[Christo]

Obama administration to sue Arizona for enforcing the law

Could be the final nail in Barry's coffin. "HOW DARE YOU ENFORCE THE LAW!!! HOW DARE YOU TRY AND FIND OUT WHO'S HERE ILLEGALLY!!!!!"

Now a senior administration official tells CBS News that the federal government will indeed formally challenge the law when Justice Department lawyers are finished building the case. The official said Justice is still working on building the case.

What do they mean by "building the case?" It's an issue of law. It's not like a police investigation where they have to investigate the facts. There are no facts to investigate.

 

[Phurfur]

Obama administration to sue Arizona for enforcing the law

Could be the final nail in Barry's coffin. "HOW DARE YOU ENFORCE THE LAW!!! HOW DARE YOU TRY AND FIND OUT WHO'S HERE ILLEGALLY!!!!!"

Now a senior administration official tells CBS News that the federal government will indeed formally challenge the law when Justice Department lawyers are finished building the case. The official said Justice is still working on building the case.

What do they mean by "building the case?" It's an issue of law. It's not like a police investigation where they have to investigate the facts. There are no facts to investigate.

The head line should readObama is tougher on AZ than he is on North Korea or Iran.

This man has some serious baggage in his past.