Immigrants break into rental house and camp out and police do nothing.

[Jimmy Neutron]

This Arizona law is a great catalyst for disussion on a wholly complex issue.

 

Honestly, I'm glad Arizona passed the law, but don't like the law itself. Much like health care, something simply had to be done and the fed gov has proven incapable of doing anything on the issue going back several administrations.

 

Lots of illegals are here working hard and adding to our economy and tax base. Many are also helping to keep illegal immigration at a lower level by supporting their families back south of the border.

 

Some illegals are here are among the worst criminals we have on our streets. It Utah, although illegals make up a very small percentage of the population, they commit a large percentage of the murders in Utah. Not sure how these numbers shake out in other states, but I've read similar issues about border states.

 

I'm sure there are illegals taking advantage of entitlement programs, but I think that problem is largely over-stated.

[wiegie]

If I had a kid taking your class I would pull them instantly and demand my money back. There is nothing logical about your response.

 

I asked for your clarification PER THE CONSTITUTION, regarding the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. Both of your examples constituted citizens. I assume that you can read, so how about you read the document, the Federalist Papers, the supporting works and get back to us.

 

Perch is correct in his question about anchor babies - which you conveniently ignored. If you son is eligilble to be POTUS, so are all the anchor babies. So is the spawn of Hitler born of anyone in the Lincoln bedroom. Not one of the Founding Fathers would have agreed with you. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

There is a citizenship difference, that only matters for those aspiring to be POTUS . A modicum of research would enlighten you.

 

You are wrong on this issue. Your kid can be a Senator, so can your friend, but neither will ever be President.

My kids are natural born citizens. Despite your lunatic rantings, there are only two types of citizens: citizens at birth (i.e. "natural born citizens") and naturalized citizens. My kids are the former.

 

And, yes, an anchor baby could become president. If that bothers you, go become a citizen of some other nation (if you can find one that will have you).

[Furd]

I would appreciate it if someone would point out to me the definition of "natural born citizen" as it is used in Article Two of the US Constitution.

 

TIA.

[wiegie]

I would appreciate it if someone would point out to me the definition of "natural born citizen" as it is used in Article Two of the US Constitution.

 

TIA.

To the best of my knowledge, the Supreme Court doesn't define it.

 

However, this 2005 Heritage Foundation book The Heritage guide to the Constitution says that my sons (and anchor babies) are natural born citizens (see first full paragraph in the second column):

http://books.google.com/books?id=-_8N3UeXe...%22&f=false

Edited May 3, 2010 by wiegie

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

where in the constitution does it define "natural born citizen"?

 

In the same clause that grants personhood to corporations and other entities.

[Lady.hawke]

I would appreciate it if someone would point out to me the definition of "natural born citizen" as it is used in Article Two of the US Constitution.

 

TIA.

 

It has not been completely defined, by the Supreme Court, the only entity that matters.. And it only applies to the President. Anyone - like Wiegie - who thinks that anyone born on U.S. soil, including anchor babies - is eligilbe to be POTUS, is misinformed.

 

Should you read the Founding Fathers writings (Wiegie just ignores them) you will find that they relied heavily on Vattel's "The Law of Nations. Vattel wrote that a natural born citizen was of the land and of the blood. Natural born means born on the land of two citizens according to Vattel. John Jay, the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, wrote to George Washington as to the importance of this qualification, it was important for national security. Our Founders were so serious about that they grandfathered themselves in as to eligibility, as per The Constitution they were writing.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled (See Wong Kim Ark) that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen - a simple citizen - but declined to bestow the special category of "natural born citizen. In the Wing Kim Ark opinion, the Supreme Court discussed the "natural born" language, as per The Constitution, but declined in their final ruling to bestow it upon a Chinese national born in the United States. That is easily researched. Wiegie knows this and chooses to ignore it.

 

Anyone who thinks that the Founding Fathers deemed that anyone born on our land is eligible to be President - just because of the geography of their birth - including Wiegie - is an idiot. There are and should be more specific requirements.

 

Furd, no one can give you a definitive opinion as an answer to your question. It is up to the Supreme Court. I can make a better argument than Wiegie can. I believe that I have in this post.

[wiegie]

Concerning the Wong Kim Ark case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649), you would be hard-pressed to read the majority opinion of the court and find it to say that native-born citizens are not natural born citizens.

 

And in any case, the majority opinion makes it undeniable that Perch's claims that "anchor babies" are not citizens is unconstitutional.

 

Finally, as to the desires of the Founding Fathers, I suppose the irony of the fact that the Founding Fathers didn't think she should be able to vote is lost on Ladyhawke.

[SEC=UGA]

Finally, as to the desires of the Founding Fathers, I suppose the irony of the fact that the Founding Fathers didn't think she should be able to vote is lost on Ladyhawke.

 

I concur with the founding fathers and feel we need to go back to restricting who votes...

[westvirginia]

I concur with the founding fathers and feel we need to go back to restricting who votes...

 

OMG yes...

[gbpfan1231]

several people have brought up the "i have to show ID all the time" argument. that is not the issue. when i go through airport security, the screeners stop everyone -- not just the white folks, the browns ones, the muslim ones, but everyone. if i have a problem with that, then i don't fly. same thing with a credit card -- if i have a problem showing my ID, then i can just use cash. the issue is that this "policy" applies to only select, targeted groups of people -- which you yourself admit to having misgivings about. this is not an issue of putting up with "inconvenience," it's about not having a say in the matter, simply because of how you look. it's not an issue of a "small subset" of a group breaking the law, it's about defining the entire group by the actions of that small subset -- and then somehow rationalizing that this is acceptable. if that's how your friend feels, then i feel sorry for him. and if that's the only way change can occur, then it's not worth it.

This policy does target select groups because those select groups are the people breaking the law. If a known murderer is white and driving a white vehicle should the police stop a black driver driving a black car?

[Big Country]

This policy does target select groups because those select groups are the people breaking the law. If a known murderer is white and driving a white vehicle should the police stop a black driver driving a black car?

 

 

:H8: Probabky a good idea :H8:

[gbpfan1231]

:H8: Probabky a good idea :H8:

I am not sure what that means??? I was not trying to use a specific color or race - my only comment was that ins ome cases you do profile for a reason. If usinf black driver and black car was a poor choice of words - my bad I apologize.

[TimC]

Can we please get back to the white landowners making all the decisions? Renters are dumb.

[SEC=UGA]

:H8: Probabky a good idea :H8:

 

[Pope Flick]

Concerning the Wong Kim Ark case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649), you would be hard-pressed to read the majority opinion of the court and find it to say that native-born citizens are not natural born citizens.

 

And in any case, the majority opinion makes it undeniable that Perch's claims that "anchor babies" are not citizens is unconstitutional.

 

Finally, as to the desires of the Founding Fathers, I suppose the irony of the fact that the Founding Fathers didn't think she should be able to vote is lost on Ladyhawke.

 

 

There is also this little set of facts as well:

With Barack Obama's election, immigrant parents from all over the world can now honestly tell their American-born children that they, too, can dream of one day becoming president. It's a cultural as much as as a racial barrier that's fallen: As the son of a Kenyan man, Barack Obama will be the first U.S. president with a parent born outside the British Isles or Canada.

 

Only six other U.S. presidents had a foreign-born parent. Mr. Obama will be the first in nearly ninety years, since President Herbert Hoover was inaugurated in 1929.

 

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish. Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

There is also this little set of facts as well:

 

Yeah, but they were white.

[montster]

This policy does target select groups because those select groups are the people breaking the law. If a known murderer is white and driving a white vehicle should the police stop a black driver driving a black car?

 

it's not the same. you are talking about one murderer, not every murderer. in your example, even after police catch the murderer they're looking for, they should continue to stop every white person driving a white vehicle -- because, hey, if one's guilty, they could all be guilty.

[Perchoutofwater]

 

!

[gbpfan1231]

it's not the same. you are talking about one murderer, not every murderer. in your example, even after police catch the murderer they're looking for, they should continue to stop every white person driving a white vehicle -- because, hey, if one's guilty, they could all be guilty.

They are looking for an almost endless amount of "murderers". They are seeking illegal immigrants - I would guess most of those would not be white people driving white cars.

[bushwacked]

White People Masks for Mexicans

[westvirginia]

Guys, my understanding is that this is the portion of the law in question:

 

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state...where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

 

That sounds like to me that the officer has to have another reason to stop the person - not just that their "brown".

[bpwallace49]

Could immigration furor create positive evolution?

 

AP National Writer Jesse Washington, Ap National Writer – Mon May 3, 5:26 am ET

Two decades ago, when Arizona voters rejected a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, the NFL yanked the Super Bowl from suburban Phoenix. The boycott marked a major turning point in the journey to nationwide acceptance of the King holiday.

 

Today, Arizona, a state full of travelers from across the Americas, is being boycotted again over a new immigration law said to encourage racial profiling. Yet just as the King debate changed hearts from average people to a president, Arizona's troubles are positioned to again play a critical role in the twisting evolution of American race relations.

 

"The whole country has taken notice," said Marshall Trimble, Arizona's state historian, who dislikes the new law but thinks something had to be done about illegal immigration. "I don't think people realized how serious a problem it is."

 

What good could possibly come of this bad situation? A lot, it turns out. Because suddenly the entire nation is having a huge Arizona conversation, from rallies on the streets to voices on the airwaves — and there are signs of compromise instead of confrontation.

 

The emotional outcry could, counterintuitively, improve the country's immigration situation in the long run by addressing directly a problem Americans have faced for a long time: We have no effective system for dealing with people who risk everything and break the law to come here.

 

"It's a deplorable situation. But it will have an energizing, mobilizing effect," said Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. The Arizona law, he said, has caused a conversation that otherwise would have remained largely undiscussed.

 

 

Polls show that most Arizonans and a slight majority of Americans are fine with the new law, which requires police to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally. Arizona's GOP-dominated legislature passed it with no Democratic support; objections over racial profiling got buried beneath fears of high-profile immigrant crimes and frustration over federal inaction.

 

Now, all sides of the political spectrum are weighing in. And some stances aren't as predictable as you might think.

 

Most of the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants are Hispanic. With millions of unemployed Americans considering jobs they once would have ignored, some say these immigrants are taking money out of their pockets. They want the immigrants removed — but how should they be sorted out from the approximately 40 million Hispanics who are U.S. citizens?

 

"There's no easy way," said Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity. "They live in the same neighborhoods, go to the same schools, work in the same places, speak the same language or not speak the same language. They may be related."

 

Although President Barack Obama has said there will be no immigration-reform bill before the election, there are new signs of compromise — signs that the conversation is taking root.

 

Democrats have proposed a reform framework that is tougher on enforcement and would create new Social Security cards linked to fingerprints. Some prominent Republicans, meanwhile, have expressed reservations about Arizona's approach. Even Karl Rove, the GOP political strategist who engineered George W. Bush's victories, has some doubts.

 

"I'm concerned about the whole idea of carrying papers and always having to be able to prove your citizenship," said Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. "That brings up some shades of some other regimes that weren't necessarily helpful to democracy."

 

The law "creates unintended consequences," said former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose wife is from Mexico. "It's difficult for me to imagine how you're going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well."

 

Such concerns changed Arizona's law before it was a week old. Among other tweaks, the word "solely" was removed from the phrase saying police "may not solely consider race, color or national origin," to reassure critics that race would not be considered at all.

 

Arizona has always been a place for travelers and wanderers. Many of its residents have moved there from other states. A 2007 Pew study said the state had the nation's second-highest percentage of transplants over the preceding three-year period.

 

But Arizona has never had many black residents, which Trimble said may have contributed to the 1991 vote against a King holiday. Most pro football players are black, which led to the Super Bowl boycott.

 

"That was a wake-up call," said Trimble, the state historian. "A lot of people stepped up and said, 'Wait a minute, Arizona is making itself an embarrassment to the country. And it was."

 

Two Republicans who urged voters to reconsider were Arizona Sen. John McCain and former President Ronald Reagan. Both men had once opposed a federal King holiday. In 1993, when it came up again, 60 percent of Arizona voters chose to back the holiday.

 

Certainly there are differences between that issue and today's problem. "They were Americans," Trimble noted of King and his fellow crusaders for equal rights.

 

Arizona's 460,000 illegal immigrants are almost all Latinos. Yet Arizona also has 2 million Latinos who are U.S. citizens, about 30 percent of the state's population.

 

Latinos also make up almost 30 percent of pro baseball players. In the Arizona conversation, they too are speaking up: They want the law changed. Their All-Star Game next year is scheduled for Phoenix.

 

the best thing about this bill . . it is bringing the issue to the forefront of national debate.

 

WV . . read the bolded part. I am surprised that such an outspoken defender of liberty like yourself isnt outraged by this. It empowers the cops to stop and ask ANYONE for their proof of citizenship. It doesnt not require other reasons for the inquiry. Asking for their proof of citizenship is enough to a cop to stop someone now.

[bushwacked]

That sounds like to me that the officer has to have another reason to stop the person - not just that their "brown".

 

 

Kinda, sorta, maybe.....

 

Seems like there is definitely some gray area and a definite potential for a breach of rights.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Kinda, sorta, maybe.....

 

Seems like there is definitely some gray area and a definite potential for a breach of rights.

 

And by extension a whole lot of lawsuits that will cost the AZ taxpayer alot of money.

[bushwacked]

And by extension a whole lot of lawsuits that will cost the AZ taxpayer alot of money.

 

When I lived in Chelan County (WA State), we voted in a right wing wack job who cost our county millions trying to fight (i.e..ingore) the federeal Endangered Species Act.