Arizona to Get Rid of Anchor Babies

[ClydeR]

Anchor babies isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots — the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. — for their next move.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that 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.

More... (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1996064,00.html)

It's not going to be easy for Arizona to track down all those anchor babies, many of whom are adults today, but I think we're up to it as a nation. We can't call ourselves a nation of laws if we don't enforce the laws.

[TheEschaton]

lol Arizona.

[Celephais]

http://i47.tinypic.com/2eb8mz7.png

[Ribbons]

Eh...Arizona...

(My first post and that's literally all I have to say. Aside from this tidbit which doesn't count...wait, it does? Damn it.)

[Caiylania]

WTF. Seriously, it is coming down to this? What if they find those grown "anchor babies" are in viable jobs, own businesses providing jobs to LEGAL Americans, are police? Doctors? What is the point of this?

[Ribbons]

Swing and a miss for them really.

It's like what they did in the beginning, 'Any illegals can be pulled over and if they lack proper I.D. they'll be deported'. How the fuck can they tell if they're illegal? Do they have a giant neon sign above their head going 'I'm illegal, come get me'.

That state is back assward right now.

[Nieninque]

WTF. Seriously, it is coming down to this? What if they find those grown "anchor babies" are in viable jobs, own businesses providing jobs to LEGAL Americans, are police? Doctors? What is the point of this?

Hi Caiy...meet ClydeR. He's mostly a charicature.

[Celephais]

WTF. Seriously, it is coming down to this? What if they find those grown "anchor babies" are in viable jobs, own businesses providing jobs to LEGAL Americans, are police? Doctors? What is the point of this?
I think it's saying they'll stop providing birth certificates, not take away existing ones. Either way I don't think it'll work, as it'll be unconstitutional.

[Daniel]

as it'll be unconstitutional.

Ding.

[radamanthys]

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.

Clearly unconstitutional.

[4a6c1]

Yikes!

[Tsa`ah]

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.

Clearly unconstitutional.

And not within their power to do anyway.

Article 1, section 8

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

[ClydeR]

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.

Clearly unconstitutional.

That only applies to people who are in the country legally. It was written for slaves who were here legally but who were denied citizenship anyway.


In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether it meant that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the children of Native Americans were not citizens, despite the fact that they were born in the United States.

The meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) regarding children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants born in United States. The court ruled that the children were U.S. citizens.[10]

More... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion#Citizenship_Clause)

It's pretty easy to see the difference between those two cases -- unless you're a rabid Obama supporter who doesn't even think it's necessary to be born in this country to be President, as I assume you must be. In the first case, the Indians never went through the proper procedures to enter our country, and their children were, therefore, denied citizenship even though they were born here. In the second case, the Chinese were here legally -- probably to build railroads -- and, therefore, their children were citizens.

[Celephais]

Yeah, when are we going to start deporting Indians? I want a casino.

[Drew]

Damnit I think Clyde might have an actual argument as dumb as it seems on its face.

[Clove]

Damnit I think Clyde might have an actual argument as dumb as it seems on its face.Except that he doesn't. Key legislators may have publicly shared their opinion and intent for the Amendment but practice and precedent disagree and simply reading a paragraph down in the Wikipedia article he cites says as much.

[4a6c1]

Damnit I think Clyde might have an actual argument as dumb as it seems on its face.

Maybe. Only one way to find out. ClydeR. Get to AiReeZoneAHH and start mindfucking those state government queers, STAT!

[phantasm]

A stray cat wandered in to my fenced in backyard and promptly birthed a litter under my porch.
Are these now my cats?
Part of my family?
Can I move them to my neighbors backyard?
Are there any law precedents, Wikipedia article's, or constitutional amendments for me to know about?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3639/3474396616_b2b2aea05c.jpg

[4a6c1]

A stray cat wandered in to my fenced in backyard and promptly birthed a litter under my porch.
Are these now my cats?
Part of my family?
Can I move them to my neighbors backyard?
Are there any law precedents, Wikipedia article's, or constitutional amendments for me to know about?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3639/3474396616_b2b2aea05c.jpg

I would tell you how awesome you are in pos rep but I think I already told you how dumb you are in pos rep. :(

[Rocktar]

Awesome cute cat picture.

Fucking dumbassed idea there but you have to admit that at least they are trying to do something to address the problem. It is going to take a constitutional amendment to deal with the anchor baby issue, people have said this for 20 years or more. Either that, or a much better fence and border enforcement as well as a comprehensive and effective punishment for people that hire illegals.

While we are on the amendment bandwagon, we could also use one to make government interactions and publications in English unless the person is in possession of legal documentation for living/working here and/or participating in the naturalization process.

[Clove]

A stray cat wandered in to my fenced in backyard and promptly birthed a litter under my porch.
Are these now my cats?
Part of my family?
Can I move them to my neighbors backyard?
Are there any law precedents, Wikipedia article's, or constitutional amendments for me to know about?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3639/3474396616_b2b2aea05c.jpgI don't know but if you sell them, lower your price to artificially inflate the local demand for kittens.

[Gan]

LOL

[CrystalTears]

While we are on the amendment bandwagon, we could also use one to make government interactions and publications in English unless the person is in possession of legal documentation for living/working here and/or participating in the naturalization process.
WhatThemotherFuck?! Please get run over by a delivery truck.

[Kithus]

WhatThemotherFuck?! Please get run over by a delivery truck.

I'm trying to decide if you were intending to rhyme here.

[Rocktar]

WhatThemotherFuck?! Please get run over by a delivery truck.

Grow the fuck up. See, got to love tards like you and others, all over the place wishing hate, death and injury to people and yet you want to put yourselves off as more caring. I and other conservatives don't tend to wish hate and death on people. Wonder how that is really, us mean, nasty and evil conservatives not being the ones to make death wishes, homosexual rape fantasies and so on?

[Parkbandit]

Grow the fuck up. See, got to love tards like you and others, all over the place wishing hate, death and injury to people and yet you want to put yourselves off as more caring. I and other conservatives don't tend to wish hate and death on people. Wonder how that is really, us mean, nasty and evil conservatives not being the ones to make death wishes, homosexual rape fantasies and so on?

Add another reason why I don't fit into the Conservative party then. :(

[Celephais]

Add another reason why I don't fit into the Conservative party then. :(

You have homosexual rape fantasties?

[Cephalopod]

You have homosexual rape fantasties?

I thought that was a core belief of the conservative party. He must have meant something else.

[Tsa`ah]

Awesome cute cat picture.

Fucking dumbassed idea there but you have to admit that at least they are trying to do something to address the problem. It is going to take a constitutional amendment to deal with the anchor baby issue, people have said this for 20 years or more. Either that, or a much better fence and border enforcement as well as a comprehensive and effective punishment for people that hire illegals.

So, does this mean you won't support anchor babies running for public office or acting as talking heads even if you agree with their positions?


While we are on the amendment bandwagon, we could also use one to make government interactions and publications in English unless the person is in possession of legal documentation for living/working here and/or participating in the naturalization process.

Why? You do realize that we're no longer in the Gutenberg era of printing anymore, right? We're actually no longer in the industrial print era. Kinkos, corner copy stores, printers, the internet, and various print formats have sequestered an entire industry into near obscurity.

We probably spend more on paper clips and staples for any given state government than we spend on translating and printing non-English publications.

So what serious and legitimate argument can one have for your stance beyond the frivolous cost?

[CrystalTears]

Grow the fuck up. See, got to love tards like you and others, all over the place wishing hate, death and injury to people and yet you want to put yourselves off as more caring. I and other conservatives don't tend to wish hate and death on people. Wonder how that is really, us mean, nasty and evil conservatives not being the ones to make death wishes, homosexual rape fantasies and so on?
What a bunch of bullshit. Caring my ass, when you're the one advocating that people not even get spoken to or given information in English because they're not legal. That's not going to help anything.

People like you are what cause me to lean more to the left than I currently do.

[Cephalopod]

People like you are what cause me to lean more to the left than I currently do.

I thought that was a boob imbalance...

[Gan]

:lol:

[Gan]

Add another reason why I don't fit into the Conservative party then. :(

You too?

:wtf:

I got called a RINO again by my right winged neighbor this past weekend. I just laughed at him.

[Celephais]

I don't really know a lot about the topic, I understand how important it is to us as a nation but... living in the northeast I just don't deal with it day to day. Do illegals get deported? I'm under the impression that deportations are just extremely rare. I would think that hospitals would almost become hubs for deportation, sure the parent can have the child in the US, and that child would be a citizen, but why isn't the parent being deported at that point (I'm sure foster homes wouldn't appreciate the sudden influx of dependents from parents who do not take their children back with them, but it would seem that at that point the parent is caught).

[Rocktar]

So, does this mean you won't support anchor babies running for public office or acting as talking heads even if you agree with their positions?

It means that I don't support illegals coming to America with their primary skill being able to drop a baby on the U.S. side of a line and being allowed to stay here because of it.



Why? You do realize that we're no longer in the Gutenberg era of printing anymore, right? We're actually no longer in the industrial print era. Kinkos, corner copy stores, printers, the internet, and various print formats have sequestered an entire industry into near obscurity.

We probably spend more on paper clips and staples for any given state government than we spend on translating and printing non-English publications.

So what serious and legitimate argument can one have for your stance beyond the frivolous cost?

You are incorrect in a lot of ways. First, the cost of publishing things like elections, tax forms and a myriad of other things in many, not just English and Spanish, languages is quite prohibitive. The last bit I remember about it was that California spent double digit millions of dollars to publish the ballot that got Arnold elected in 27+ languages. That is just one election and is insane. In addition, continuing to enable people who come here with the only intention of sponging off the society and sending illegally obtained money home to what ever country by allowing them to not make even a minimal attempt at learning the language and assimilate has proven quite destructive.

My ancestors came here legally and abandoned their native tongue to assimilate and become citizens of the U.S. As likely did your ancestors and millions of others. With this newest influx of people, we need to force a choice for them, either assimilate and become citizens/legal workers and residents or get out, the cost to our social infrastructure is no longer sustainable. Making the government work in English for the majority of people is both cost cutting and a step in that direction.

[Inspire]

It's dangerous to share your opinion here but ...

Arizona is doing it right. The rest of the US should follow.

[Latrinsorm]

With this newest influx of people, we need to force a choice for them, either assimilate and become citizens/legal workers and residents or get out, the cost to our social infrastructure is no longer sustainable.What do you mean we, trusty scout?

[Lumi]

I think it's saying they'll stop providing birth certificates, not take away existing ones. Either way I don't think it'll work, as it'll be unconstitutional.

This is my interpretation as well. This seems like blatant pandering to the voter base without any actual intention of seeing the proposal through.

[Tsa`ah]

It means that I don't support illegals coming to America with their primary skill being able to drop a baby on the U.S. side of a line and being allowed to stay here because of it.

That's pretty damned vague, yet at the same time ... a pretty wide paint brush.


You are incorrect in a lot of ways. First, the cost of publishing things like elections, tax forms and a myriad of other things in many, not just English and Spanish, languages is quite prohibitive.

Care to support that claim with some citation? Can you show me where printing something in Mandarin actually costs more than printing something in English?

Case in point, the only "prohibitive cost" would be the service of translation. Our federal and state governments either hire people to do this, or contract. Once that translated document is finished (a relatively minor cost), the cost of printing it is no more prohibitive than what it would cost to print the same in English. I'm sure, per page, translated material will be a tad bit more costly simply because we're not printing as much of it (sans Spanish of course).


The last bit I remember about it was that California spent double digit millions of dollars to publish the ballot that got Arnold elected in 27+ languages.

Citation is your friend here, and that was a special/recall election. You'll probably want to look at how many ballots were cast vs the amount of ballots printed and go from there (so long as you actually have the citation to support your argument)


In addition, continuing to enable people who come here with the only intention of sponging off the society and sending illegally obtained money home to what ever country by allowing them to not make even a minimal attempt at learning the language and assimilate has proven quite destructive.

Again, broad paint brush, lack of citation, and stereotyping aren't helping out your argument.


My ancestors came here legally and abandoned their native tongue to assimilate and become citizens of the U.S. As likely did your ancestors and millions of others. With this newest influx of people, we need to force a choice for them, either assimilate and become citizens/legal workers and residents or get out, the cost to our social infrastructure is no longer sustainable. Making the government work in English for the majority of people is both cost cutting and a step in that direction.

You mean when immigration was much simpler?

Assimilation is not instantaneous, but by and large ... they do assimilate. If you want people to give up their culture when they arrive in a nation built upon the merging and blending of cultures, then you're in the wrong nation.

Sorry, but the xenophobia is crap. The desire to "preserve" your culture (built by and large on ethnic diversity) over the culture of those immigrating here is also crap. If there is a problem, it is so trivial and so insignificant that it is gone within a generation.

Stifle cultural diversity and you stagnate growth on every level. The problem is not them, it's you.

[CrystalTears]

I thought that was a boob imbalance...
Both of my boobs are large, in charge, and of the same size. :tongue:

[TheEschaton]

Does anyone else see the irony of conservatives saying "Assimilate or die (go away) [get out]"?

[g++]

Does anyone else see the irony of conservatives saying "Assimilate or die (go away) [get out]"?

Im not entirely sure this is a mainstream conservative agenda. I mean Im conservative and me and many of my conservative friends dont really think this whole Arizona business is a hot ticket. In general conservatives are more for enforcing immigration law and clamping down the borders and free services distributed to people who dont pay taxes but I didnt sign up for the whole lets throw the constitution away thing.

[Parkbandit]

Im not entirely sure this is a mainstream conservative agenda. I mean Im conservative and me and many of my conservative friends dont really think this whole Arizona business is a hot ticket. In general conservatives are more for enforcing immigration law and clamping down the borders and free services distributed to people who dont pay taxes but I didnt sign up for the whole lets throw the constitution away thing.

It's not unconstitutional to deport individuals who are not here legally. In fact, it can be argued that it's unconstitutional for our government to not prevent individuals from entering our country in a legal fashion.

[EasternBrand]

In fact, it can be argued that it's unconstitutional for our government to not prevent individuals from entering our country in a legal fashion.

Sorry, I've read this several times, and I'm still not sure if it conveys the idea you were trying to get across. Rendered another way, this sentence says: "In fact, there is an argument that allowing people to enter our country legally is unconstitutional." Is that your contention?

[Lumi]

Sorry, I've read this several times, and I'm still not sure if it conveys the idea you were trying to get across. Rendered another way, this sentence says: "In fact, there is an argument that allowing people to enter our country legally is unconstitutional." Is that your contention?

I think it was just a typo and he meant "illegal".

[Parkbandit]

Sorry, I've read this several times, and I'm still not sure if it conveys the idea you were trying to get across. Rendered another way, this sentence says: "In fact, there is an argument that allowing people to enter our country legally is unconstitutional." Is that your contention?

In fact, there is an argument that allowing people to enter our country illegally is unconstitutional.

[Sean]

What a bunch of bullshit. Caring my ass, when you're the one advocating that people not even get spoken to or given information in English because they're not legal. That's not going to help anything.

People like you are what cause me to lean more to the left than I currently do.

CT always thinking of her raftmates rather than good ol' Americans!

[EasternBrand]

CT always thinking of her raftmates rather than good ol' Americans!

I know I'm not going to be the one to make a joke about flotation devices.

[g++]

In fact, there is an argument that allowing people to enter our country illegally is unconstitutional.

Right but the constitution specifically says people born on this soil are citizens. IE Title of the thread IE what do you mean.

[ClydeR]

Right but the constitution specifically says people born on this soil are citizens. IE Title of the thread IE what do you mean.

Nope. Radamanthys quoted the Constitution for us earlier. It says a person born in this country must be subject to the jurisdiction of this country to be a citizen. That means people who are not subject to a foreign power. Mexicans born in this country are subject to the Mexican government and not natural born citizens of this country. The same is true of children of diplomats and, if it were even to come to it, the children of an occupying military. That's what it was understood to mean when it was written (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14).