Arizona introduces law to target "birthright" citizenship of illegal immigrants

[tigger]

I too would have thought this is a tad' "Un-American" if you'll pardon the term. I mean the whole country was founded on immigrants from all over the world, that's what makes the US one of the most historically diverse places in the world...

I'd consider it "Un-American" as well. But what you have to remember is that when a Republican proposes taking away/infringing-upon our rights it's patriotism. It's in our best interest.

I don't think that the founding fathers ever envisioned this scenario so you could call this a loophole in the constitution.

Really? There were people arriving here by the boatload! They didn't think it was a problem; quite the opposite. That's why it wasn't even addressed until 1868 (14th amendment) and that was more targeted towards slaves.

As for it being a loophole? No. Are there loopholes to the first or second, or any other amendments? Like nomix said, there are a lot of things the founding fathers didn't envision. That's why they made the document flexible. Dismissing or diminishing rights because someone thinks that certain situations are more complex than they were 230 years ago is a terrible idea.

What most Americans forget is that they come from a long line of illegal immigrants and they are the ones yelling the loudest.

Sick of illegal immigrants? Tell it to a Native American.

 

[nomix]

Yeah, they got really sick.

 

[Komeuppance]

Just keep in mind, we have to live with the problem. It's very easy to sit a million miles away from the problem and cast judgment.

Agreed. You guys have it bad down there, it's basically out of control.

Just because one was born within the borders of the land does not make you a citizen. You have to adapt, conform, and live by that society's customs and standards... following the law of the land. Part of the laws of this great land: US Customs and Immigration.

-Robert

 

[narf]

Just because one was born within the borders of the land does not make you a citizen. You have to adapt, conform, and live by that society's customs and standards... following the law of the land. Part of the laws of this great land: US Customs and Immigration.

The person born there did not immigrate, and hence did not violate the US borders.

Also, the law of the land (funnily, the specific law is called ius soli, "right of the soil") states that you are a citizen if born there.

 

[Komeuppance]

Yes, there are outdated laws.

-Robert

 

[narf]

Yes, there are outdated laws.

I believe that's my cue to mention the 2nd

 

[Komeuppance]

Yes, there are many many ignorant people in this world. You want to be one of them??

-Robert

 

[SpitfireMK461]

Yes, there are outdated laws.

-Robert

I'd say when you start calling one part of the constitution outdated, you are calling the whole thing outdated. Not a good move to make.

(NOTE: The 3/5s law and related issues were, I'd say, a conflict on the constitution itself and would not fall under the above statement.)

 

[narf]

Yes, there are many many ignorant people in this world. You want to be one of them??

One is a basic foundation of the US, the other is a gun law. If one can be outdated, so can the other.

Your point is?

 

[Komeuppance]

Laws can and should be updated, not a difficult concept to grasp.

-Robert

 

[narf]

Laws can and should be updated, not a difficult concept to grasp.

Yeah, and suggesting that the 2nd can and should be updated makes me an ignorant person.

 

[Komeuppance]

I'd say when you start calling one part of the constitution outdated, you are calling the whole thing outdated. Not a good move to make.

(NOTE: The 3/5s law and related issues were, I'd say, a conflict on the constitution itself and would not fall under the above statement.)

I'd say you'd be disagreeing with the notion of Amendments.

-Robert

 

[nomix]

Agreed. You guys have it bad down there, it's basically out of control.

Just because one was born within the borders of the land does not make you a citizen. You have to adapt, conform, and live by that society's customs and standards... following the law of the land. Part of the laws of this great land: US Customs and Immigration.

-Robert

You're wrong, as far as the letter of the law is concerned.

You do become a citizen by being born in America. You don't become "American" without adapting, conforming and living by American standards. However, apart from laws, it's difficult to determine what it means being American. I'm sure you'd get different answers depending on who you ask, and even more crucially, where you ask. It's not as clean cut as you make it out to be. Not nearly.

With regards to US Customs and Immigration, it is not a law, it's a federal agency.

It operates by laws, and administers the laws regarding entry to said great land. It does not concern itself natural born citizens, only with those who illegally enter the land. The child being born has not broken any immigration law, federal or state. There might be some nutters who think a fethus isn't just a human life, but that it's also legally responsible. I somehow doubt it.

Yes, there are many many ignorant people in this world. You want to be one of them??

-Robert

Robert, I am going to attempt to introduce to a concept called logic, l-o-g-i-c.

Let's get logic.

You are arguing that one ammendment you don't like because it is inconventient to your political opinoins is antiquated.

Another person argues that one ammendment you are perhaps more of a proponent of, ie. the second ammendment, regarding the right of the citizenry to purchase, keep and carry firearms, is antiquated.

Your response to the latter argument is the following: Said other user is probably one of many ignorant people in the world.

This may be true, but I wonder if you realize that by dismissing the messenger of an argument you disaprove of as "ignorant", you are undoubtedly painting yourself as ignorant, as your basic arguments are quite similar.

Well, Robert, I won't pretend to know you, any more than you could possible pretend to know me. But I somehow doubt that you recard yourself as ignorant. You might be ignorant, just as I might be ignorant, but that is a completely different matter all together.

I just wonder if you were inadvertantly painting yourself as ignorant, or if it was intended?

Laws can and should be updated, not a difficult concept to grasp.

-Robert

That is indeed true. So, what changes would you make to the first ammendment? And the second ammendment?

 

[Lightning Count]

Yes, there are many many ignorant people in this world. You want to be one of them??

-Robert

Laws can and should be updated, not a difficult concept to grasp.

-Robert

Let's not let this degenerate into a slanging match by insulting the intelligence of others, because they take a different viewpoint, if you can't settle this amicably, just agree to disagree.

As for my take on all this, a baby has no control over where it is born and if that child is born in the US, then that child should be entitled to US citizenship.

 

[SpitfireMK461]

I'd say you'd be disagreeing with the notion of Amendments.

-Robert

The majority of amendments do not change the Constitution, but merely add to it. The ones that change the constitution would be the 12th (changing how the President and VP are elected, done in 1804), the 14th amendment which removes the 3/5s clause as mentioned, the 16th which allows income tax (more of an addition, income tax was not specifically denied originally, only be court ruling), the 17th which changes how senators are elected, and the 21st which repealed the 18th.

Except for the 14th amendment, all amendments that change constitutional language do so for relatively small things (the biggest really being how senators are elected) and certainly not for being "out-dated".

The 14th follows directly from the 13th anyways (3/5s rule was useless after slavery was made illegal, not a constitutional issue).

So based on precedent, no, I don't think I'm disagreeing with the notion of amendments.

 

[LeVeL]

Really? There were people arriving here by the boatload! They didn't think it was a problem; quite the opposite.

You have got to be kidding me. You honestly, seriously, truthfully, actually, really don't see the difference between these two groups, the illegals nowadays and the immigrants from 3 centuries ago? Or do you mean the legal immigrants of the early 20th century?


As for the constitution - I wouldn't call it "outdated" but sometimes we need to look beyond the letter of the law and consider the spirit of the law, so to speak. Just like the 2nd amendment probably shouldn't mean that we need to hand out automatic assault rifles to everyone, the born=citizen idea might not necessarily need to apply to a child born a week after his mother illegally enters the country.

 

[The_Finn]

You have got to be kidding me. You honestly, seriously, truthfully, actually, really don't see the difference between these two groups, the illegals nowadays and the immigrants from 3 centuries ago? Or do you mean the legal immigrants of the early 20th century?

Current day Mexicans are just like those filthy thieving Irish bastards never mind the catholics and their pope. Immigration has been a hot button issue in the US since about the first time a boatload of people that weren't English ended up on our shores.

 

[katwalk]

I think the problem here is the current illegals are from bad places, it's that since we have no control over the ones that are coming in we are getting a shitload of criminals. Unfortunately the government would rather not crack down on the borders and make it easier for the good people to get in and would instead like to offer the illegal ones discounted college and crap.

 

[LeVeL]

Current day Mexicans are just like those filthy thieving Irish bastards never mind the catholics and their pope. Immigration has been a hot button issue in the US since about the first time a boatload of people that weren't English ended up on our shores.

I don't think there is anything else that I can do to explain that this isn't an issue of immigration but one of illegal immigration. HUGE difference. "That mick is here legally but goddamn do I hate his guts" is different from "that jose came into this country illegally and who knows what he brought in with him or if he is a criminal". How the fuck am I the only one that sees this????

 

[katwalk]

I don't think there is anything else that I can do to explain that this isn't an issue of immigration but one of illegal immigration. HUGE difference. "That mick is here legally but goddamn do I hate his guts" is different from "that jose came into this country illegally and who knows what he brought in with him or if he is a criminal". How the fuck am I the only one that sees this????

I don't know. I get called racist for this all the time.

If you have a petition or something to reform the immigration process so GOOD people can get in easily I have no problem signing it. Saying people shouldn't be faulted for being here illegally is like the idiots who bitch about speeding tickets when they were speeding. Um yeah, sorry, you broke the law and they caught you. "This rule is stupid" is not a valid excuse even if it's true. I am so sick of people bitching about how hard x group of people have it so they should not be deported when they do nothing to change the actual law that makes it that way, even worse that I hear this from fucking politicians that do have the power to solve the issue, they just don't.