ATCtower
Topic Author
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:46 am

On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:46 pm

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.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:01 pm

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:07 pm

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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:11 pm

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 avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6018
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:31 pm

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
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:35 pm

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 avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6018
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:48 pm

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
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:07 pm

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 avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6018
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:17 pm

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
 
ATCtower
Topic Author
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:46 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:29 pm

"...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 avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6018
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:33 pm

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:56 pm

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]
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8537
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 12:14 am

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
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12390
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 12:24 am

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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 12:34 am

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
ScarletHarlot
Posts: 4251
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:15 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 12:56 am

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
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:02 am

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:07 am

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
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
ScarletHarlot
Posts: 4251
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:15 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:14 am

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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:15 am

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:19 am

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
ScarletHarlot
Posts: 4251
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:15 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:35 am

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:22 am

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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
gatorfan
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:43 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:54 am

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?
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:13 am

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
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:07 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
Hell, what about the children of one US citizen and one legal resident?

As pretty much all countries, one parent would be enough.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):

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.

And we all know how competently the federal government does its job. All this would be a non-issue if they were actually to enforce existing federal law.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8614
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:21 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
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.

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 Commerce controls the agenda for much longer with congress, that is what we will be dealing with. More states need to pass this type of law.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:51 am

Quoting gatorfan (Reply 23):

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?

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 citizen so that anyone who happens to drop out while mom has both feet on this side of the border isn't a citizen.

My question is who is going to sue AZ? I suppose the ACLU will have to, and rightly so. The law needs to be struck down. It's unconstitutional. I agree with what they're trying to do, but this is something we need to decide as a nation, not as a single state. You can't have individual states defining who is and who isn't a citizen of the whole nation. That makes no sense at all.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:58 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
My question is who is going to sue AZ? I suppose the ACLU will have to, and rightly so. The law needs to be struck down. It's unconstitutional. I agree with what they're trying to do, but this is something we need to decide as a nation, not as a single state. You can't have individual states defining who is and who isn't a citizen of the whole nation. That makes no sense at all.

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 that needs repealing - the 17th. If the states had a say through the Senate, they would not need to seek such a dramatic means to make their voices heard. The 17th amendment removed one of the checks and balances that our founders put in place.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:07 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):
And we all know how competently the federal government does its job.

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
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:12 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 29):

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.

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 long as it is politically acceptable for them to do so. That is the whole point of the exercise, including the Immigration law passed last month.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:56 am

Quoting gatorfan (Reply 23):

Do you even know what the 14th amendment is??

"Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

Do the Illegal Aliens qualify under the 14th? No, they don't.

Quoting gatorfan (Reply 23):
Do we really want a country where your fundamental rights depended on you crossing a state border?

State borders are not the problem. The NATIONAL borders are the problem, thus why Illegals break the law at the national border.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
It's unconstitutional.

Wait, which law? 14th or the AZ law 1070?
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4636
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:51 am

Quoting gatorfan (Reply 23):
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.

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 been irrelevant for a long time... and I guarantee you if that first decision were made today there would be a rebellion in the courthouse.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
You can't have individual states defining who is and who isn't a citizen of the whole nation. That makes no sense at all.

Agreed. That experiment was tried and failed twice. 1783-1791 and 1860-1865. The first one led to the peaceful writing of the Constitution, the second led to brothers shooting at each other. Let's not try it again.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 31):
Do the Illegal Aliens qualify under the 14th? No, they don't.

You obviously never bothered to read it either. All PERSONS are protected by due process. Not just citizens.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:59 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):

I agree with you,

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. Makes me feel funny.  
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 31):

Wait, which law? 14th or the AZ law 1070?

Well the 14th is an amendment and so it can't be unconstitutional, by definition. AZ1070 (if that's this law) is.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:12 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33):
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. Makes me feel funny.

Maybe you're coverting me .

Uh, no I didn't really say that...

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33):
Well the 14th is an amendment and so it can't be unconstitutional, by definition. AZ1070 (if that's this law) is.

Actually I believe this is a different AZ law from 1070.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
goldenstate
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:24 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:29 pm

The proposed law is unconstitutional and would never see the light of day if it was enacted. Next topic.
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:29 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33):
AZ1070 (if that's this law) is.

Keep in mind, that is a STATE law, not a Federal law. And with that in mind, how is (1070) that unconstitutional?

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 32):
You obviously never bothered to read it either. All PERSONS are protected by due process. Not just citizens.

I've read 1070. And yes, it applies to EVERYBODY..... We covered that in this thread where it was beaten to death more than it should have - in these other threads....

Famous Duo Boycott AZ (by varigb707 Jun 8 2010 in Non Aviation)
US Rep Linda Sanchez Gets Ugly With AZ Law (by PSA53 Jun 4 2010 in Non Aviation)
Obama Says No To Securing The Border (by NIKV69 May 25 2010 in Non Aviation)
McClintock's Response To Calderon (by captaink May 30 2010 in Non Aviation)

And there is like two more on the Arizona Immigration issue. I think we have covered it quite extensively and have beaten a dead horse with a stick....to the bone.

I know where I stand and that is immigrants have no rights in this country if they jump the fence. Those who jumped the fence - to me - is a criminal at best and should be deported immediately. They don't pay taxes, they don't actually contribute to society.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:25 pm

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 36):

Keep in mind, that is a STATE law, not a Federal law. And with that in mind, how is (1070) that unconstitutional?

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 must be here legally. It also specifically puts a restriction on the states that no state may pass a law abridging the rights of the citizens.

If you are a citizen, you have a right to documentation proving that.

Illegal aliens receive no consideration under this amendment, but if their children are born on US soil, then their children are, by the 14th amendment, citizens and no state may say otherwise.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:29 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
Because it violates the 14th amendment.

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 services that was never designed for them? Am I correct on that assumption??

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
but if their children are born on US soil, then their children are, by the 14th amendment, citizens and no state may say otherwise.

That needs to change. And that change is needed badly. If we change that, then our social services would not be so washed and drained up by these folks who came illegally.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6018
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:55 pm

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 broad spectrum of American feel about this issue.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
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 must be here legally. It also specifically puts a restriction on the states that no state may pass a law abridging the rights of the citizens.

If you are a citizen, you have a right to documentation proving that.

Illegal aliens receive no consideration under this amendment, but if their children are born on US soil, then their children are, by the 14th amendment, citizens and no state may say otherwise.

So here's my question then, what are the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, " in the amendment for? What do they mean? To me they are acting as a qualifier on whether someone born in the USA is a citizen or not, though currently it appears that there is no qualifier being considered. I mean you are either in the USA or not (regardless of what is "the USA" embassy, military base, etc.) so why is there the wording "[b]and[/] subject to the jurisdiction thereof")?

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4636
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:10 pm

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 38):
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 services that was never designed for them? Am I correct on that assumption??

He answered that already, to the shock of many here:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
Quoting tugger (Reply 39):
subject to the jurisdiction thereof

For example; if a foreign army were to have a couple conceive and bear a child in a foreign-occupied area of the US, that child would technically be in the US (as far as the US was concerned), but not subject to its jurisdiction. It would theoretically also apply to foreign embassies and the UN complex, although I don't think that's ever been an issue.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:24 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 40):
He answered that already, to the shock of many here:

He says one thing in reply 14. Then he seems to have said the exact opposite on reply 37.   
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8614
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:19 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 39):
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 broad spectrum of American feel about this issue.

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 politcal stripe you have gets my support for advocating the same. Illegal is Illegal, I do not give a hoot where you are from. Obama is pissing me off on this issue.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:24 pm

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 42):
I support stopping them, throwing them out and anyone, no matter what politcal stripe you have gets my support for advocating the same. Illegal is Illegal, I do not give a hoot where you are from.

I'm with you, sir. I am with you!

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 42):
Obama is pissing me off on this issue.

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 chances for re-election..... health care and now the illegal immigration issue. Personally, I hope someone else will be U.S. President on January 20, 2013.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:34 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
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.

I couldnt agree with you more...this should be the basement...I'd even take a visa waiver case.
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:17 am

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 43):
have killed his chances for re-election

So this is it huh? in 2004 was the "sanctity of marriage" and "family values".. in 2010 "immigration" will be the battle cry.
Step into my office, baby
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4636
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:22 am

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 41):
He says one thing in reply 14. Then he seems to have said the exact opposite on reply 37.

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 while it is in force. Any law that violates any provision of that amendment MUST be struck down, whether we agree with it or not. We cannot just pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to enforce (even though it's happened with the 14th). If you think things are bad now with warrantless wiretaps and such, you ain't seen nothing when we ignore the very document that allows us to express our displeasure with what's happening.

With that in mind, it is perfectly ok to say that it should be repealed. Let it go through the proper processes (creating another amendment to modify or outright repeal the 14th). After it's been changed, then we can fight for laws that don't conflict with it.

Until that day though, it must remain in effect.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
ATCtower
Topic Author
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:46 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:54 pm

Wow... I disappeared for a couple days and look where it all went! Great discussion all..

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?

Uh, yeah... I would be contradicting myself and a hypocrite if I say its ok for "green card holders" to be yet another anchor baby loophole. Close all of the loopholes and only allow children of citizens citizenship.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
We are a land of immigrants and I want to encourage LEGAL immigration. I want to discourage ILLEGAL immigration.

I could not agree more with this statement, but I would like to add one thing..... Citizenship papers should ONLY be printed in English.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
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.

Except in the instances where the federal government is too incompetent to recognize a problem, much less correct one.

Quoting goldenstate (Reply 35):
The proposed law is unconstitutional and would never see the light of day if it was enacted. Next topic.

The same could be said for prohibition 80 years ago... Progression also means change. Change is a fundamental requirement for a thriving society. Taking that mentality is no different from saying we should all own slaves because they did 250 years ago. A healthy society must progress.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 46):
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 while it is in force. Any law that violates any provision of that amendment MUST be struck down, whether we agree with it or not. We cannot just pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to enforce (even though it's happened with the 14th). If you think things are bad now with warrantless wiretaps and such, you ain't seen nothing when we ignore the very document that allows us to express our displeasure with what's happening.

With that in mind, it is perfectly ok to say that it should be repealed. Let it go through the proper processes (creating another amendment to modify or outright repeal the 14th). After it's been changed, then we can fight for laws that don't conflict with it.

Until that day though, it must remain in effect.

And unfortunately the law will be struck down after spending millions upon millions on litigation and presentation in the legal system. We all know the law is for the better and to improve the sanctity of our great nation, but because of something written a couple hundred years ago without the knowledge certain loopholes would be used by those breaking the law to benefit themselves while screwing the rest of us, we must abide by it. I agree if it is written in the constitution, it has a place in America/American History. As a progressive society we must alter/repeal/amend our laws to ensure they are up to date with societal alterations.

My $.02
By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
 
ScarletHarlot
Posts: 4251
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:15 pm

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:06 pm

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 47):
We all know the law is for the better and to improve the sanctity of our great nation

No, we don't "all" know this.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 47):
Close all of the loopholes and only allow children of citizens citizenship

Seriously you'd deny citizenship to children born in the US to legal permanent residents of the US?
But that was when I ruled the world
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5367
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: On The Right Path: Next AZ Immigration Law

Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:23 pm

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 47):
Uh, yeah... I would be contradicting myself and a hypocrite if I say its ok for "green card holders" to be yet another anchor baby loophole. Close all of the loopholes and only allow children of citizens citizenship.

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 needs to be a time limit. Perhaps 3 or 5 years. The Green card holders are brought in and are on a fairly straight path to Citizenship should they choose that route. Green card holders are low risk because they are here legally by the immigration office. The 14th amendement was created to help those that were brought to the US undocumented and against their will. It is a bit outdated. Illegal is Illegal, and no child should get citizenship on that basis.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 47):
I could not agree more with this statement, but I would like to add one thing..... Citizenship papers should ONLY be printed in English.

The only there indciates an official language. We don't have one. Usually though Citizenship docs are in English. THe supporting docs are in languages others can read.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 47):
The same could be said for prohibition 80 years ago... Progression also means change. Change is a fundamental requirement for a thriving society. Taking that mentality is no different from saying we should all own slaves because they did 250 years ago. A healthy society must progress.

We need to progress,,,,yes,, but goldenstate and everyone else is right. The law is unconstitutional and will fail. The correct handling needs to be at the federal level for a new amendment that supercedes the 14th.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests