F*ck Arizona Part II
fishmongerfunk
4,154 Posts
Ariz. lawmaker takes aim at automatic citizenship
By MICHELLE PRICE (AP) ??? 8 hours ago
PHOENIX ??? Emboldened by passage of the nation's toughest law against illegal immigration, the Arizona politician who sponsored the measure now wants to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to undocumented parents.
Legal scholars laugh out loud at Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce's proposal and warn that it would be blatantly unconstitutional, since the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.
But Pearce brushes aside such concerns. And given the charged political atmosphere in Arizona, and public anger over what many regard as a failure by the federal government to secure the border, some politicians think the idea has a chance of passage.
"I think the time is right," said state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican from suburban Phoenix who is chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. "Federal inaction is unacceptable, so the states have to start the process."
Earlier this year, the Legislature set off a storm of protests around the country when it passed a law that directs police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. The law also makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant. The measure, which takes effect July 29 unless blocked in court, has inflamed the national debate over immigration and led to boycotts against the state.
An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. as of January 2009, according to the Homeland Security Department. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as of 2008, there were 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country whose children are U.S. citizens.
Pearce, who has yet to draft the legislation, proposes that the state of Arizona no longer issue birth certificates unless at least one parent can prove legal status. He contends that the practice of granting citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. encourages illegal immigrants to come to this country to give birth and secure full rights for their children.
"We create the greatest inducement for breaking our laws," he said.
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, reads: "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." But Pearce argues that the amendment was meant to protect black people.
"It's been hijacked and abused," he said. "There is no provision in the 14th Amendment for the declaration of citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens."
John McGinnis, a conservative law professor at Northwestern University, said Pearce's interpretation is "just completely wrong." The "plain meaning" of the amendment is clear, he said.
Senate candidate Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and darling of the tea party movement, made headlines last month after he told a Russian TV station that he favors denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
A similar bill was introduced at the federal level in 2009 by former Rep. Nathan Deal, a Georgia Republican, but it has gone nowhere.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform, based in Washington, said Pearce's idea would stop immigrants from traveling to the U.S. to give birth.
"Essentially we are talking about people who have absolutely no connection whatever with this country," spokesman Ira Mehlman said. "The whole idea of citizenship means that you have some connection other than mere happenstance that you were born on U.S. soil."
Citizenship as a birthright is rare elsewhere in the world. Many countries require at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident.
Adopting such a practice in the U.S. would be not only unconstitutional but also impractical and expensive, said Michele Waslin, a policy analyst with the pro-immigrant Immigration Policy Center in Washington.
"Every single parent who has a child would have to go through this bureaucratic process of proving their own citizenship and therefore proving their child's citizenship," she said.
Araceli Viveros, 27, and her husband, Saul, 34, are illegal immigrants from the Mexican state of Guerrero. He has been in Phoenix for 20 years, she for 10, and their 2- and 9-year-old children are U.S. citizens.
"I am so proud my children were born here. They can learn English and keep studying," Viveros said in Spanish.
She said her husband has been working hard in Phoenix as a landscaper, and their children deserve to be citizens. The lawmaker's proposal "is very bad," she said. "It's changing the Constitution, and some children won't have the same rights as other children."
Associated Press writers Jacques Billeaud and Amanda Lee Myers contributed to this report.
Copyright ?? 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
By MICHELLE PRICE (AP) ??? 8 hours ago
PHOENIX ??? Emboldened by passage of the nation's toughest law against illegal immigration, the Arizona politician who sponsored the measure now wants to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to undocumented parents.
Legal scholars laugh out loud at Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce's proposal and warn that it would be blatantly unconstitutional, since the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.
But Pearce brushes aside such concerns. And given the charged political atmosphere in Arizona, and public anger over what many regard as a failure by the federal government to secure the border, some politicians think the idea has a chance of passage.
"I think the time is right," said state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican from suburban Phoenix who is chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. "Federal inaction is unacceptable, so the states have to start the process."
Earlier this year, the Legislature set off a storm of protests around the country when it passed a law that directs police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. The law also makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant. The measure, which takes effect July 29 unless blocked in court, has inflamed the national debate over immigration and led to boycotts against the state.
An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. as of January 2009, according to the Homeland Security Department. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as of 2008, there were 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country whose children are U.S. citizens.
Pearce, who has yet to draft the legislation, proposes that the state of Arizona no longer issue birth certificates unless at least one parent can prove legal status. He contends that the practice of granting citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. encourages illegal immigrants to come to this country to give birth and secure full rights for their children.
"We create the greatest inducement for breaking our laws," he said.
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, reads: "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." But Pearce argues that the amendment was meant to protect black people.
"It's been hijacked and abused," he said. "There is no provision in the 14th Amendment for the declaration of citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens."
John McGinnis, a conservative law professor at Northwestern University, said Pearce's interpretation is "just completely wrong." The "plain meaning" of the amendment is clear, he said.
Senate candidate Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and darling of the tea party movement, made headlines last month after he told a Russian TV station that he favors denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
A similar bill was introduced at the federal level in 2009 by former Rep. Nathan Deal, a Georgia Republican, but it has gone nowhere.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform, based in Washington, said Pearce's idea would stop immigrants from traveling to the U.S. to give birth.
"Essentially we are talking about people who have absolutely no connection whatever with this country," spokesman Ira Mehlman said. "The whole idea of citizenship means that you have some connection other than mere happenstance that you were born on U.S. soil."
Citizenship as a birthright is rare elsewhere in the world. Many countries require at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident.
Adopting such a practice in the U.S. would be not only unconstitutional but also impractical and expensive, said Michele Waslin, a policy analyst with the pro-immigrant Immigration Policy Center in Washington.
"Every single parent who has a child would have to go through this bureaucratic process of proving their own citizenship and therefore proving their child's citizenship," she said.
Araceli Viveros, 27, and her husband, Saul, 34, are illegal immigrants from the Mexican state of Guerrero. He has been in Phoenix for 20 years, she for 10, and their 2- and 9-year-old children are U.S. citizens.
"I am so proud my children were born here. They can learn English and keep studying," Viveros said in Spanish.
She said her husband has been working hard in Phoenix as a landscaper, and their children deserve to be citizens. The lawmaker's proposal "is very bad," she said. "It's changing the Constitution, and some children won't have the same rights as other children."
Associated Press writers Jacques Billeaud and Amanda Lee Myers contributed to this report.
Copyright ?? 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Comments
the point is that it has gotten to the point for racist and nativisits where they think they finally have attained the conditions on the ground to make the impossible happen. to me, it is simply a barometer of the hate going on.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-foreign-workers-20100802,0,6695058.story
b/w
5-PAGER (at least)
So long as no one calls the Israelis "c****," then 5 pages is a lock.
If not, then the thread will be a lock.
I don't see how anyone pretends that this isn't a calculated move to inflame racial ill will for political ends.
b/w
It's one thing to argue for the deportation of illegal immigrant children (which is exactly what activists in the U.S. are pushing for) but it's incredible - if not unconscionable - that you could try to enforce this on the children of legal residents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Interesting stuff here.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/01/palin-brewer-has-the-cojones-that-obama-does-not/?fbid=K-BFEYZLIjD
PHOENIX - He's been at the center of the discussions and controversies surrounding illegal immigration enforcement in Arizona for quite a while.
On the day parts of Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070, went into effect, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is in the news for another reason: there's a price on his head - allegedly offered by a Mexican drug cartel.
The audio message in Spanish is a bit garbled, but the text is clear.
"It's offering a million dollars for Sheriff Joe Arpaio's head and offering a thousand dollars for anyone who wants to join the Mexican cartel."
A man who wants to remain anonymous says his wife received the text message Tuesday evening. It also included an international phone number and instructions to pass the message along.
"She showed it to me..I was kind of disgusted..I reported it to the Sheriff's department yesterday..they said they were going to direct the threat squad on it."
Lisa Allen of the Sheriff's office says they believe the message originated in Mexico.
Although the Sheriff has received numerous death threats in the past, they believe this threat is credible because of its timing.
"Arpaio gets threats pretty routinely, but obviously with this heightened awareness of his role in the immigration issue we've got to take this one a little bit more seriously with a million dollar contract out on him," said Allen.
But she says what really concerns investigators is how quickly the message may have been spread. "It's going so many different places that our folks are looking at it and thinking well at any given point in time it could land in front of some crazy person who thinks I can do that."
As for Arpaio's reaction to the threat, "It's a little bit like water off a duck's back for him, but you never know if it's that sense of false bravado with him..you just can't read it, I'm sure he's concerned, I'm sure he's concerned for his family more than anything else," said Allen.
The Sheriff's office says investigators are trying to trace exactly where the text message came from, but because it did originate from an international number, that will be difficult too.
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/mexican-drug-cartel-sheriff-arpaio-07292010
The reality is that the current administration is on a pace to deport 400,000 people this year, which is more than were deported in any year of the previous administration.
The sort of disinformation you're repeating (like a trained f*cking seal) is just more proof that all of this illegal immigration crap is just the right's way of ginning up more hate and craziness.
We do have a process in this country for the allowance of LEGAL alien work visas and acquisition of US citizenship, folks. Learn it, live it, love it.
We deport the parents of children who were born here everyday.
Furthermore, illegal boarder crossings are way down from when Bush was in office. The southern boarder has never been more secure than under Obama.
You need a different more sophisticated argument.
Try this one; Republicans are using race hatred and fear of foreigners to motivate their base for crass political reasons.
Really? So it is not the reams of felonies commited by illegal aliens in this country, nor the unsustainable economic implications of abuse and bankruptcy of state and federal (ie: taxpayer) funded social services that are an issue for us Republicans, but it is rather that, according to you, we hate "darkies"?
Yeah, that's nothing new.
I'm quite amazed the Supreme Court hasn't had to clarify its ruling from the 19th century (US vs. Wong Kim Ark) to clarify if the 14th Amendment still applies to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
BTW, I don't see Congress doing anything to change this; it'd require a constitutional amendment and I don't think there's remotely enough political momentum to see that happening. I could see the Supreme Court, however, weighing in on this and thus amending their previous ruling on who the 14th Amendment applies to.
What's the economic support for this claim? First of all, which social service budgets (state or federal) are going bankrupt and in those cases, what % of their shortfalls can be accurately attributed to illegal immigration? And in how many of those states have taxes been lowered during the corresponding period of illegal immigration impact?
Serious questions. It's hard to find any consensus around data analysis for these questions though, in general, it's hard to trust anything coming from CIS or FAIR.
There is no statistical data to support any of your claims.
Thus a different reason must exist.
lf you have a more probable one l will listen.
"B-b-b-but, I heard them illegal Mexicans be kidnappin and beheading all of these helpless Arizonians. "
http://gawker.com/5583581/no-illegal-immigrants-do-not-kidnap-and-behead-everyone-in-arizona
The claim of no existing statistical data on illegal alien costs to US taxpaying citizens is nonsense.
Here is one quick link before I head out the door: http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000783
Thank you for the illuminating link.
l don't think any one is saying that there are no costs involved in housing and deporting incarcerated illegal aliens. That there is a cost is a far cry fro your claim that; "reams of felonies commited by illegal aliens in this country, nor the unsustainable economic implications of abuse and bankruptcy of state and federal (ie: taxpayer) funded social services that are an issue"
The only thing your link proves is that when the Republicans controlled the congress and White House they were inept and corrupt.
Please explain to us how ASB 1070 would lower any of these costs.
You really should read a little deeper than the headline:
The chart is misleading for at least two reasons:
* It shows fiscal years. A U.S. government fiscal year begins on October 1 of the year before. As David Frum points out here: One-third of fiscal 2009 was presided over by the Bush administration. As the Obama administration got itself fully in charge, however, enforcement has drooped away, reports the Washington Post on March 10 of 2010. The WaPo report is here.
* The figure for 2010 is a projection and based on the same deportations memo discussed in the WaPo article and which the Department of Homeland Security said was "inconsistent with the administration's point of view". The last bar of that chart is based on a projection from a memo that the DHS doesn't support.
Those spreading the misleading chart include:
* America's Voice, see the link above.
* Dan Froomkin at the Huffington Post: huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/
little-girl-who-challenge_n_583432.html
* Andrea Nill of ThinkProgress:
thinkprogress.org/2010/05/23/bill-kristol-arizona
And the reason nobody is crossing the border is because this administration has ensured that the US economy will be in the shitter for the next few years, so there is no point in coming here looking for work.
Now go balance a ball on your nose and play some horns with your fins.
As you say no one s crossing the boarder.
Now explain the need for and your support for asb 1070.
I wanna know how you understand ASB 1070 but don't know it's our Border??
Although "Boarder" is some serious Freudian shit.
Not sure what you are saying.
damn pesky facts interrupting your narrative.