Arizona SB 1070. The "Illegal Immigrant law"

[Darth Avlectus]

From what I understand, they are not challenging the constitutionality of the immigration portion so much as state enforcing federal law. It's all a dog and pony show. Obama probably knows that it won't hold water. I think he just wants to show that he "cares" for the little guy.

Yeah. That would be consistent with what his supporters are looking to benefit from. More illegals is more clout, and more clout means more votes from people who think you're just trying to help them.

 

Either that or he's hoping that with state budgets already strained, we'll cave simply to avoid the cost of a legal battle. If he really believes that, then he didn't spend enough time listening to Jan Brewer. her commitment to AZ would make Ahab say, "Oh come on, that's obsessive!"

Yeah that seems to resonate with what I'm seeing thus far. Red tape is always ugly. But sometimes the looming danger of being pushed into it isn't enough to convince the opposition to just give up. However, I do believe what this tactic will achieve is giving enough stalling time for the administration to pull some other trick out of their hat or to gather support elsewhere.

 

Is this the kind of "change" Obama wants? Now not only are you not enforcing immigration, but now you're actively fighting someone willing to do something about it?

I'm thinking, yeah.

 

California: They of all places should understand. But they've taken the partisan route. Because Obama derides it, they automatically dislike it.

Businesses, small or large, private or state all are using illegals. Big names like Pelosi and Boxer.

 

With arrogant ****tards like Pete Stark, nobody of opposition can get a word in without getting verbally abused. (I'd like to see him mouth off to Bill Goldberg like that--in a glass factory. O' irony. , that or Kane "Hello Pete!!!")

 

But then maybe it's because they have the largest contingent of border patrol. and a large canal right near the border. Or maybe it's because their illegal population is so high that they actually influence politics there.

Bingo.

 

I am by no means saying that other states don't have an immigration problem. Just that ours specifically needed to do something. Of course now that we have, other states are looking at doing the same. Mostly along party lines though.

 

Unfortunately AZ and TX are the only ones that support border security while CA largely opposes it, and NM is somewhat iffy on it though I can't imagine them looking too favorably on it if they once had people like the corrupt Bill Richardson in office.

 

@GTA Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. I didn't want it to come off as condemning Obama specifically. The reality is that while we as citizens recognize the problems of illegal immigration, Those in Washington DC with the power to act have chosen to turn this into a pure partisan issue.

Oh I didn't think you were, I was responding to the posts above mine, but yes, this and almost every Democrat administration has had CA close behind as a cheer leader. At least since "H" Bush.

 

Most states are taking sides on the issue almost purely along party lines. And DC it's almost perfectly divided along party lines. With only the Democratic Congresspersons from AZ breaking ranks(as far as I've seen).

 

And a lot of Liberal CA Republicans breaking ranks opposite.

[JediAthos]

In a related story some senators want to review the 14th amendment:

 

Leading Republicans are joining a push to reconsider the constitutional amendment that grants automatic citizenship to people born in the United States.

 

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Tuesday he supports holding hearings on the 14th Amendment right, although he emphasized that Washington's immigration focus should remain on border security.

 

His comments came as other Republicans in recent days have questioned or challenged birthright citizenship, embracing a cause that had largely been confined to the far right.

 

The senators include Arizona's John McCain, the party's 2008 presidential nominee; Arizona's Jon Kyl, the Republicans' second-ranking senator; Alabama's Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading negotiator on immigration legislation.

 

"I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen," Sessions said.

 

Legal experts say repealing the citizenship right can be done only through constitutional amendment, which would require approval by two-thirds majorities in both chambers of Congress and by three-fourths of the states. Legislation to amend the right, introduced previously in the House, has stalled.

 

The proposals are sure to appeal to conservative voters as immigration so far is playing a central role in November's elections. They also could carry risks by alienating Hispanic voters and alarming moderates who could view constitutional challenges as extreme. Hispanics have become the largest minority group in the United States, and many are highly driven by the illegal immigrant debate.

 

McConnell and McCain seemed to recognize the risk by offering guarded statements Tuesday.

 

McCain, who faces a challenge from the right in his re-election bid, said he supports reviewing citizenship rights. He emphasized, however, that amending the Constitution is a serious matter.

 

"I believe that the Constitution is a strong, complete and carefully crafted document that has successfully governed our nation for centuries and any proposal to amend the Constitution should receive extensive and thoughtful consideration," he said.

 

At a news conference, McConnell refused to endorse Graham's suggestion that citizenship rights be repealed for children of illegal immigrants. While refusing to take questions, he suggested instead that he would look narrowly into reports of businesses that help immigrants arrange to have babies in the United States in order to win their children U.S. citizenship.

 

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," including recently freed slaves.

 

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100803/ap_on_go_co/us_republicans_birthright_citizenship

 

Thoughts on this? Good idea? I think it might be...but I think it might be hard to get it repealed given the requirements for doing so.

[Tommycat]

Well it is a major problem. That tends to be where a lot of illegal aliens abuse the system. They have an "anchor baby" and then use that child to get on AHCCCS(Arizona's Medical), draw welfare, and other services usually reserved for needy citizens. They can live off those services and abuse the system.

 

Interestingly, I read recently in the Arizona Republic(don't let the name fool ya, they're the mouthpiece for the Democratic party) that better than 70% of AZ murder warrants are for illegal immigrants.

[JediAthos]

I trust statistics reported by any "news" agency in this country about as far as I can throw them Perhaps the amendment doesn't need to be repealed, but rather amended to say that any child born in the country to a citizen or legal immigrant (i.e. someone who has their green card or is naturalized) is automatically a citizen.

 

I don't know...the article says that legislation to amend the right has stalled, but it seems like if they really wanted to stem the tide a bit this might be the way to do it.

[Totenkopf]

..Perhaps the amendment doesn't need to be repealed, but rather amended to say that any child born in the country to a citizen or legal immigrant (i.e. someone who has their green card or is naturalized) is automatically a citizen.

 

I don't know...the article says that legislation to amend the right has stalled, but it seems like if they really wanted to stem the tide a bit this might be the way to do it.

 

That would seem emminently reasonable. Or even just having Congress make laws that make anchor babies illegal. IIRC the 14th was primarily included in 1868 to protect the newly freed slaves that had been in the US for generations.

[Tommycat]

Actually it just needs to be challenged. I mean Foreign dignitaries and other foreign nationals are subject to the laws of their home country and therefore fail to meet the second requirement of the citizenship. It has loosely been interpreted as "if you're born here you're a citizen." However as the parents of illegals are not subject to the same laws as those of US citizens this could be interpreted the same way as with foreign ambassadors. Honestly this makes more sense than even 1070 does.

 

Speaking of which... Yes, I know the Federal judge ruled against parts of 1070, but even if she hadn't did anyone really believe this wasn't going to the supreme court?

 

And as for the statistics, well whether true or not, it was put out when Janet Napolitano was the governor, and Bush was the pres. It was when she was trying to get the fed to pay us back...

[Ping]

I trust statistics reported by any "news" agency in this country about as far as I can throw them Perhaps the amendment doesn't need to be repealed, but rather amended to say that any child born in the country to a citizen or legal immigrant (i.e. someone who has their green card or is naturalized) is automatically a citizen.

 

I don't know...the article says that legislation to amend the right has stalled, but it seems like if they really wanted to stem the tide a bit this might be the way to do it.

 

If it is changed, I hope it comes to the above. My mother happens to be a legal immigrant, and it wouldn't really be fair to me if I lost my citizenship just because I have one immigrant parent.

 

Then again, Lou Dobbs is even saying that a repeal isn't needed...

[Q]

Yeah, the amendment needs to be amended () so that only children born to citizens or legal immigrants get automatic citizenship.

 

EDIT: I think that it would still be reasonable to go so far as to require that at least one of the parents be a citizen.

[Tommycat]

Please note that I do not want the 14th amendment repealed(and neither do the Republicans in congress, despite how it's being presented), but rather re-interpreted. Again I note that under the 14th amendment you are not granted automatic citizenship if you are born to parents who are foreign ambassadors. There are TWO parts stated in the 14th amendment section 1(the only section that deals with citizenship)

 

for reference the 14th amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

 

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

Repealing all of it will not happen. Though we could have another amendment that repeals section 1 and replaces it with a better worded version, however Republicans in AZ are arguing that section 1 need only be interpreted in that as the parents of illegal immigrants are ambassadors of their home country they are not subject to US jurisdiction.