Has Arizona gone too far this time?

Next up: concentration camps for illegal aliens, complete with gas/showers.
The right is big on saying the current administration is like Hitler’s Germany, but the truth is Obama isn’t at all like Hitler, and Arizona comes very close.

@Dr_Dredd You are correct. It is too far.

@filmfann, um, you just lost whatever argument you’re making.

Arizona, for all its problems, of which it has many, doesn’t come close to genocide or causing world wars. You’re being just as hyperbolic as the right.

It would appear they have decided they are not bound by the US Constitution. Nice…

How can we possibly make a comment, until we have actually read the bill?

Seems like they are trying to use the wave of public xenophobia to get as many of those extremist laws through as possible, betting on people not submitting a case to the SC.
If someone does, I bet their defence will have something to do with the interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

They are just grandstanding in an election year, kow-towing to the right.

Well, I’m sure they’ll find some way to justify it, but I also don’t think this would fly very well considering the Constitution reigns supreme. We’ll see when the bill comes out, but at this point, I don’t think the children should be “punished” for what their parents decided to do when they came over here and had them. Besides, they could always leave Arizona and go to a bordering state; they’ve already took the big risk by up and moving to this country.

@john65pennington He hasn’t released the text, only stating that “We’ll write it right.”

@john65pennington, I seem to remember you venting many an opinion on the HCR bill before you read it.

I don’t think they have gone too far. I respect Arizona for having the balls to do something about the problem. I wish all the border states would do EXACTLY the same thing. I think the Anchor Baby issue is central to the problem and absolutely needs to be challenged – including amendment to the constitution if needed. The founding fathers created a dynamic system for a reason.

When the US has the same kinds of language/succession problems as Canada with Quebec, and there is blood in the streets, I hope Liberals realize they are wholly responsible, and take their rightful share of the blows from the overwhelming hordes, who actually hate you Liberals more than you might imagine.

That’s what I think.

(edit – hehehe – as 8 people begin to respond.!)

Its called, throwing it on the wall and seeing what sticks.

I’ve never been to Canada, so maybe some of our Jellies from the North could check in on this issue – but I’ve never heard of “blood in the streets” over Quebec. I’ve heard there is a group of Quebecois that would rather secede, but that’s as likely to happen as Scotland seceding from the UK. Perhaps less so.

Qingu, be nice.

It will never happen. Children of people who came to America illegally are in our military and law enforcement. They are in colleges and working in high paying jobs. I can’t wait to see the look on my ex-boyfriends face when they tell him that his 4 years of active duty and 10 years of reserve duty means nothing and he is forced back to Guatemala, a place he hasn’t been since he was 5 years old.

People are gross.

I’ll probably get a lot a grief for this, but I always thought that the whole “anchor baby” thing was a way for people to avoid doing things the legal way. As a nurse, I’ve met mother’s that came to the US just in time to have their baby. They don’t get any prenatal care here and then show up at the hospital when they are in labor. Because hospitals cannot turn away someone in labor, they get treated and the baby gets taken care of. Then, once the baby is born, the baby is entitled to benefits from the state and the parents end up getting benefits as well since they are allowed to stay with their children. It just seems like a loophole in the system that people have learned to take advantage of.

What they are doing does go against the Constitution (in my opinion), but from what I’ve read, they are stating that with the way they interpret the constitution, it was never meant to apply to illegal immigrants. It will go to the supreme court and it will all become a matter of interpretation of the Constitution.

@ipso, what you say makes sense. Mexican immigrants are basically like the Uruk-hai. And they hate us because we’re free.

Bringing up the Quebec situation is also relevant, because of all the illegal immigrants involved there.

@tinyfaery Joining the military is actually a way to be granted citizenship as well, so it would never be said to count for nothing.

Even if Arizona did manage to get this passed and through the Supreme Court, I doubt they could take someone’s citizenship away that already had it.

Uh, no. He was not granted citizenship. Bzzt. Try again.

@john65pennington, I am being nice. I’d appreciate it if you would at least attempt to be consistent and intellectually honest with your positions.

@tinyfaery I’m not saying your boyfriend was granted citizenship, I’m saying that military service is a way for someone to be granted citizenship.

No it’s not. They still have to jump through all the hoops others do.

@tinyfaery Not exactly. Members of the military are not charged fees for filing for naturalization or for their certificate of citizenship. And if they served in the war time (since September 11th), they are eligible to file for immediate citizenship. They may have to do the paperwork like everyone else, but it’s not the same (especially the immediate citizenship part when there are people that are on waiting lists for years).

Why are we working so hard to prevent people from gaining citizenship? It’s not as if these anchor babies live as illegal aliens for their entire life; they’re citizens just like everyone else.

As I was given to understand it, “anchor” babies were not the reason for the original bill, nor was it the illegal immigrants who were here and working for ungodly low wages. it was the drug cartels and the thugs they hire who were causing really big problems. I saw on the news that an entire town was forced to leave and turn it over to these criminals. Apparently there are people being kidnapped in broad daylight and people are afraid to leave their homes.
People whining about the workers being snatched up seem totally oblivious to this problem, but as far as I can tell the fear that everyday illegals would be taken is not happening, not will it. The police are not interested in them, they want the thugs with guns and drugs.

I’ve always thought that the anchor baby thing was an abuse of the law.

As i understand it, the states that are on the border have hospitals that are struggling financially because of all the illegals that come and utilize their services, give no ID’s or fake ID’s and get away with not paying the bill and they are unable to be tracked down, leaving the hospital with the financial burden. Pregnant women can come here and get Medicaid, it’s given under the name of the “unborn” so it allows for prenatal care and the childbirth. then the babies get WIC, which gives the family milk, formula, juice, eggs, etc. Paid for by you know who – the rest of us.

@Nullo It’s not a law. It is the Constitution. Arizona can’t pass state laws that set aside the US Constitution. If enough people think anchor babies are a problem, then the right way to address it is amend the Constitution.

@ETpro The Constitution is a legal document, no? In any case, “anchor babies” are an abuse. The intent was most certainly not to provide a loophole for those who would immigrate illegally.
Just like screaming death threats is an abuse of the First Amendment.

@Nullo

Being born is not immigrating.

@Ivan Mayhaps you’re unfamiliar with how anchor babies work.
A couple immigrates illegally. They have a kid Stateside, who is Constitutionally an American citizen. Thus they are permitted to stay. It is an abuse of Constitutional law. A loophole.

@Nullo The Constitution is what it is. You can’t be a strict interpretationist only when it suits you. If enough people think the current situation is a problem, then we can amend the Constitution. But again, till it is amended, the Constitution can’t be contravened by state law. THe Arizona law will be found unconstitutional.

@ETpro Perhaps you haven’t noticed that I have not even once passed judgment on the Arizona law?

The 14th Amendment states, “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.” I believe they are interpreting the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” part of the amendment in a way that says illegal immigrants aren’t completely subject to our jurisdiction and therefore their children wouldn’t be either. I could be wrong though since I’ve only read a little bit about this possible new bill.

I don’t think the Constitution should be treated as this immutable moral stricture; we have, rightfully, changed the Constitution a lot since it was first written. Clearly there are things allowed in the original Constitution that have no place in modern society, like slavery.

I agree that coming to America just to have an “anchor baby” is an abuse of the system. However, I’d like to see some statistics as to how often this happens. And I also think it’s important to understand what motivates this behavior, and who exactly it’s harming. It’s pretty clear to me that a lot of the talk about illegal immigrants and anchor babies is just ridiculous fear-mongering, much like the “war on drugs.”

Maybe that’s how he got the name “Nullo”? He would prefer to Nullify the Constitution rather than to have an extra brown person in the country?

@Seaofclouds That’s interesting. It could backfire, though. If illegal immigrants are “not subject to our jurisdiction,” then they don’t have to obey any laws at all, including the ones against illegal immigration…

I completely agree @Dr_Dredd. I’m really interested to see if anything does come from this. There have been numerous individual cases about citizenship that have questioned the 14th amendments wording, but non have dealt with illegal immigrants yet.

@dpworkin Rude and uncultured! I would hope that by now you’d have learned that I do not care about your melanin count. What I care about is that people follow the rules.

I can only do so much to address your ignorance, but I must do what I can. I derived “Nullo” in a roundabout manner from Orson Scott Card’s book, Ender’s Game, where it refers to the state of free fall in orbit. I first picked it up as a name on a throwaway sockpuppet account on a website that you’ll never visit; I chose it for another of its possible meaings, “void.” It was to be an account with nothing behind it. Then I got carried away with posting and it became my primary identity.
Later, another user linked me over to an article about Francesco Nullo, who was one of Garibaldi’s Thousand and had a hand in uniting Italy, which is where I got the picture.

All better now?

@dpworkin It would help if I could give you a wedgie. ~

@Nullo

I personally wish the rules would follow the people.

@Nullo I was debating with you about whether the constitution should apply to anchor children, not whether you had passed judgment on the Arizona law. I don’t know whether you have or have not formed such an opinion. I never accused you of having done so. And it’s neither here nor there to the issue at hand.