Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law  
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 538 posts, RR: 3
Posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4791 times:

Didnt see it posted here yet:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2010061...me/08599199606400#mwpphu-container

All I can say is it is about time. I realize I lean quite a bit to the right when it comes to social and economic aspects, and I do not believe a better law could be in store. We all have differing opinions of immigration, and this will be a hotly contested bill through the course of its life, no matter how long or short. At face value, it challenges the entire fabric of the US constitution (14th Amendment), but in 2010, is this the 21st century prohibition? Is it time to repeal?


By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
212 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4778 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ATCtower (Thread starter):
Is it time to repeal?

Don't you have to be careful when you start changing the constitution though?

I mean, the constitution is the reason we shouldn't care about the cost the war in Iraq right? Its the reason why guns are legal..

If we change it based on polls, we probably would not have guns, and be worried that we need to pay back the cost of the war in Iraq.

That being said - i do agree that "anchor babies" are a loophole in the system..but if gun ownership, and spending trillion on "defending" a county are sacred - why isn't the 14th amendment just as sacred?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4769 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 1):
That being said - i do agree that "anchor babies" are a loophole in the system..but if gun ownership, and spending trillion on "defending" a county are sacred - why isn't the 14th amendment just as sacred?

Nothing is sacred as long as the proper procedure is taken. Without question, the Constitution needs to be amended.

This state law is plainly unconstitutional, but you can see the purpose of it - it is meant to call attention to the problem and drum up support for an amendment eliminating the anchor baby issue.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4766 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Nothing is sacred as long as the proper procedure is taken.

Nice to know that Gun ownership is not sacred.,, and that you are open to ban guns in this country

[Edited 2010-06-11 14:16:27]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5416 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4744 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 3):
Nice to know that Gun ownership is not sacred.,, and that you are open to ban guns in this country

Even if the sentiment were as you were suggesting it is (and I would classify myself as a gun control advocate) I do not think the people of the USA would vote to repeal the 2nd amendment (I certainly wouldn't). I also think you are incorrect if you are thinking thinking that a majority in this country do not support the 2nd Amendment as it is written.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4733 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tugger (Reply 4):
I also think you are incorrect if you are thinking thinking that a majority in this country do not support the 2nd Amendment as it is written.

Maybe.. or maybe not.. What if it was?

The war in Iraq was not popular by any means..does that mean that the constitution should have been changed to avoid it?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5416 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4718 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 5):
Maybe.. or maybe not.. What if it was?

Actually I don't want to drag this thread off topic so I really don't want t go far on the 2nd Amendment.

I will say that I think the 14th Amendment has been badly mis-interpreted (but of course I am no legal authority and others appear to have reached an opposite decision). The words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, " imply that there is a qualification involved in whether someone born in the USA is a citizen, though currently it appears that there is no qualifier to be considered. In my mind it is the status of the parents that determines if a baby born here would be a citizen. If the parents (either one or both) have agreed to abide by the laws of the USA (or are already citizens) then they are subject to those laws. If the parents are here illegally then then have automatically created a situation where by their actions they do not agree to be subject to the laws of the USA and therefore their child would not be a citizen.

Of course courts have ruled otherwise but that could be changed with a new ruling and that would not require a change in the Constitution.

Tugg

[Edited 2010-06-11 15:06:43]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4686 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
Actually I don't want to drag this thread off topic so I really don't want t go far on the 2nd Amendment.

It's not about the second ammendment. It's about wanting a Constitutional change on whim.


Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
mis-interpreted

I guess you are going to have to convince him:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
This state law is plainly unconstitutional



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5416 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4658 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 7):
I guess you are going to have to convince him:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
This state law is plainly unconstitutional

Not that I would put words in his mouth but I do not think I would need to "convince him" as he is not referring to my argument but is referring to the law potentially to be proposed.

My brief read of the proposed AZ law is also that it would be unconstitutional because it would deny birth certificates to children born to "parents who are not legal U.S. citizens".

But regarding the 14th Amendment, by my interpretation, if the parents are in the USA legally, whether by visa, green card, work permit, whatever, but not citizens, their children would be born as citizens of the USA.

Tugg

Edited to clarify my comment per ATCTowers follow on comment.

[Edited 2010-06-11 15:35:58]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 538 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4643 times:

"...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."

Quoting tugger (Reply 8):
My brief read of it is also that it would be unconstitutional because it would deny birth certificates to children born to "parents who are not legal U.S. citizens". But by my interpretation if the parents are in the USA legally, whether by visa, green card, work permit, whatever, but not citizens, their children would be born as citizens of the USA.

The law, obviously we have not had the privilidge of reading it as of yet, seems as though it will stipulate both parents MUST be U.S. citizens.



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5416 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4632 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 9):
The law, obviously we have not had the privilidge of reading it as of yet, seems as though it will stipulate both parents MUST be U.S. citizens.

I do agree with you. My comment "But by my interpretation" was poorly stated and not clear, I was referring to my interpretation of the 14th Amendment not the proposed AZ law.

* I am editing my post that you quoted to make it clearer.

Tugg

[Edited 2010-06-11 15:34:08]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4590 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 3):
Nice to know that Gun ownership is not sacred.,, and that you are open to ban guns in this country
Quoting tugger (Reply 4):

Even if the sentiment were as you were suggesting it is (and I would classify myself as a gun control advocate) I do not think the people of the USA would vote to repeal the 2nd amendment (I certainly wouldn't). I also think you are incorrect if you are thinking thinking that a majority in this country do not support the 2nd Amendment as it is written.

Agree with Tugger. The 2nd amendment might need a tweak, but no way will you get the required majority to overturn it altogether.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 5):
The war in Iraq was not popular by any means..does that mean that the constitution should have been changed to avoid it?

The Iraq war was very popular at the beginning - you forget that. Over 90% of the senate were all for it, before they were against it  
Quoting mt99 (Reply 7):

It's not about the second ammendment. It's about wanting a Constitutional change on whim.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. It is then sent to the states, and the amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).

That is a very high threshold (intentionally so) ensuring that no Constitutional change happens on a whim.

What I consider a whimsical change in the Constitution is how a judge's ruling becomes precedent for the future. That is one thing that I would like to see eliminated (by constitutional amendment) - Rulings shall have no bearing on subsequent subsequent rulings. That puts all the onus on the legislature to write their laws clearly and understandably, and if the law has unintended interpretations, go back and rewrite it.

Quoting tugger (Reply 8):
Not that I would put words in his mouth but I do not think I would need to "convince him" as he is not referring to my argument but is referring to the law potentially to be proposed.

My brief read of the proposed AZ law is also that it would be unconstitutional because it would deny birth certificates to children born to "parents who are not legal U.S. citizens".

But regarding the 14th Amendment, by my interpretation, if the parents are in the USA legally, whether by visa, green card, work permit, whatever, but not citizens, their children would be born as citizens of the USA.

The 14th amendment was to prevent the former slaves from being denied their full rights as citizens. That need no longer exists and has become a liability.

[Edited 2010-06-11 17:28:27]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4580 times:

Any next immigration law needs to include a clause that illegal residents can only change status if they agree to immediate military service.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13031 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4577 times:

The US Supreme Court would vote unamously to knock out this law. It is in conflict with the Constitutional superiority of the Federal Government over the states as to defining by law what it takes to qualify for US Citizenship. US Citizenship can only be defined by the Federal Government, not the states. Perhaps a compromise in the Arizona law would be a statement on the Birth Certificate that the birth mother or the legally married Father to the birth mother is a legal US Citizen or a legal resident.

I do agree that the current status of automatic citizenship by birth in the USA does need to end or substanually modified. We are in different times from when it was created. That would have to be done with a carefully crafted Amendment to the US Constitution and go through the procedures through the Congress, Senate and State Legisgatures. That is a difficult process and it should be. Sometimes, as with the Amendment to put in Alcohol Prohibition, later reversed with another Amendment, social and political pressures can create bad law. Alcohol Prohibiton was put in in part the massive growth in lower prices for Alcoholic beverages due to industrialization of production and better distribution, but more as most drinking was done in unregulated taverns, especially in cities mainly by recent immigrants. In large part, it was an anti-immigrant policy. It was also pushed mainly by the religious right of their time. Of course Prohibition created far worse problems than better regulated access to Alcohol would have. That is why we must be careful to change our Constitution.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19377 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4569 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):

Nothing is sacred as long as the proper procedure is taken. Without question, the Constitution needs to be amended.

Ready everyone? Get out your calendars...

I agree with Dreadnought.

*waits patiently for the gasping and whispering to die down*

Well, mostly. I think that the first ten amendments ARE sacred. Anything after that isn't. Not sure if Dreaddy agrees with that. But technically, we could repeal the 1st amendment. We won't because it's sacred, but we COULD...

What I will say is that AZ can't do this. I agree that they SHOULD do it, but they CAN'T do it yet until Amendment 14 gets changed. It's unconstitutional.

If a vote to change the 14th amendment to make it more consistent with modern times happens (it was done during emancipation), I'll vote for it.


User currently offlineScarletHarlot From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 4673 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4557 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 9):
The law, obviously we have not had the privilidge of reading it as of yet, seems as though it will stipulate both parents MUST be U.S. citizens.

Citizens?!? What about children of legal immigrants? Like my two nephews, who were born in the US to green card holders? Would you deny them their US citizenship?

What do you propose to do with these children who are born to non-citizens? What citizenship should they have? Would they be stateless? At what age would you deport them? Where would you deport them to?

Seriously! What about someone who was born in the States and lived there all their lives, and then was found out at say age 25? What would you do with them? Where would they go? What about their lives in the States? Why should they be punished for the sins of their parents? How on earth is that fair?

That's horrible. Arizona does not have the right to do this. I hope that the constitution is not amended or reinterpreted to allow it. That would be inhumane.

America is the richest country in the world. People come here because they are hoping for a better life. Some come here in desperate ways because they are desperate people coming from desperate situations. Geez, can't we help our fellow humans a bit?

Yes, I am a US taxpayer. I'd much rather help people who came in to this country illegally to make better lives for themselves than to support fat cats and big business and the war machine and servicing a ridiculous level of debt. You know that's where a huge chunk of US tax dollars go.



But that was when I ruled the world
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4547 times:

14th amendment.... get rid of it. It was only designed for the Civil War era.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
The 14th amendment was to prevent the former slaves from being denied their full rights as citizens. That need no longer exists and has become a liability.

I second that, Dreddy!  



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4535 times:

Quoting ScarletHarlot (Reply 15):

What do you propose to do with these children who are born to non-citizens? What citizenship should they have? Would they be stateless? At what age would you deport them? Where would you deport them to?

Just as it's done in EVERY SINGLE OTHER COUNTRY, you get the citizenship of your parents. You think that just because you are born in Switzerland, Japan or France, while your parents were on holiday, or were illegal immigrants? Think again.

And since you fly the Canadian flag, let's check on Canadian law:

Section 3(2) of the Current Act states that Canadian citizenship is not granted to a child born in Canada if, at the time of his/her birth, neither of his/her parents was a Canadian citizen or Canadian permanent resident and either parent was a diplomatic or consular officer or other representative or employee of a foreign government in Canada or an employee of such a person.

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



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineScarletHarlot From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 4673 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4529 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
you get the citizenship of your parents

You have to apply for this - it is not automatic. And, the right to this may expire at some point. So such a child may have no citizenship and not know it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Section 3(2) of the Current Act states that Canadian citizenship is not granted to a child born in Canada if, at the time of his/her birth, neither of his/her parents was a Canadian citizen or Canadian permanent resident and either parent was a diplomatic or consular officer or other representative or employee of a foreign government in Canada or an employee of such a person.

This is a clear exception for children of representatives or employees of foreign governments. It is not a blanket exception. If your parents are not non-Canadian foreign diplomats, and you're born in Canada, you're Canadian.

From your own source:

In general, everyone born in Canada from 1947 or later acquires Canadian citizenship at birth. The only exceptions concern children born to diplomats, where additional requirements apply.



But that was when I ruled the world
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19377 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4529 times:

Quoting ScarletHarlot (Reply 15):

Citizens?!? What about children of legal immigrants? Like my two nephews, who were born in the US to green card holders? Would you deny them their US citizenship?

My preferred rule would be that at least one parent must be a citizen or legally present in the U.S. on a non-tourist visa. I think that's plenty permissive and it stops the problem we have now.

We are a land of immigrants and I want to encourage LEGAL immigration. I want to discourage ILLEGAL immigration.

I am sick and tired of illegals coming here, having 6-10 kids, and their welfare coming out of my paycheck. It's got to stop.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 12):
Any next immigration law needs to include a clause that illegal residents can only change status if they agree to immediate military service.

That won't work because what if they have asthma? Discriminatory. There's no good solution to the problem that we have for the millions who are already here. If we kick all the parents back across the border, we wind up with an overwhelming burden of kids on the foster care system and all of those kids turn out poorly (most kids in the foster system do, unfortunately) and so that's no good. But we can nip it in the bud by preventing new illegals from coming and having more and more and more and more and more and more babies.

You come here illegally, have eight kids you can't afford, and you want me to pay for them? No friggin' way, right? Except EXACTLY what's going on.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19377 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4520 times:

Quoting ScarletHarlot (Reply 18):

This is a clear exception for children of representatives or employees of foreign governments. It is not a blanket exception. If your parents are not non-Canadian foreign diplomats, and you're born in Canada, you're Canadian.

It's definitely a blanket exception. Read it carefully. if neither parent is a Canadian citizen or legal permanent resident, then no citizenship.

I do not know of a country that denies citizenship to children of citizens, even if born abroad.


User currently offlineScarletHarlot From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 4673 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4515 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):
It's definitely a blanket exception. Read it carefully. if neither parent is a Canadian citizen or legal permanent resident, then no citizenship.

I do not agree with you Doc, That is one big AND in that wording.

Government of Canada website:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/informa...aq/citizenship/cit-proof-faq01.asp

Quote:
In general, if you were born in Canada, you are a Canadian citizen. This may not apply if you were born in Canada and at the time of your birth, one of your parents was in Canada with diplomatic status and your other parent was neither a Canadian citizen nor a permanent resident.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):
I do not know of a country that denies citizenship to children of citizens, even if born abroad.

The Canadian government seems to know of such countries.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/informa...aq/citizenship/cit-rules-faq08.asp

This discusses how grandchildren of Canadian citzens, whose parents were not born in Canada (and so who would have some other citizenship if you are correct) but who obtain Canadian citizenship because of their Canadian-born parents (the grandparents), may be stateless if they are born outside of Canada. So there must be some other country that does not automatically grant citizenship to children of citizens. Canada does not, in the second generation case.



But that was when I ruled the world
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4493 times:

Quoting ScarletHarlot (Reply 18):
In general, everyone born in Canada from 1947 or later acquires Canadian citizenship at birth. The only exceptions concern children born to diplomats, where additional requirements apply.

OK, maybe a bad example. Let's look at some others:

Germany: Children born on or after 1 January 2000 to non-German parents acquire German citizenship at birth if at least one parent:

* has a permanent residence permit (and has had this status for at least 3 years); and
* has been residing in Germany for at least 8 years.

Japan: Japan is a jus sanguinis state as opposed to Jus soli state, meaning that it attributes citizenship by blood but not by location of birth. However, in practice, it is by parentage but not by descent. Article 2 of the Nationality Act provides three situations in which a person can become a Japanese national at birth:

1. When either parent is a Japanese national at the time of birth
2. When the father dies before the birth and is a Japanese national at the time of death
3. When the person is born on Japanese soil and both parents are unknown or stateless

Switzerland: A person is a Swiss citizen at birth (whether born in Switzerland or not) if he or she is:

* born to a Swiss father or mother, if parents are married
* born to a Swiss mother, if parents are not married

Where parents marry after birth and only the father is Swiss, the child acquires Swiss citizenship at that point.

There are exceptions if only the mother is Swiss and she acquired Swiss citizenship on the basis of a previous marriage to a Swiss citizen.

Jus soli does not exist in Switzerland, hence birth in Switzerland in itself does not confer Swiss citizenship on the child.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinegatorfan From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4475 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 16):
14th amendment.... get rid of it. It was only designed for the Civil War era.

You have no idea what the implication of getting rid of the 14th amendment would mean. The 14th amendment allows the rights preserved to the citizens (like free expression, freedom of religion, the right to trial by jury, the right to remain silent) in the US Constitution to be applied to the states. Without the 14th amendment and the "incorporation doctrine", your right to exercise your religion freely (for example) would be protected only by each state's constitution. Now, one can imagine that the exercise of religion might be more restricted in a state like Utah. Do we really want a country where your fundamental rights depended on you crossing a state border?


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21510 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4459 times:

Quoting ScarletHarlot (Reply 15):
Quoting ATCtower (Reply 9):
The law, obviously we have not had the privilidge of reading it as of yet, seems as though it will stipulate both parents MUST be U.S. citizens.

Citizens?!? What about children of legal immigrants? Like my two nephews, who were born in the US to green card holders? Would you deny them their US citizenship?

Hell, what about the children of one US citizen and one legal resident?

This bill would be clearly unconstitutional, and the subject matter in general is something that should be left to the federal government, not the states.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
25 Dreadnought : As pretty much all countries, one parent would be enough. And we all know how competently the federal government does its job. All this would be a no
26 WarRI1 : Clearly the federal government is not doing its job according to existing law. What are we to do, let millions more flood in? If the US Chamber of Co
27 Post contains images DocLightning : For some of us, we're still in that country. I don't think we want to repeal the 14th. I think we want to change the bit about who is and who isn't a
28 Dreadnought : I agree with you, and I'll even daresay that the AZ lawmakers do as well. They are just trying to make a point. All this points out another amendment
29 Mir : Not very. But that's a reason to fix the way the federal government works, not a reason to give the job to the states. -Mir
30 Dreadnought : The only way that's going to happen is if the Federal government is shamed into action. Otherwise they will just continue to sit on their asses as lo
31 Post contains links AirframeAS : Do you even know what the 14th amendment is?? "Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equ
32 Maverick623 : You may have missed out on the day when the courts decided they can pick and choose which Amendments were incorporated. IMO, the 14th Amendment has b
33 Post contains images DocLightning : OK, all this touchy-feely shit is getting weird, dude. Argue with me or something. I'm not used to this "agreeing" stuff with you. It's not right. Ma
34 Post contains images Dreadnought : Maybe you're coverting me . Uh, no I didn't really say that... Actually I believe this is a different AZ law from 1070.
35 goldenstate : The proposed law is unconstitutional and would never see the light of day if it was enacted. Next topic.
36 Post contains links AirframeAS : Keep in mind, that is a STATE law, not a Federal law. And with that in mind, how is (1070) that unconstitutional? I've read 1070. And yes, it applies
37 DocLightning : Because it violates the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment says that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. It does not stipulate that their parents m
38 AirframeAS : So with that in mind, you think its ok for illegals to come into the U.S. and give birth to make that child a U.S. citizen and drain our social servi
39 tugger : You know its creepy that many posters that are normally on opposites sides of an issue, aren't in regards to this topic. Actually say a lot for how a
40 Maverick623 : He answered that already, to the shock of many here: For example; if a foreign army were to have a couple conceive and bear a child in a foreign-occu
41 Post contains images AirframeAS : He says one thing in reply 14. Then he seems to have said the exact opposite on reply 37.
42 WarRI1 : I know in my case, I do not care what side of the fence you are on normally, I support stopping them, throwing them out and anyone, no matter what po
43 AirframeAS : I'm with you, sir. I am with you! Obama is ignoring the issue because he doesn't want a part of the issue at all. I think he may just have killed his
44 bjorn14 : I couldnt agree with you more...this should be the basement...I'd even take a visa waiver case.
45 mt99 : So this is it huh? in 2004 was the "sanctity of marriage" and "family values".. in 2010 "immigration" will be the battle cry.
46 Maverick623 : Apologies to Doc if I'm stepping on some toes here, but I can explain, because I feel the same way. We HAVE to obey and respect the 14th Amendment wh
47 ATCtower : Wow... I disappeared for a couple days and look where it all went! Great discussion all.. Uh, yeah... I would be contradicting myself and a hypocrite
48 ScarletHarlot : No, we don't "all" know this. Seriously you'd deny citizenship to children born in the US to legal permanent residents of the US?
49 casinterest : I actually disagree with this, mostly because I work in an industry that has many green card holders. Some of them were here for 15-20 years. There n
50 AGM100 : Thank you .... your correct . Hillary and the rest of them had their "hawk" hats on a were blasting away . Then it became a real war and the movie th
51 Post contains images AirframeAS : You forgot health care reform. The 14th amendment was not designed for 2010. This law was designed at the time it was necessary against slavery. And
52 mt99 : Glad to know its about politics and not about solving the actual problem But remember where "family values" ended up.. in the sordid affairs of GOP m
53 AirframeAS : Ok, mt99...with this line, I can no longer have a decent discussion with you. You have crossed the line with a stupid and poorly thought out comment.
54 casinterest : Waste of state Taxpayer money then. It won't survive the challenge to the supreme court.
55 mt99 : Why is is out of line? I don't understand... facetious comment? yes? out of line? i don't think so,, EVERYONE in AZ will need to prove that he/she is
56 AirframeAS : Even if they lose in Supreme Court (if it ever does make it up there...), Arizona will do anything and everything to protect it's citizens....with or
57 casinterest : Then you are also arguing for the right of Illegals to immigrate to the US whether it is wrong or not if it is in the best interest of their families
58 AirframeAS : No, I'm not. I am 100% against Illegal Immigrantion..... period. Deport 'em all! They have ZERO reason to be here. If we deport them all, the crime r
59 Post contains links tugger : As this thread is about the 14th Amendment and its affects and not about SB1070, I have one question for you mt99, do you feel that you own laws need
60 mt99 : Midol anyone? Hmm.. i'm not from Norway silly buns.. not everything you read in the Internet is true.. you know.. And for the record - a do agree tha
61 casinterest : I am not twisting words. You are advocating grandstanding and illegal tactics to prove a point. Exactly what the Illegal immigrants are already doing
62 tugger : I was simply making my choice based on the flag you claim as "your country". There is little other information to go from. Well the timing is that NO
63 Post contains images AirframeAS : . No one said that Arizona dictates citizenship. Such as??? By deporting illegals??? That is actually legal to do and the ICE does it everyday.
64 Maverick623 : You should really check out the Constitution sometime. Article 4: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Ci
65 Post contains links gatorfan : Actually you did miss the day. Instead of explaining it, I'll just refer you to the wiki article which is mostly correct on all but some very minor t
66 casinterest : No such as doing something illegal such as jumping the border, and grandstanding for citiizenship and forcing the issue on the public illegally. The
67 Post contains links gatorfan : Correct. Though the federal government uses state documents (i.e. a birth certificate) to establish your citizenship and eligibility for a US passpor
68 Post contains images AirframeAS : Actually, you have it backwards. It was the public that forced the issue on the Federal Government and the Fed's failed to respond. This is why Arizo
69 casinterest : So a big giant wall costing over a billion from the previous administration wasn't good enough for you? Enforcing existing laws wasn't good enough? G
70 AirframeAS : A wall that is not even done. They stopped construction, IIRC. The problem is.... the U.S. Government is not even enforcing them....at all. Again, it
71 Dreadnought : The wall is incomplete, and the remainder has been defunded. If your house had half of an outside wall missing, would that be "good enough for you"?
72 casinterest : They are. Tens of thousands get deported....out of millions crossing Unfortunately, the border between Mexico and the US is a rather easy one to cros
73 Dreadnought : Yep. Especially if he's driving a car when he was pulled over (driving without a license) and whatever he was doing to warrant getting pulled over in
74 Post contains images AirframeAS : Source?? Those that get deported are those who commit serious crimes. Fence jumping isn't one of them......yet. You have yet to point it out in the b
75 casinterest : They report to the constituency. The folks that elected them. Same folks that elect the state Government of Arizona. Even if the cop makes a false ar
76 AirframeAS : No, it doesn't. Again, I can only repeat myself: If the Federal Government actually did this job, we wouldn't be discussing this today. As for the re
77 casinterest : I know, I just don't understand folks that were fortunate enough to be born in the united state make a big deal out of immigration issues, when there
78 Dreadnought : The Congress was designed for checks and balances. The People elect the House. The States elect the Senate. Ever since the 17th amendment (passed dur
79 casinterest : The state doesn't elect the senate. the popular vote does. The house is done up by district, and the senate is by general population. They are still
80 DocLightning : NO! A thousand times no! I think it's despicable! But it is CURRENTLY constitutional. KNOWING that something is unconstitutional/constitutional and L
81 Dreadnought : Obviously you don't care about checks and balances but many of us do.
82 casinterest : Qualify your statement. You obviously don't remember the original framers intention of the senate.
83 Dreadnought : The Senate was to represent the States, because the federal government was created by the states. That's why you have things in there about enumerate
84 casinterest : The intent was a body of power that provided equal state representation in the Legislative branch of govenrment, because the representative branch wa
85 Dreadnought : So who fights for states' rights? Sorry, I don't buy it. If they just wanted another version of the House with longer terms and 2 per state, they wou
86 casinterest : of the people , by the people. for the people. You have heard these words before right. The state Government fights for the states rights as guarante
87 Dreadnought : BUT THEY HAVE NO VOICE IN WASHINGTON!!! I consider it a federal responsibility, rather than a right. One which they have neglected badly enough for 1
88 mt99 : Are these such things as "anchor husbands" or "anchor wives"? Maybe that the next step.. Go AZ!!!
89 NIKV69 : Which is why you have to secure the border, if you are born here you are a citizen. You can't change this but you can take steps to make sure more do
90 casinterest : You really don't believe that the power of the National Government comes from the people ? You really think it comes from State Governments. . I edit
91 AirframeAS : That is because MAJORITY of those who were born here in the U.S. were born to legal parents who were also born in the U.S. and their parents were bor
92 casinterest : I agree that we can't get caught up by the anchor. The parents need to be deported, but we need the constitution changed to reflect it. Just denying
93 mt99 : What about anchor husband and wives? they should also not qualify. Legality thru marriage should be stopped too!
94 casinterest : This is a different argument. If you want someone to marry, then they should be a citizen. The kid argument is based on the fact that none of the par
95 AirframeAS : Arizona can always look to other avenues for revenue and business. They do not have to stick with who they have now. Somebody else would be more than
96 DocLightning : Why do you keep saying this? It's factually incorrect. If you are born here and your parents came here illegally, you're in luck! This isn't a debate
97 NIKV69 : I support them in that respect but not denying citizenship to babies born on US soil to illegals.
98 FlyPNS1 : Because they weren't elected to be our voices in Washington. They were elected to run the State government...not the federal government. Many of the
99 AirframeAS : I say it because it is my opinion. And it is also a fact that immigrating to the U.S. is a privilege, not a right. If it was a right, then passports
100 ltbewr : I see some other practical issues that this proposed law would create serious problems. It could mean many women (or the father of the child, even if
101 AirframeAS : For the record, I am not anti-abortion. Good point, however, that is not the U.S. Taxpayer's problem. That is the Illegal Alien's problem. They chose
102 ATCtower : I knew this would turn into a great debate. I do not believe anyone is fighting this belief. We all know it is unconstitutional in its current form. W
103 Post contains images AirframeAS : But they did see this problem coming one way or another.... Our Founding Fathers were a heck of a lot smarter than we thought they were.
104 Maverick623 : Slow down there, guys. The 14th Amendment was written well after the Founding Fathers passed away.
105 Aesma : I just read what that amendment was about. Just so you know, France has the same kind of law (droit du sol), others too. In Mayotte (French territory)
106 MUWarriors : I feel there needs to be a change in the Constitution regarding this matter and I think Arizona would be better off working on getting a change to the
107 AirframeAS : Agreed, however, I was also talking in General terms. Sorry if I was not clear on that. The Founding Fathers were still a heck of a lot smarter than
108 DocLightning : There's a happy medium between "jus soil" and "blood right," which is basically this: at least one of your parents must be a citizen, or must be here
109 Aesma : So you think that people cross the border risking their life because they don't want to pay taxes ? A detail about the idea of changing the law/consti
110 ltbewr : That is a good question, one that would have to addressed in a proposed Constitutional Amendmendment. According to some news reports yesterday, the U
111 Maverick623 : This actually came up in the 2008 election. John McCain was born on a military base in the Canal Zone in Panama. The current interpretation of "natur
112 AGM100 : Here is how this is going to go down I am afraid ... The Hispanic's are going to get more and more belligerent towards AZ law enforcement . It is alre
113 Post contains images WarRI1 : Let us not be dramatic, now the people of East Germany risked their lives to cross a border. I do not see 50 cal. machine guns, nor mine fields on ou
114 Aesma : The journey often does not start at the border, keep that in mind.
115 Dreadnought : Which is why when we deport people, we shouldn't just dump them on the other side of the border - because they will just try again the next day. We s
116 DocLightning : It will simply increase the risk and thus, increase the costs. If we simply make it impossible for them to earn money here or have anchor babies here
117 Dreadnought : How would it increase risk?
118 WarRI1 : Your point, brings up another. How do all these supposed poverty striken folks, afford to travel these great distances, and afford to pay for somone
119 Post contains images ATCtower : This may sound callous.... Hopefully it doesnt strike down my respect rating............. Toss em right back across the border I dont give an F where
120 Post contains links Aesma : On top of a train, it's free. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_Nombre_%282009_film%29 Even I who are French cannot do that just like that. It's not l
121 WarRI1 : Hard to take a train across an ocean, we are not just talking South America here, they are coming in from many areas across oceans. The people smuggl
122 Post contains images AirframeAS : Arizona has already had to deal with illegals shooting cops as of late. I believe in the first AZ Illegal Immigrant thread, there was a TUS or Pima C
123 AGM100 : Them shooting our guys is not the problem (for the far left) .... it will be when a officer has to shoot a illegal that we will see the real firework
124 DocLightning : I'll answer your question because I know the answer. In 2006, the fee was US$1,500 and you pay guys called "Coyotes." They bus you to south of the bo
125 stasisLAX : We're losing the things we WANT to lose - illegal aliens driving without insurance (I was the victim of this, with a totalled 3 yr old car rearended
126 Dreadnought : And that is not only in the state but nationwide. That is the biggest favor the administration has done for the GOP - there is now no question where
127 Post contains links Dreadnought : And it gets more and more clear... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpyrlX52TwA&feature=player_embedded Obama To AZ Senator – “The Problem Is…
128 Maverick623 : If Obama did actually say that, I do believe that is an impeachable offense. Willfully allowing the border to go unsecured (thereby not providing for
129 Dreadnought : I think he's racked up several impeachable offenses already. But he will not be impeached. 1) The current democratic congress won't impeach him if Ob
130 AGM100 : "Comprehensive immigration reform"..... even La Raza supports that . CIR is simply amnesty and a free pass to the ballot box for illegal's ..... now t
131 FlyPNS1 : If you don't reform our current immigration laws, any attempt to secure the border will fail.....GUARANTEED.
132 Dreadnought : And if you don't secure the border, any "Comprehensive Reform" will fail... even more GUARANTEED. When everyone was given amnesty in the 80s, did it
133 FlyPNS1 : If the illegals can't find a job, most will stop coming.....regardless of the border. I agree. It should also agressively pursue those who hire illeg
134 NIKV69 : Oh absolutely, Obama is a tough position here. If he secures the border he loses the minority vote which is looming large since his re-election chanc
135 FlyPNS1 : If there's no economic incentive, most will simply stop coming. Our border with Canada is just as porous, yet few illegally cross it. And the simple
136 Dreadnought : That is a pipe dream. The reason there is no mass migration between Canada and the US is because both countries have roughly the same standard of liv
137 FlyPNS1 : But if they can't find jobs here, the incentive is gone. We've already seen evidence of this. When the economy nosedived in 2008-09, the number of il
138 Dreadnought : There will always be jobs available, unless you are going to set up STASI-style informants on every street corner. Increase the fines for hiring ille
139 FlyPNS1 : Using that defeatist logic, then there will always be illegal immigrants since it is impossible to secure the entire border. Not to mention that if y
140 Post contains links AGM100 : As some of you know I travel from Tucson to Puerto Penasco ( Ricky Point ) Mexico quite a few times a year . It has been a vacation spot for me and my
141 Dreadnought : Sorry, but you are the one who is being defeatist. We are not talking about 100% hermetically sealed - I'd consider 95% a success. Yes, there will al
142 DocLightning : If you cannot make money here, then it doesn't matter. Now, there will always be a bit of an incentive from people who hang outside U-Hauls and sell
143 AirframeAS : And it is also said to be the murder capitol of the world. Then that is an impeachable offense. He swore to uphold and protect the Constitution and t
144 Post contains links Dreadnought : Just wait... There are strong rumors that Obama is considering granting mass amnesty to all illegals in the country - not through Congress but by exe
145 Post contains images AirframeAS : If that happens, that would then break the straw on the camels back on his Presidency, he would be finished. No 2012 for him. Then the average middle
146 NIKV69 : No way, he can't even consider this unless he has the border secured, and I mean for real. If he was stupid enough to do this once word hit Mexico it
147 avent : Good thing people aren't spreading the rumor. On the otherhand, the rightwing has wrecked the country chasing rumors of WMDs and starting unnecessary
148 avent : Oh dear! The MURDER CAPITOL OF THE WORLD no less! Just to put our minds at rest that this topic hasn't degenerated into a feeding frenzy of rightwing
149 AirframeAS : Just ask anyone who lives in the PHX area and they will tell you. I, being one of them. I lived in PHX for 5 years. And, Avent..... please, chill out
150 NIKV69 : Actually it isn't, that distinction belongs to Ciudad Juarez, look it up. Too close for comfort. PHX is the kidnapping capital. You can look that up
151 ATCtower : Why cant he? The last Democrat president did it, and screwed the country, particularly South Florida granting legal immigrant status to some 2 millio
152 Maverick623 : I've been living in the Phoenix area for nearly 15 years. I have not found a single neighborhood (even in Maryvale) that comes even close to some in
153 Post contains images AirframeAS : Really? So all those murders that you see on the PHX news daily are nothing? Okay. Ignorance is bliss. You say I have an agenda. Well, news flash for
154 DocLightning : And it's a good idea. It's distasteful, but it also is practical. THere is no way we can round them up. The other issue is that there are some who ar
155 Maverick623 : I don't get you, man. You claim to have vast, superior knowledge of what goes on here, even so far as to post this: And when someone from Phoenix act
156 Post contains links avent : Quoting avent (Reply 148): could you provide a reputable reference supporting this rightwing truthyism? Just ask anyone who lives in the PHX area and
157 NIKV69 : We went over this, it's not the murder capital but is the kidnapping capital. Which also is not a picnic. Has nothing to do with rightwingers and his
158 Post contains links Dreadnought : Correct. With 370 cases in 2008, Phoenix is now second in the world only to Mexico City. The Phoenix Police Chief says the Mexican Drug Cartels have
159 ATCtower : This whole damn debate could be settled right here. Why do we allow this? Why are we not doing everything we can as a sovergn nation to stop it? 1. It
160 Post contains links Dreadnought : And lets not forget that there is a part of Arizona parkland that is now off limits to US citizens, because of all the armed traffickers who use it as
161 Post contains links casinterest : It's gonna cost the people of Arizona a lot more than that. http://www.azcentral.com/community/p...mmigration-law-miranda-rights.html http://dailycal
162 ATCtower : Dude, you're a liberal, what do you care about spending tax dollars? Believe it or not, it is in fact illegal to drive without your license. What is w
163 casinterest : Yeah cause it is so good for taxpayers to waste money throwing someone in Jail, instead of giving them an onsite citation. I ask you to see the cost
164 avent : Then maybe the rightwing teabaggers and gun-nuts shouldn't be making it so easy to get weapons and to be able to carry them concealed without a permi
165 AirframeAS : Show me where I claimed that.... Right, you didn't say that. However, I challenge you for the next month to watch the news daily and count how many m
166 avent : I suppose I would support reform if I felt it was a pressing issue. As I see it, the issue is the laws on the books have not been enforced, and you c
167 avent : More drama. Rates of illegal immigration are declining, and both republican and democrat leaders could stop this if they really wanted to. This is an
168 casinterest : Not the way the current Arizona law is written. Reasonable doubt would involve dragging you into jail until citizenship data is found. Beauracracy wi
169 avent : Yes you are all steamed up. This president inherited two wars created by republicans, a wrecked economy caused by these same republicans, and now has
170 Post contains images Boeing1970 : So the illegal’s who are committing crimes don't bring guns with them when they hop the border illegally? Is that your view? Must be why border pat
171 avent : Armed to the hilt to deal with criminals who can easily get armed to the hilt without having to smuggle guns across the border? I suppose some illega
172 Boeing1970 : I think you know damn well (assuming you actually are from Arizona) that the illegal’s here for nefarious reasons bring the weapons with them and t
173 Post contains images Maverick623 : Under this law, No ID is reasonable suspicion to do some follow up work. Failure to ID has always been probable cause for arrest. Because: You can't
174 ATCtower : This is a healthy debate. Please do not get it locked for us by switching the subject and using inflamatory terms. All the more reason to prohibit il
175 Post contains links and images AirframeAS : Prove it. I am not typing in all caps. If I was, then I would be all steamed up and yelling in print, so I challenge you to prove it. You can't. That
176 avent : Rubbish. The sad individuals hanging around looking for day jobs are more representative of illegals than the gun toting ones you obsess over. And if
177 Boeing1970 : No one gives a rip about day workers. They aren't killing or kidnaping people. Has nothing to do with it. Your other comment is just pathetic.[Edited
178 Post contains links avent : Wrong on at least two accounts. 1. Prioritization of issues is dependent on what ones command the most attention - trwo wars and a major oil-spill ar
179 Boeing1970 : An amnesty advocacy organization? Really? The hits just keep on coming.
180 AirframeAS : But what does that have to do with the Illegal Immigration issue??????????????? You are dodging my question because you don't have an answer to it. B
181 avent : Not true: This guy is not splitting that hair, nor is who is agreeing with them. Nor is Dreadnought: So you are quite wrong here. And your refusal to
182 Boeing1970 : Apparenlty "less educated" = "illegal": "Monthly Census Bureau data show that the number of less-educated young Hispanic immigrants in the country ha
183 avent : There are limited resources for addressing pressing issues, from financial and political perspectives, therefore the President has to focus on the mo
184 Boeing1970 : They are pro-amnesty. Nuff said.
185 Post contains images AirframeAS : Understand that but what does it have to do with illegal immigration? I can answer that for you: none. Why that was brought up in this thread is beyo
186 avent : Which seems to suggest they must be discounted because they converged on a particular solution, and this reeks of bias and closed mindedness on your
187 avent : It's quite obvious you do not understand it. You are confused. Go back and re-read the post. That particular part of the discussion concerned whether
188 Post contains images AirframeAS : That is why I asked for further clarification. Oh, I have. Read reply 154...what Doc write and then read the link you provided.
189 Boeing1970 : I don't own a gun, nor do I have a "love" of them as you put it. If however I reach a point where I feel that I need one, I beleive the constitution
190 DocLightning : What's wrong with amnesty? There's no practical way to kick them out. In the short term it will cause problems but it will give the best long-term ou
191 Dreadnought : Amnesty only after you ensure you control the border. (And by amnesty, I mean, you can stay and work, but no citizenship - ever). I remind you that w
192 ATCtower : If you think amnesty is the answer, I implore you to look into the crime rates, diminished economy, and division of class in South Florida. Our count
193 Post contains links varigb707 : http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/27/reading-ranting-and-arithmetic.html
194 Post contains links Dreadnought : Instead of arguing over irrelevancies (and yes, whether there is more or less crime in high-illegal immigrant areas is irrelevant), let's get back to
195 FlyPNS1 : At the other end of the state in Pensacola, you'll find the same thing. Higher than average crime rates, diminished economy and severe division of cl
196 Post contains links casinterest : Could it be because of the neighborhoods you were in? Nah, it is much better to use racial profiling to assert your position. Just like these laws wi
197 Post contains links Dreadnought : Complete baloney. I am a conservative, and I have no trouble with amnesty as long as I know that the door to further abuses is shut. But amnesty with
198 casinterest : Which is why we should be working on the why they cross the border question, vs how do we get them back once they are here. See but you are assuming
199 Dreadnought : You mean we need to concentrate on bringing the Mexican economy up to our levels to decrease the attractiveness of illegal immigration? With what - m
200 casinterest : Sure he will. Especially if it is someone with an ax to grind against the law and it's profiling. Opportunists are everywhere. We haven't ceded it to
201 Aesma : Not backing up failed politicians might be a start (works for a lot of other countries, and we do the same in Africa). Not signing on unfair trade ag
202 Boeing1970 : Why do they need amnesty? Give them a worker visa like everyone else. If they want to become a citizen then get in line, if not, then you go home whe
203 FlyPNS1 : Do you really think the U.S. will be able to build, maintain and patrol this type of border security for over 2,500 miles? How many border patrol age
204 avent : And if they reach the conclusion impartially after reviewing the data?
205 avent : This may be true, but it does not mean that amnesty, once one has figured out how to properly manage the borders, is not a viable solution.[Edited 20
206 avent : Translation: Dreadnought doesn't like how the data shows decreasing crime where there has been sopikes in immigration...
207 avent : Translation: Kyl et al. will let the border be a mess and to pander to the rightwing in order to avoid what might be the only rational and affordable
208 Boeing1970 : Quit grasping at straws and find a better source.
209 Post contains links Slider : Nothing to worry about here, gang....we can close the thread now. Evidently, Arizona doesn't even share a border with Mexico, so it's a moot point. ht
210 Post contains links and images Dreadnought : I guess we know who she voted for... She's probably in with this lot... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
211 Post contains images AirframeAS : You don't need to physically have papers on you. That is what YOU do not get. As I have said this a million times over, the cops have laptops in thei
212 Post contains images Maverick623 : So you admit that there's nothing in the law that actually backs up your claim, other than YOU are the one implying that cops here are racist. Same t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
An Interesting Question For Those On The Right... posted Fri Apr 1 2005 23:41:04 by WhiteHatter
Yanks Vs. Red Sox: Starting Out On The Right Foot. posted Mon Mar 8 2004 14:30:18 by LHMark
UK Citizens, Would You Like To Drive On The Right? posted Wed Jul 9 2003 19:05:54 by F.pier
Will The UK Ever Drive On The Right Side? posted Sat Aug 3 2002 02:34:31 by Racko
Los Angeles Boycott's AZ Over Immigration Law posted Wed May 12 2010 16:43:58 by futurepilot16
Drew Carey Debuts On The Price Is Right posted Mon Oct 15 2007 18:48:25 by HuskyAviation
The Next Step: LSU LAW posted Fri Apr 13 2007 05:05:59 by MIA
Dear Those On The Far Left And Far Right posted Thu Sep 21 2006 01:27:14 by Falcon84
U.S. Talk Radio On The Immigration Issue posted Mon Mar 27 2006 17:44:03 by AerospaceFan
I Got On The Price Is Right Today! posted Thu Dec 6 2001 08:26:25 by SEA nw DC10