Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (2 Viewers)

[Mookie Blaylock]

One thing that I truly love about Obama is that he's always good for a laugh.

Obama: Let's do everything we can to stop Arizona from helping us enforce the illegal immigration laws

Pollsters: Obama isn't tough on illegal immigration

Obama: Have AP put out a story that ICE deported 47,000 illegal immigrants

Windsock.

""ICE has pulled a bait and switch, with local law enforcement spending more time and resources facilitating the deportations of bus boys and gardeners than murderers and rapists and at considerable cost to local community policing strategies, making us all less safe," said Peter Markowitz, director of the Immigration Justice Clinic at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York."The collective Arizona should be bowing at his feet for this. What he did here saved lives and dollars. Ruined some xeriscaping, though.

 

[timschochet]

I was watching a sheriff from the Arizona border today on TV- he asserted that illegal immigrants were not a huge problem, that the new law was "ridiculous and impossible to enforce", and that the bulk of Arizonans around the border were not the impetus for this law- the big complaints against illegals comes from the Phoenix area in the middle of the state. Why does this not surprise me?

 

[Christo]

I was watching a sheriff from the Arizona border today on TV- he asserted that illegal immigrants were not a huge problem, that the new law was "ridiculous and impossible to enforce", and that the bulk of Arizonans around the border were not the impetus for this law- the big complaints against illegals comes from the Phoenix area in the middle of the state. Why does this not surprise me?

Uh, where do you think the illegals go? I truly doubt they hang around the border.

 

[timschochet]

I was watching a sheriff from the Arizona border today on TV- he asserted that illegal immigrants were not a huge problem, that the new law was "ridiculous and impossible to enforce", and that the bulk of Arizonans around the border were not the impetus for this law- the big complaints against illegals comes from the Phoenix area in the middle of the state. Why does this not surprise me?

Uh, where do you think the illegals go? I truly doubt they hang around the border.

We are told that the main reason for the law is the violence caused by illegals AT THE BORDER. Feel free to look through this thread for example after example.

 

[Christo]

I was watching a sheriff from the Arizona border today on TV- he asserted that illegal immigrants were not a huge problem, that the new law was "ridiculous and impossible to enforce", and that the bulk of Arizonans around the border were not the impetus for this law- the big complaints against illegals comes from the Phoenix area in the middle of the state. Why does this not surprise me?

Uh, where do you think the illegals go? I truly doubt they hang around the border.

We are told that the main reason for the law is the violence caused by illegals AT THE BORDER. Feel free to look through this thread for example after example.

Yes, all of the violence is contained right AT THE BORDER. Not a hundred miles away, not a mile away, not even 50 feet. Just AT THE BORDER.

 

[Phurfur]

I was watching a sheriff from the Arizona border today on TV- he asserted that illegal immigrants were not a huge problem, that the new law was "ridiculous and impossible to enforce", and that the bulk of Arizonans around the border were not the impetus for this law- the big complaints against illegals comes from the Phoenix area in the middle of the state. Why does this not surprise me?

Your making crap up again!

 

[bg0546]

I was watching a sheriff from the Arizona border today on TV- he asserted that illegal immigrants were not a huge problem, that the new law was "ridiculous and impossible to enforce", and that the bulk of Arizonans around the border were not the impetus for this law- the big complaints against illegals comes from the Phoenix area in the middle of the state. Why does this not surprise me?

Uh, where do you think the illegals go? I truly doubt they hang around the border.

We are told that the main reason for the law is the violence caused by illegals AT THE BORDER. Feel free to look through this thread for example after example.

Tim. Do you think ANY American should have to worry about coming across a sign such as the following anywhere within our borders?

Danger - Public Warning Travel not recommended -- Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area -- Visitors may encounter armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates -- Stay away from cash, clothing, backbacks and abandoned vehicles -- If you see suspicious activity, do not confront! Move away and call 911

That's the "new" answer to our border problem from our Federal Government. Personally, I'd rather they use the vast resources available to them to actually make this area safe as opposed to just erecting signs telling Americans they're SOL.Oh, and for good measure Tim,

Despite the signs, the Sonoran Desert National Monument does remain open. That is not the case for 3,500 acres of public land closer to the border. Authorities have closed parts of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, saying that the threat posed by drug and human smugglers makes that area too dangerous to remain open.

If border violence isn't increasing how come the Feds are CLOSING public lands NEAR the border due to increased violence? Something doesn't smell right here......

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That's the "new" answer to our border problem from our Federal Government. Personally, I'd rather they use the vast resources available to them to actually make this area safe as opposed to just erecting signs telling Americans they're SOL.

The "new" answer from the Bush (W) administration which is mischaracterized in multiple ways by your unlinked post? If you have the facts on your side, why do you post so much to support your claims that is false in so many different ways?

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

I was watching a sheriff from the Arizona border today on TV- he asserted that illegal immigrants were not a huge problem, that the new law was "ridiculous and impossible to enforce", and that the bulk of Arizonans around the border were not the impetus for this law- the big complaints against illegals comes from the Phoenix area in the middle of the state. Why does this not surprise me?

Uh, where do you think the illegals go? I truly doubt they hang around the border.

We are told that the main reason for the law is the violence caused by illegals AT THE BORDER. Feel free to look through this thread for example after example.

Yes, all of the violence is contained right AT THE BORDER. Not a hundred miles away, not a mile away, not even 50 feet. Just AT THE BORDER.

 

[bg0546]

That's the "new" answer to our border problem from our Federal Government. Personally, I'd rather they use the vast resources available to them to actually make this area safe as opposed to just erecting signs telling Americans they're SOL.

The "new" answer from the Bush (W) administration which is mischaracterized in multiple ways by your unlinked post? If you have the facts on your side, why do you post so much to support your claims that is false in so many different ways?

What have I mischaracterized or false claims have I made? To be clear, when I referred to "new" answer it was to the signs that are NEW. And my post indicated as much. And I've never linked my disgust with illegal immigration to any administration. I was as vehemently opposed to it under Bush as I am under Obama.

 

[The Commish]

I was watching a sheriff from the Arizona border today on TV- he asserted that illegal immigrants were not a huge problem, that the new law was "ridiculous and impossible to enforce", and that the bulk of Arizonans around the border were not the impetus for this law- the big complaints against illegals comes from the Phoenix area in the middle of the state. Why does this not surprise me?

Uh, where do you think the illegals go? I truly doubt they hang around the border.

We are told that the main reason for the law is the violence caused by illegals AT THE BORDER. Feel free to look through this thread for example after example.

I'll be the first to admit, I haven't followed this thread that closely, but I have not seen this argument made in ANY of pieces I have watched in our "media". I've not seen a single report that would suggest that the only place they want to reduce the violence is at the border and that's it. What you are saying might be 100% true, but that's a problem with the thread...it's misinformed, misguided etc. It's clear to me that folks all over the state are concerned with violence....not just people at the border.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I was watching a sheriff from the Arizona border today on TV- he asserted that illegal immigrants were not a huge problem, that the new law was "ridiculous and impossible to enforce", and that the bulk of Arizonans around the border were not the impetus for this law- the big complaints against illegals comes from the Phoenix area in the middle of the state. Why does this not surprise me?

Uh, where do you think the illegals go? I truly doubt they hang around the border.

We are told that the main reason for the law is the violence caused by illegals AT THE BORDER. Feel free to look through this thread for example after example.

I'll be the first to admit, I haven't followed this thread that closely, but I have not seen this argument made in ANY of pieces I have watched in our "media". I've not seen a single report that would suggest that the only place they want to reduce the violence is at the border and that's it. What you are saying might be 100% true, but that's a problem with the thread...it's misinformed, misguided etc. It's clear to me that folks all over the state are concerned with violence....not just people at the border.

First there is no statistical evidence of any violence level that would warrant the heightened scrutiny. Second the claim is that the war between drug gangs in Mexico spills across the border. With that there are routine claims that this or that border area is under siege and occupied by these Mexican drug gang. The third claim is that Phoenix is kidnapping capital of the world. Not true. There is a problem with kidnapping in Phoenix where those that are smuggled in to the US don't pay the smugglers - a real problem are being kidnapped and/or family members but this problem has little to no spill over violence to the larger communities. And the problem isn't unique to Phoenix or Arizona or even border states. The issue being of course that the Arizona law enforcement community that would be charged with dealing with real violence issues opposed this law because it makes them (in their words) less capable of doing their entire job.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That's the "new" answer to our border problem from our Federal Government. Personally, I'd rather they use the vast resources available to them to actually make this area safe as opposed to just erecting signs telling Americans they're SOL.

The "new" answer from the Bush (W) administration which is mischaracterized in multiple ways by your unlinked post? If you have the facts on your side, why do you post so much to support your claims that is false in so many different ways?

What have I mischaracterized or false claims have I made? To be clear, when I referred to "new" answer it was to the signs that are NEW. And my post indicated as much. And I've never linked my disgust with illegal immigration to any administration. I was as vehemently opposed to it under Bush as I am under Obama.

The new signs are from the Bureau of Land Management, not ICE and are a function of the rangers there asking for them. They are not a federal solution or even a relevant response.

 

[bg0546]

That's the "new" answer to our border problem from our Federal Government. Personally, I'd rather they use the vast resources available to them to actually make this area safe as opposed to just erecting signs telling Americans they're SOL.

The "new" answer from the Bush (W) administration which is mischaracterized in multiple ways by your unlinked post? If you have the facts on your side, why do you post so much to support your claims that is false in so many different ways?

What have I mischaracterized or false claims have I made? To be clear, when I referred to "new" answer it was to the signs that are NEW. And my post indicated as much. And I've never linked my disgust with illegal immigration to any administration. I was as vehemently opposed to it under Bush as I am under Obama.

The new signs are from the Bureau of Land Management, not ICE and are a function of the rangers there asking for them. They are not a federal solution or even a relevant response.

Where did I say the signs were from ICE? But they're certainly an indication of increased violence and danger in the areas where they're being erected. Which was the point. Are you suggesting they aren't such an indication?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...they're certainly an indication of increased violence and danger in the areas where they're being erected. Which was the point. Are you suggesting they aren't such an indication?

They indicate that the rangers responsible for those areas of those parks were able to have the BLM put up temporary cardboard signs. The claim that they are "an indication of increased violence and danger" is purely speculation and not supported by anything you have posted, any of the dozen or so news sources I used to confirm their existence, any of the dozen or so sites that are friendly to your position that I stumbled through, or any thing else. There may be "increased violence and danger" in those areas and I just haven't found any confirming evidence (your serve) or it could just be the BLM putting up signs in order to better allocate what I would assume are limited resources or dozens of other reasons. In the 3500 acres claim the BLM closed that area 4 years ago, the violence has since declined but they haven't bothered to reopen the area. That suggests at least to me that these decisions are based on resources as much as real violence.The problem you have is "increased violence and danger" is just not supported by the crime stats released by the FBI. Maybe these are isolated instances that are exceptions, but if so that just means everywhere else in the region has had even larger decreases in violent crime.

 

[The Commish]

I was watching a sheriff from the Arizona border today on TV- he asserted that illegal immigrants were not a huge problem, that the new law was "ridiculous and impossible to enforce", and that the bulk of Arizonans around the border were not the impetus for this law- the big complaints against illegals comes from the Phoenix area in the middle of the state. Why does this not surprise me?

Uh, where do you think the illegals go? I truly doubt they hang around the border.

We are told that the main reason for the law is the violence caused by illegals AT THE BORDER. Feel free to look through this thread for example after example.

I'll be the first to admit, I haven't followed this thread that closely, but I have not seen this argument made in ANY of pieces I have watched in our "media". I've not seen a single report that would suggest that the only place they want to reduce the violence is at the border and that's it. What you are saying might be 100% true, but that's a problem with the thread...it's misinformed, misguided etc. It's clear to me that folks all over the state are concerned with violence....not just people at the border.

First there is no statistical evidence of any violence level that would warrant the heightened scrutiny. Second the claim is that the war between drug gangs in Mexico spills across the border. With that there are routine claims that this or that border area is under siege and occupied by these Mexican drug gang. The third claim is that Phoenix is kidnapping capital of the world. Not true. There is a problem with kidnapping in Phoenix where those that are smuggled in to the US don't pay the smugglers - a real problem are being kidnapped and/or family members but this problem has little to no spill over violence to the larger communities. And the problem isn't unique to Phoenix or Arizona or even border states. The issue being of course that the Arizona law enforcement community that would be charged with dealing with real violence issues opposed this law because it makes them (in their words) less capable of doing their entire job.

Nor was I assigning merit to the claims. I was responding to the suggestion that folks only wanted to fix things at the border. I understand it's still a matter of opinion on if there is something to be fixed at all.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Nor was I assigning merit to the claims. I was responding to the suggestion that folks only wanted to fix things at the border. I understand it's still a matter of opinion on if there is something to be fixed at all.

Oh there is something to be fixed. Anytime you have laws that are inconsistently enforced because the "big picture" view of those laws is blurry you need to clear up the focus. The problem is that while everyone wants "comprehensive immigration reform" there are big splits as to what that should mean. Even on components where everyone seems to agree there is disagreement on what they are agreeing to. However in the specific case of Arizona it seems there is this law of questionable worth and effectiveness that may or may not be unconstitutional because it potentially has Arizona telling the federal government how to fulfill a federal responsibility. It potentially has a bunch of other bad stuff in it such as racial profiling, tying the hands of law enforcement, etc or it might just be toothless political grand standing with the whole lot of good possibilities in between.

 

[Bronco Billy]

However in the specific case of Arizona it seems there is this law of questionable worth and effectiveness that may or may not be unconstitutional because it potentially has Arizona telling the federal government how to fulfill a federal responsibility. It potentially has a bunch of other bad stuff in it such as racial profiling, tying the hands of law enforcement, etc or it might just be toothless political grand standing with the whole lot of good possibilities in between.

The citizens of AZ have identified a threat to them, both in regard to safety and to economics. The threat consists of people breaking documented Federal law. They have repeatedly begged the federal government to enforce the law. The Federal government steadfastly has refused. So the people of AZ created a law mirroring the Federal law to protect themselves. Now the Federal government, which has refused to enforce its own law, has now gotten a judge to overturn the AZ citizens' effort to protect themselves.Seems pretty simple...

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

However in the specific case of Arizona it seems there is this law of questionable worth and effectiveness that may or may not be unconstitutional because it potentially has Arizona telling the federal government how to fulfill a federal responsibility. It potentially has a bunch of other bad stuff in it such as racial profiling, tying the hands of law enforcement, etc or it might just be toothless political grand standing with the whole lot of good possibilities in between.

The citizens of AZ have identified a threat to them, both in regard to safety and to economics. The threat consists of people breaking documented Federal law. They have repeatedly begged the federal government to enforce the law. The Federal government steadfastly has refused. So the people of AZ created a law mirroring the Federal law to protect themselves. Now the Federal government, which has refused to enforce its own law, has now gotten a judge to overturn the AZ citizens' effort to protect themselves.Seems pretty simple...

Right, states are allowed to ask, even beg for a federal response. They just can't dictate that federal response. The case right now that has put some of this law on hold is about whether or not this law has the state telling the federal government how to execute those powers. It is different from previous cases (as far as I can tell) in the sense of Arizona's claim that the federal government is largely ignoring those responsibilities creating the "threat" to Arizona that they perceive. I don't think my paragraph you are trying to correct has any factual errors or even stated opinions, though it is slanted in the way I though was appropriate for that reply.

 

[Christo]

However in the specific case of Arizona it seems there is this law of questionable worth and effectiveness that may or may not be unconstitutional because it potentially has Arizona telling the federal government how to fulfill a federal responsibility. It potentially has a bunch of other bad stuff in it such as racial profiling, tying the hands of law enforcement, etc or it might just be toothless political grand standing with the whole lot of good possibilities in between.

To me, your only "good" argument (good in the sense that it should be considered, not that I agree with it) is the constitutional issue.Otherwise, I don't believe the issues you've identified are ripe for consideration. "Questionable worth and effectiveness" is not a reason for a federal court to weigh in on a state law. "Potential" for "other bad stuff" is just that--potential. Until it's shown that the "other bad stuff" will happen and with such frequency that the law cannot be enforced without the "other bad stuff" happening, AZ should be given the opportunity to see if it can make the law workable. As for tying the hands of law enforcement, it is a state legislature's imprimatur to tie the hands of state law enforcement agencies. Finally, the last time I looked, much of politics is grand standing.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

However in the specific case of Arizona it seems there is this law of questionable worth and effectiveness that may or may not be unconstitutional because it potentially has Arizona telling the federal government how to fulfill a federal responsibility. It potentially has a bunch of other bad stuff in it such as racial profiling, tying the hands of law enforcement, etc or it might just be toothless political grand standing with the whole lot of good possibilities in between.

To me, your only "good" argument (good in the sense that it should be considered, not that I agree with it) is the constitutional issue.Otherwise, I don't believe the issues you've identified are ripe for consideration. "Questionable worth and effectiveness" is not a reason for a federal court to weigh in on a state law. "Potential" for "other bad stuff" is just that--potential. Until it's shown that the "other bad stuff" will happen and with such frequency that the law cannot be enforced without the "other bad stuff" happening, AZ should be given the opportunity to see if it can make the law workable. As for tying the hands of law enforcement, it is a state legislature's imprimatur to tie the hands of state law enforcement agencies. Finally, the last time I looked, much of politics is grand standing.

I was describing the current debate about the law, not making a legal argument about its constitutionality (other than the state reason of why it may be unconstitutional based on the current challenge). All the second sentence is saying is that on one side you have those making a whole much of negative statements about the law (which sometimes includes me) and on the other you have those that say the law is pretty much toothless (which was not me, but a response to me). If this is a good law that will be effective and help, then those would be the " good possibilities in between" that you seem to think exists.

 

[Christo]

However in the specific case of Arizona it seems there is this law of questionable worth and effectiveness that may or may not be unconstitutional because it potentially has Arizona telling the federal government how to fulfill a federal responsibility. It potentially has a bunch of other bad stuff in it such as racial profiling, tying the hands of law enforcement, etc or it might just be toothless political grand standing with the whole lot of good possibilities in between.

To me, your only "good" argument (good in the sense that it should be considered, not that I agree with it) is the constitutional issue.Otherwise, I don't believe the issues you've identified are ripe for consideration. "Questionable worth and effectiveness" is not a reason for a federal court to weigh in on a state law. "Potential" for "other bad stuff" is just that--potential. Until it's shown that the "other bad stuff" will happen and with such frequency that the law cannot be enforced without the "other bad stuff" happening, AZ should be given the opportunity to see if it can make the law workable. As for tying the hands of law enforcement, it is a state legislature's imprimatur to tie the hands of state law enforcement agencies. Finally, the last time I looked, much of politics is grand standing.

I was describing the current debate about the law, not making a legal argument about its constitutionality (other than the state reason of why it may be unconstitutional based on the current challenge). All the second sentence is saying is that on one side you have those making a whole much of negative statements about the law (which sometimes includes me) and on the other you have those that say the law is pretty much toothless (which was not me, but a response to me). If this is a good law that will be effective and help, then those would be the " good possibilities in between" that you seem to think exists.

It looked like you were making an argument against the law and throwing in everything but the kitchen sink.FTR, I don't think the law will be very effective other than for the attention it has brought to the issue.

 

[RCon]

FTR, I don't think the law will be very effective other than for the attention it has brought to the issue.

It appears that many illegals are leaving the state of Arizona, which would indicate that the law is quite effective, at least in the short term.

 

[Christo]

FTR, I don't think the law will be very effective other than for the attention it has brought to the issue.

It appears that many illegals are leaving the state of Arizona, which would indicate that the law is quite effective, at least in the short term.

Goes hand-in-hand with the attention issue, imo. I think it's a law that was not going to be strictly enforced (or at least there were going to be areas where it would not be highly enforced) and the illegals were going to see it really wouldn't significantly affect them in the long run.

 

[Statorama]

Harry Reid's got some essplainin to do

 

[Burton]

If a foreign diplomat, living in an embassy, rushes to an American hospital in D.C. and gives birth to a baby, that baby does not become an American citizen despite the fact that he or she was born on American soil. Why then should the babies of illegal immigrants receive this privilege? I am not a lawyer, but it seems like this is a gross misinterpretation of what was intended in the constitution.

 

[Christo]

If a foreign diplomat, living in an embassy, rushes to an American hospital in D.C. and gives birth to a baby, that baby does not become an American citizen despite the fact that he or she was born on American soil. Why then should the babies of illegal immigrants receive this privilege? I am not a lawyer, but it seems like this is a gross misinterpretation of what was intended in the constitution.

Link?

 

[DrJ]

is "comprehensive immigration reform" defined when doing the poll? Or is it: "Do you want comprehensive immigration reform? Yes/No"

Exactly right, videoguy. Most people don't know what the term means. You know me, I'd love to believe that the majority of Americans was in favor of giving illegals already here a form of amnesty. But it's dishonest to imply that a majority of Americans want this. They don't.

Page 5
Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes

Favor 81%

This could actually cause me to change my stance on this. If the lower class are happy being driven further into poverty by these illegals and are willing to welcome them with open arms, who am I to judge? As long as they're willing to give their unemployment checks to help raise Juan's kids.

 

[videoguy505]

If a foreign diplomat, living in an embassy, rushes to an American hospital in D.C. and gives birth to a baby, that baby does not become an American citizen despite the fact that he or she was born on American soil. Why then should the babies of illegal immigrants receive this privilege? I am not a lawyer, but it seems like this is a gross misinterpretation of what was intended in the constitution.

Link?

US v Wong Kim Ark

In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

If I'm reading right, since foreign diplomats are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, their children are not automatically US citizens even if born here.Here too.

A child born on American soil automatically gets U.S. citizenship, unless the child is born to a foreign government official who is in the United States as a recognized diplomat.

 

[DrJ]

If a foreign diplomat, living in an embassy, rushes to an American hospital in D.C. and gives birth to a baby, that baby does not become an American citizen despite the fact that he or she was born on American soil. Why then should the babies of illegal immigrants receive this privilege? I am not a lawyer, but it seems like this is a gross misinterpretation of what was intended in the constitution.

Link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

One issue I'm wondering about, is this part of the opinion of the dissenters actually valid?

In the view of the minority, excessive reliance on Jus soli (birthplace) as the principal determiner of citizenship would lead to an untenable state of affairs in which "...the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not".

Can these foreign babies become the President while children of our own citizens born of foreign soil can't?

 

[videoguy505]

Can these foreign babies become the President while children of our own citizens born of foreign soil can't?

Like John McCain, if a person doesn't have jus soli birthright, but has jus sanguinis (born to two US citizens overseas, at least one of which has lived within the US prior to the child' birth) birthright, he's eligible for the presidency. The Constitution (AFAIK) doesn't distinguish between the two.

 

[DrJ]

Can these foreign babies become the President while children of our own citizens born of foreign soil can't?

Like John McCain, if a person doesn't have jus soli birthright, but has jus sanguinis (born to two US citizens overseas, at least one of which has lived within the US prior to the child' birth) birthright, he's eligible for the presidency. The Constitution (AFAIK) doesn't distinguish between the two.

Wasn't the deal with McCain that he was born on US soil since it was a US military base?

 

[Christo]

If a foreign diplomat, living in an embassy, rushes to an American hospital in D.C. and gives birth to a baby, that baby does not become an American citizen despite the fact that he or she was born on American soil. Why then should the babies of illegal immigrants receive this privilege? I am not a lawyer, but it seems like this is a gross misinterpretation of what was intended in the constitution.

Link?

US v Wong Kim Ark

In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

If I'm reading right, since foreign diplomats are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, their children are not automatically US citizens even if born here.Here too.

A child born on American soil automatically gets U.S. citizenship, unless the child is born to a foreign government official who is in the United States as a recognized diplomat.

The way it's written is wierd. It seems it would require both parents to be diplomats.

 

[Christo]

Can these foreign babies become the President while children of our own citizens born of foreign soil can't?

Children of citizens born on foreign soil can be president.

 

[DrJ]

The way it's written is wierd. It seems it would require both parents to be diplomats.

It's just another example of judges making our laws because the idiots that wrote them were too stupid to actually detail what they meant.

 

[videoguy505]

The way it's written is wierd. It seems it would require both parents to be diplomats.

I don't know about the particulars of diplomatic immunity, are both the diplomat and his/her spouse/partner free from being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US? That clause seems to be the crux of the issue.

 

[videoguy505]

The way it's written is wierd. It seems it would require both parents to be diplomats.

It's just another example of judges making our laws because the idiots that wrote them were too stupid to actually detail what they meant.

Well, it's a law we inherited from England. I blame them.

 

[DrJ]

The way it's written is wierd. It seems it would require both parents to be diplomats.

It's just another example of judges making our laws because the idiots that wrote them were too stupid to actually detail what they meant.

Well, it's a law we inherited from England. I blame them.

I can get on board with that - boo England.

 

[videoguy505]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

If we could legally recognize illegal immigrants as an invading army, then we could disqualify their kids from citizenship.

 

[DrJ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

If we could legally recognize illegal immigrants as an invading army, then we could disqualify their kids from citizenship.

I like it - then we don't even have to amend anything.

 

[Phurfur]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

Isn't that what is happening?

 

[Christo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

If we could legally recognize illegal immigrants as an invading army, then we could disqualify their kids from citizenship.

All it would take is for us to show that the Mexican government is encouraging its citizens to cross the border.

 

[bg0546]

All it would take is for us to show that the Mexican government is encouraging its citizens to cross the border.

That would actually be pretty damn easy to do since the Mexican government has printed pamphlets with best practices for crossing the border.

 

[Phurfur]

All it would take is for us to show that the Mexican government is encouraging its citizens to cross the border.

That would actually be pretty damn easy to do since the Mexican government has printed pamphlets with best practices for crossing the border.

They are also suing AZ over Bill 1070. Yes it is an invasion.

 

[Statorama]

Aww crap. Judge hearing AZ law dispute was once nearly deported

Game set and match for the "Federal Government is doing a hell of a job in Arizona. There's no problem with illegal immigration there at all" crowd.

 

[EasyMorningRebel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

If we could legally recognize illegal immigrants as an invading army, then we could disqualify their kids from citizenship.

That would at least be good for somewhere around a million liberal head explosions.

 

[the moops]

Aww crap. Judge hearing AZ law dispute was once nearly deported

You forgot the "wrongfully" part.

 

[Christo]

Aww crap. Judge hearing AZ law dispute was once nearly deported

You forgot the "wrongfully" part.

I don't know that it changes the point of Stat's post. In fact, it might even make his position stronger.

 

[videoguy505]

Judge in the case: US Gov't has "no argument":

Judge John T. Noonan Jr. grilled administration lawyers at a hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He took aim at the core of the Justice Department's argument: that the Arizona statute is "preempted" by federal law and is especially troublesome because it requires mandatory immigration status checks in certain circumstances.

"I've read your brief, I've read the District Court opinion, I've heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don't understand your argument," Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler. "We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive. . . . You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That's not a matter of preemption. . . . I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don't have an argument."

 

[timschochet]

Judge in the case: US Gov't has "no argument":

Judge John T. Noonan Jr. grilled administration lawyers at a hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He took aim at the core of the Justice Department's argument: that the Arizona statute is "preempted" by federal law and is especially troublesome because it requires mandatory immigration status checks in certain circumstances.

"I've read your brief, I've read the District Court opinion, I've heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don't understand your argument," Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler. "We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive. . . . You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That's not a matter of preemption. . . . I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don't have an argument."

Yeah, in all truth, I've had trouble with this as well. I hate this law as much as anybody, but the Justice Department's argument seems weak to me. I preferred the argument that the ACLU put forth, that the law is a violation of the 14rh Amendment. The JD's arguments makes no sense- why can't the state of Arizona make their own laws on this issue?