U.S. Mayors Blast AZ Immigration Law While AZ Repubs Try to Ignore Constitution

200 U.S. Mayors, gathered at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Oklahoma today, passed a resolution opposing Arizona's recently passed anti-immigrant law. The resolution was sponsored by Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon.

Arizona shows no sigh of letting up. Republicans there now want to pass a law defying the 14th Amendment and denying birth certificates to children born in Arizona if their parents are undocumented residents. Time Magazine has more here.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." [More...]

Arizona Republicans apparently can't read English. Nor is the idea original. Tom Tancredo wanted to repeal the 14th Amendment back in 2005. He also made the unsupported argument that children of the undocumented aren't covered by the 14th Amendment because while born in the U.S., they are not subject to its jurisdiction. Crooks and Liars has some video of the latest national embarrassment known as Arizona.

Republicans in Congress are making similar noises. They've introduced the "Birthright Citizenship Act", which has 91 cosponsors. The bill would modify the 14th Amendment by providing citizenship can be granted "if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is:

a citizen or national of the United States; - an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or - an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code)."

The only way to change the 14th Amendment to pass another amendment, which will never happen. How do you amend the Constitution?

First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date.

Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Memo to Arizona: Birthright citizenship is constitutionally guaranteed. Get over your ignorance and blatant racial prejudice and move on.

< Canadian Authorities Investigating U.S. Officials Over Torture of Maher Arar | Judge Rules Michael Jackson's Doctor Can Keep Medical License >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Looking at the Wikipedia entry... (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by EL seattle on Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 10:00:32 PM EST
    ... for the phrase "Anchor Baby" (REF: Wikipedia), I came across this:

    The term "anchor baby" assumes that having a US citizen child confers immigration benefits on the parents and extended family. This is generally a false assumption, as immigration law does not allow a US citizen child to sponsor his parents until he or she turns 21. Once the child turns 18, immigration law also allows a US citizen child to sponsor his own siblings with a 15 to 23 year quota delay. Immigration law does not provide categories for any other relatives that would apply in this situation. In addition, if the parents are illegal immigrants, they are usually barred from immigration despite having a sponsor.

    And also this:

    In the public debate surrounding "anchor babies", it is also frequently assumed that an "anchor baby" would be beneficial in deportation proceedings. Such benefits do not exist except in the very rare case of extreme and profound hardship on the child. Approximately 88,000 parents of US citizen children have been deported in the past ten years. Federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court have upheld the refusal by the Immigration and Naturalization Service or Immigration and Customs Enforcement to stay the deportation of illegal immigrants merely on the grounds that they have U.S.-citizen, minor children.

    As a fella from the late night TV used to say, "I did not know that."

    The 14th was meant (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 09:38:16 PM EST
    to protect the freed slaves and their children. A noble and just thing.

    It was not meant to create citizenship by anchor baby, which it has become.

    Can we change it? Yes we can.

    Good luck with that (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 09:43:56 PM EST
    The process is clear.

    The pilgrims were illegal aliens. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by mexboy on Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 10:16:14 PM EST
    Follow the logic until it gets to you.

    no they weren't (none / 0) (#10)
    by bocajeff on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:07:55 AM EST
    As there were no laws stating so at the time.

    Nice argument for imperialism. (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by free the wm3 on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:42:57 AM EST
    Yes, and look how that turned out (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:12:02 AM EST
    for the NA's.


    It's our country. Some of it we stole, some of it we fought and won and some of it we purchased from others who had previously stole, fought/won purchased. (Read "The Contested Plains.")

    And when we cease being strong enough to hold it, we will lose it.

    You need to decide what side you are on.

    Or perhaps you have'


    If we need to choose sides, this is mine (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 08:57:28 AM EST
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

    Lovely words (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:05:45 AM EST
    Shall we add that they were written over a 100 years ago when we needed people to settle the wide open country and work in the labor intensive factories?

    Time and circumstance changes everything. At one tome Doctors bled their patients......


    Melting Pot (none / 0) (#36)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:38:01 AM EST
    You argument leaves out a very important aspect of our culture. We were the melting pot of the world. It was this very diversity that enabled us to become what we are.

    We spent time and sweat together to build a nation rather than getting embroiled in the ethnic squabbles that have plagued so many countries around the world.

    The other point of your argument that the Constitution is a tired old document might not stand well among Scalia and company! I feel the right to bear arms is an out dated and misunderstood concept too. The court did't agree.


    Speaking for me... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:05:17 AM EST
    I'm on the side of the humane...even if we're born to lose.

    Little baby feet hit US soil first, you're as American as apple pie.


    What's humane about a law (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:07:32 AM EST
    that has people flying into the US, having their child just so the child will have dual citizenship and later be able to sponsor the parents??

    So what makes you a citizen (none / 0) (#23)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:19:49 AM EST
    assuming you are one? Were you born in the US, or in a territory "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?" Then you owe the 14th some thanks.

    I was Born In The USA (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:52:31 AM EST
    of citizens who were born in the USA of parents who were born in the USA. They legally settled here, fought in the wars and in general participated in the improvement of the country. I served 10 years in Naval Aviation and have obeyed the laws and paid my taxes.

    Your turn.
    Have you served?

    Now, the issue isn't that the 14th was not needed when it was passed, but that it is not needed now and is being used to the disadvantage of the country.

    Once upon a time people thought we shouldn't drink alcoholic beverages and passed an amendment. They later discovered it was wrong and deleted it.


    The issue here is your repeated statement (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:24:54 AM EST
    that the 14th Amendment needs to be repealed to stop citizenship by birth, not how long my ancestors have been here (some of whom were here before there was a US), nor service to the country (and one ancestor gave his life for the US at Gettysburg because he believed we're all Americans, regardless of ethnic origin or skin color).

    It's obvious that you haven't read the amendment under discussion, because then you'd know that it has 5 sections - only one of which says, "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."

    You claim not to be a racist, but your comments are pure nativism.


    You asked a question and got an answer (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 12:15:19 PM EST
    sorry you don't like it.

    I just thought it fair that you answer. Guess you have a problem there.

    My position is that the 14th should be deleted.

    Like, you know, gone.


    I didn't say anything about like or dislike (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:41:46 PM EST
    I asked if you are a citizen of the US. If you are, then it's because of Section 1 of the 14th amendment, which you want "deleted ... gone." When did you quit wanting to be a citizen of the US?

    You know what else is in the 14th? "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." You want that "deleted" as well?

    Wait, I've got it. I bet the real reason you want it deleted is this part in Section 5: "Neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States." You want the Feds to repay you for all the money you gave to the White Nationalist Movement wing of the Tea Party Express. Based on your comments today, that fits the best.


    joining the military (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:02:54 AM EST
    is not the only way to serve your country.

    The funny thing is the 14th amendment is always brought up as a slavery fix that we "don't need anymore".  When actually the last time it was argued in court it was directly related to the children of "illegal" immigrants.



    Thank you for making my point (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:15:53 AM EST
    it is the use of it by illegal immigrants here NOW that is the problem.

    And not the only way to serve your country?



    so it's your opinion (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:30:43 AM EST
    that there were no women serving this country prior to the year 1900?

    Personally I consider anyone who puts their life on the line for, or volunteers their time and expertise to improve their country and people to be "serving".

    Whether it is in a military capacity or through some other organization.


    Your definition is so broad that it becomes (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 12:28:30 PM EST

    The only "serving" I consider is military and those direct actions supporting the military.

    Everything is communal activity. Nice but not national service.


    Go move to a nice (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:14:54 PM EST
    military dictatorship somewhere, if you really think the only way a person can "serve" thier country is by being in the military.

    ALL that teachers, doctors, nurses etc do is just "nice", i.e., somehow unnecessary and of negligable value?

    But this is really about YOUR service - and what a great guy you are, eh?


    Strawman strawman thy name is Jondee (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:37:10 PM EST
    What the people you described do is "work" at their profession. Society determines their value and rewards them. But no part of their "contract" is it understood that they will follow all lawful orders 24/7/365.

    That is a huge and important difference.


    Funny (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:13:10 PM EST
    I thought the exercise of independent, creative thought and the action springing from it, was this country's best resource and service rendered.

    Not the Jims of the world unquestioningly following any and every order.


    "everything else" (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 12:29:25 PM EST
    gesh, can't type can't proof..

    No, there are many forms of service (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:39:28 PM EST
    Anyone who volunteers of their time is providing service....

    We rely too much on military answers to everything....


    tell that to congresmen, judges and (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jen M on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:50:53 PM EST
    Other higher ranking people serving in government.

    I would be most happy to. (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:19:37 PM EST
    Few of the politicians are worth their salt.

    Cpl. Jose Gurtierrez (none / 0) (#131)
    by mexboy on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:29:15 PM EST
    was the first casualty in the war in Iraq. He died serving his country...uh, wait...He was an "illegal alien," from Guatemala, who loved this country so much he gave his life for it.

    There are countless other heroes who have served this country, even when they didn't have the documents.
     60 minutes report

    Uncle Sam actively recruits illegal immigrants

    In 1996, Jesus Alberto Suarez del Solar was a 13-year-old boy, up from Tijuana on a family shopping trip, when he stopped at a Marine Corps recruiting table at an open-air mall in Chula Vista, Calif.

    Jesus had been an easy mark for the recruiter-a boy who fantasized that by joining the powerful, heroic U.S. Marines, he could help his own country fight drug lords. He gave the recruiter his address and phone number in Mexico, and the recruiter called him twice a week for the next two years, until he had talked Jesus into convincing his parents to move to California.

      read the rest on linked page.

    That the military recruited him (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 06:10:57 PM EST
    has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    classes of citzenship? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 12:33:03 PM EST
    Are you trying to say this say this makes you a Class A citizen?

    Since I am naturalized, perhaps I should start considering myself Class B or C?


    Nope and welcome to you. (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:43:25 PM EST
    Again, I was answering a question.

    Cuz America.... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:22:15 AM EST
    is where it's at man...haven't you heard?  And a child is a resource, provided you don't mind laying out some cashish for an education and medical care, you end up with a (more often than not) productive taxpaying member of society...aka a net gain.

    Hasn't been working that way for (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:55:17 AM EST
    quite a few years.



    Why? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 12:41:38 PM EST
    Education is cut off for these people who come to fulfill labor jobs no American wants to do.  It is becoming impossible for these people to advance themselves in society as the fear of deportation is a constant.

    Italians, Irish and other people were just as poor and uneducated coming to America.  Yes, they suffered terrible injustices, but doors were never slammed in their faces.  Second generations provided America with fruit from the trees labored over by the first.

    No, I am not a 'Latino'.  However, I feel their pain.


    heh (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:52:26 PM EST
    No, I am not a 'Latino'.  However, I feel their pain.

    Well Bubba, I feel the pain of our citizens who are losing what use to be good paying jobs with good benefits to illegal immigrants.

    You know, all us members of "the melting pot."

    You should also consider that when the waves of immigrants occurred in the late 1800's 1900's we needed farmers to farm our open spaces and unskilled labor to work in our factories.

    That is no longer true. Somewhere between 10 and 20% of our workers can tell you all about loosing a job,


    Scapegoats (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:06:45 PM EST
    Because there are fewer jobs, there is less illegal immigration.

    And, I thought you guys worshipped the laws of supply and demand.  Free Markets.  Free Trade--only so long as it does not involve brown people......


    Same old song (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:44:10 PM EST
    The Right has fermented fear and bigotry my entire life. Whether is was the blacks or the commies. Now it's those nasty Muslems, gays and illegals. The names change with the time but the bigotry and fear are their mainstay.

    I've never been able to understand why anyone would support a political party that advocates division and thrives on hate. (All under the pretense of being "Good Christians!)


    April 29 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic leaders in the Senate are drafting immigration legislation that would aim to bolster security at U.S. borders

    A proposal being drafted by a group that includes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Senator Charles Schumer of New York would require that more money first be poured into boosting the number of border officers and U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement agents, according to a draft provided by a person familiar with their negotiations.

    More resources would also be provided to prosecute and try drug smugglers and those who cross into the country illegally.

    I guess it's not "fermented [sic] fear and bigotry" when it's your own team. Or do you not support the Democratic political party and their division and hate on this issue?

    Pols trying to survive (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:23:20 PM EST
    At least they are not trying to amend the Constitution....Or ask that a mural in No. Arizona be changed so that the complexion of the kids is lighter.....

    And, I assume they are not for mass deportation....and are for a pathway for citizenship.

    But, sure, Democrats can pander to demagogues too.....


    But folks like mmc, I'm not so sure about...

    I spent some time yesterday reading (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:42:13 PM EST
    about the time-consuming, arduous methods to obtain a green card and, if desired, eventual citenzhip.  Pretty unlikely to happen.  If U.S. only wants people here who are "documented,"  seems like there needs to be massive overhaul of the pathway.  Unless the bottom line is U.S. doesn't want anyone to immigrate to U.S.

    Well, google says (none / 0) (#124)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:05:16 PM EST
    the US awards 620,000 green cards/year for family and employment-based immigration, and also several 10's of thousands/year to refugees (~80K in 1998) so about 700K/year.

    And, we have about 700k/year become citizens:

    More than 700,000 immigrants become U.S. citizens each year, according to USCIS.
    I'm not saying we shouldn't overhaul the pathway, but, looking at the numbers, citizenship for the 'documented' seems almost guaranteed, no?

    i don't think (none / 0) (#126)
    by CST on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    it's about the numbers so much as it is about the process itself.

    It's a pain in the butt and a beurocratic nightmare.


    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#128)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:10:15 PM EST
    Most of the green cards are awarded to (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:28:59 PM EST
    family members of persons already legally in the U.S.  Yes, although there is a 5-yr. wait, does look like going from green card to citizenship is a pretty sure thing.  Unless fraudulent marriage is suspected.

    Fraudulent Marriage (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:46:07 PM EST
    Pretty funny concept, imo. People get married for all sorts of reasons. It is interesting that the intense scrutiny by the government is only found in marriages between a citizen and an immigrant.

    People marry for many reasons, most often including one or more of the following: legal, social, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of love.



    Are you against keeping out borders (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:49:13 PM EST

    Safe? (none / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:52:50 PM EST
    You are joking, I take it. Anyway I just thought that the concept of fraudulent marriage was interesting. It suggests that the only thing that legitimizes marriage is true love.

    Of course I'm joking. Not sure how (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:59:16 PM EST
    ICE ferrets out marriages entered into for the purpose of obtaining green card.

    Well (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 06:12:13 PM EST
    They examine bedrooms, speak to them separately about private details of their sex life, speak to friends and family of the betrothed, and that goes on for a few years.

    Yes, but . . . (none / 0) (#141)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 06:13:19 PM EST
    Who knows (none / 0) (#160)
    by CST on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 09:15:56 AM EST
    My sister and cousin are both going through this now.  When the sis showed up at the interview she was visibly terrified.  Before asking any questions, the interviewer said "Don't worry, I'm going to approve you today".  Then they just had to fill out paperwork.

    Her theory - if you (the American) show up terrified, it's probably because you don't want to lose your real spouse, and is not green card related.  Or maybe they just got the right interviewer.


    Immigrant Marriages (none / 0) (#161)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 11:02:15 AM EST
    Did you read this from the NYT. Just saw it from a few days ago.

    They are not awarded (none / 0) (#132)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:39:16 PM EST
    if citizenship is desired it is applied for.  After volumes of paperwork, investigations, etc., citizenship may or may not be granted.  This process can take up to two additional years for some.

    However, for certain countries, if the green card holder does not want to become a US citizen and remains citizen of say, Canada, then their children, up until the age of sixteen, is eligible for dual citizenship.


    My reference was to allocation of green (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:42:06 PM EST
    cards.  Not many available in the lottery.  And only citizens of certain countries are eligible for the lottery.  So, if you don't have a family member already legally in U.S., and don't qualify for green card on basis of highly skilled, artist, athlete, etc., you are pretty much SOL.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#136)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:52:26 PM EST
    I misread -

    Who is "you guys?" (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:26:01 PM EST
    I'm a social liberal myself and while I don't "worship" anything I do understand that when you allow a "free market" to exist by allowing almost unrestricted illegal laborers to flood the market...

    are you ready for this?

    The price goes down and working conditions become worse.

    It is the Left's demand that we let these illegal immigrants in that hurt the working man and woman.


    It is a function of global markets (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:37:46 PM EST
    NAFTA is more of a problem than illegal immigration.....

    But you can never build a wall high enough....Sure, more border enforcement is fine--but it will mainly serve as a palliative only.

    If you legalize those here, wages and conditions would go up for everyone.....No discount because a worker is looking over his shoulder for La Migra....

    As to social liberal, yeah, whatever.....

    I think you have cause and effect backwards.  We have illegal immigration when we have a good economy.  A good economy here causes illegal immigration.  The current bad economy was not caused by illegal immigration.  But the scapegoaters and demagogues try hard to say that.....The bad economy here was caused by the right-wing fetish with deregulation of everything including the financial markets and the shadow banking system. The current bad economy has slowed illegal immigration by all accounts....

    Stop blaming Latinos for the bad economy.


    Quit putting words in my mouth... (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 06:19:41 PM EST
    And let me understand this.

    Having an endless supply of cheap labor doesn't drive down wages....

    Okey dokey...

    And right wing deregulation caused illegal immigrants to flood across the border because the economy was tanking..

    You know, I couldn't make this stuff up.


    Since you basically repeat (none / 0) (#144)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 06:32:29 PM EST
    whatever's coming down the talk radio pipeline, I'd say you have trouble making ANYTHING up..

    But you did--make it up (none / 0) (#145)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 06:32:36 PM EST
    I didn't say anything like that....

    You got it exactly backwards with respect to deregulation, etc.....


    You're going to have (none / 0) (#143)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 06:30:07 PM EST
    to explain in more detail this nefarious       left wing grand scheme - master plan that you've uncovered, Jim: As I understand it, you're saying that the Left is attempting to intentionally destroy the American workers standard of living by allowing in a flood of latinos who will, what? become some sort of overwhelming base of support
    for "the Left" in the future, while American workers are left to twist in the wind?

    Is this what you're claiming the strategy is?  


    Today (none / 0) (#86)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:17:35 PM EST
    we need laborers to spread hot tar on our roads -in 104 deg heat!  Not much different than the need for Italians to clean out NYC sewer system (and weren't Italians considered brown skinned as well way back then?)

    Labor unions don't protect these workers.


    RW Talking Point (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:25:20 PM EST
    I feel the pain of our citizens who are losing what use to be good paying jobs with good benefits to illegal immigrants.

    There is zero data to back up your claim. Immigrant bashing has been a loooon time right wing strategy for solidifying a base. Nothing to do with immigrants.

    Just like the muslims (jews, blacks, foreigners... ) want to take away your freedoms, absolutely zero grounding in fact, but a powerful right wing talking point kept alive through out the ages, in order to gain power by creating fear.


    Oh please (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:21:28 PM EST
    There have been several studies posted on this blog. Quit playing games.

    Games? (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:30:25 PM EST
    Several studies? You mean ones you posted from right wing hate sites?

    Please site your evidence.


    Not really--not (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:28:33 PM EST
    the kind that you are implying.

    In general, the studies show that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they take--or it is at least a push.....Some 60-65% of illegal immigrants have taxes withheld from their paychecks.  They pay property and sales taxes.....And the rates of criminal conduct are not any higher than anyone else--and I think is actually quite lower if you look at El Paso's crime rate.

    True, there is data to suggest that illegal immigration puts downward pressure on wages for low skill jobs.  But that is more a function of their immigration status being exploited by employers....



    Yes really (none / 0) (#146)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 06:35:08 PM EST
    And tell me how a person with a family with say 5 kids in school pays more in taxes than they get out?

    Figure $5000 per kid = $25,000 in school costs.


    The plain meaning (none / 0) (#8)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 11:17:56 PM EST
    A primary rule of construction is the "plain meaning" rule. Where the meaning is plain on its face, the court will not go into legislative history and other extrapolation techniques to glean the meaning of a law. In the present instance, jimakaPPJ, the 14th Amendment's language is quite plain...no need to delve further per the "plain meaning" rule. (BTW, the plain meaning rule is a rule of construction typically favored by the strictest of constructionists as well as those who allow for a more expansive reading.)

    You seem to not understand (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:14:59 AM EST
    many of us want to change the 14th because we think it is outdated and causing problems.

    Thus any legal argument is moot.


    "many" (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 08:58:39 AM EST
    is not nearly enough.

    The legal argument is not moot because the change is never gonna happen.


    And if someone would have told you (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:18:51 AM EST
    in 2006 that by 2010 that an organization calling itself "The Tea Party" was rocking both the Dems and the Repubs you would have said what????

    Nothing is "moot." The Constitution has been and can be changed.

    That's what makes this republic a democracy.


    If someone had told me that the Birchers (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:28:35 AM EST
    would rebrand themselves as "The Tea Party" I wouldn't have been surprised. Folks that can't stand those different from themselves have been wrapping themselves in the flag for as long as there have been flags.

    And you speak as someone who (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    obviously has never been to an actual meeting of an actual group.

    To be blunt, you do not know what you speak of.


    Well, since it is not doing anything (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 10:03:42 PM EST
    I'm sure you won't mind it being removed.

    Hmm. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Matt v on Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 10:20:23 PM EST
     That's mighty white of you.

    Hmmmm what a nasty racist snark (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:20:46 AM EST
    I didn't realize that the illegal immigrants were of a particular race.

    Perhaps you can display your intelligence and tells what race is pouring across our borders.


    "tell us" (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:21:22 AM EST
    Let it Go (4.80 / 5) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:50:19 AM EST
    Don't you ever get tired of reading clear and concise English and translating it into republicanism ?

    There is no wiggle room on this point in the Constitution, it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, it is probably one of, if not the easiest and most understandable Amendments to read.

    Doesn't it get tiresome blaming someone else 24/7 for our problems.  If it's not 'anchor babies' or 'freelaoders using our public services' it would 'welfare mommas in Caddys' or 'bleeding heart liberals' or what was it last century the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, or whomever it is the conservatives have decided is to blame their next election cycle.  Hate and blame, blame and hate, over and over and over.

    I live in Houston, which is arguably one of the largest Mexican melting pots in the US.  We don't have the issues the rest of the country keeps barking at us, even the worse president eva didn't have issues with Mexicans that the current crop of haters possess.  The Ranchers in Texas stopped the border fence because the guys right there, at ground zero, realize that there isn't this grandiose problem the rest of their own party keeps insisting exists.

    I absolutely love when nitwits from way up North keep telling me why I should hate Mexicans and then I go outside and realize that all the problems they keep telling me are their fault, happen in every single neighborhood in my city.  We have white, brown, black, yellow, and probably a couple of blue criminals.  Mexicans have no market on mayhem, not even close.

    You understand that Mexico is an aristocracy, that the class one is born into is the class they will die into.  Americans have bought virtually all their real estate, making owning property an improbability for anyone but the wealthy, what are they to do, where are they to go ?  Stay put, shut-up and raise their children in poverty.  You party preaches picking ones self up by their bootstraps, yet they bootstrap the poor and indigent, whatever their nationality, at every turn, around every corner.  

    Can't you just be happy with the wealth you have and let others put their muscle and determination into something so they can have something, or is that a right only you deserve, is that just a silly marketing ploy on the Statue of Liberty meant only for your ancestors, not those other people you deem unworthy of the American dream.

    I take great offense to your remarks, because had people like you existed 180 years ago, my ancestors might have been exploited and blamed for everything.  I might not be the person I am today because people like you decided that this was their land and that my family didn't deserve a better life, that my family was sucking at America's teat, that the people who worked harder than any of us were a burden this country couldn't afford.  Thank god your kind weren't here to greet my ancestors or even yours.

    Thank god for people with souls, with empathy, and with compassion were here to greet my family, to give them free health care when they arrived at Ellis Island.  Thank god those people respected and appreciated my family enough to let them cut timber for decades in exchange for the land they cleared, land they could call theirs, land they built a cabin and a farmed the land their cleared.  Thank god those people judged a man/woman by their integrity and value to society and didn't judge them by their lack of wealth or their language or their differences.

    Thank god people like you weren't the gatekeepers of freedom and prosperity, because had they been, this country might not even exist.  Not only did my ancestors settle the land, my family fought in a civil war and 2 world wars,  and we paid in blood and taxes to make the the greatest Nation ever.  All that from dirt poor immigrants from Prussia, no better than any immigrant coming here from Mexico.


    Take all the offense you like (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:01:02 AM EST
    I'll even give you a volume discount.

    I have never posted anything against legal immigrants. And, in fact, have said only that the border must be closed and that we should issue green cards for those illegal immigrants already here who can pass a simple check for criminal backgrounds.

    There is no wiggle room on this point in the Constitution, it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, it is probably one of, if not the easiest and most understandable Amendments to read.

    And I understand. I do not argue that it says something it does not. I simply say that it is time to delete it.

    You know, rule of law and all that stuff.


    Try Again (4.67 / 3) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 11:22:18 AM EST
    Thanks for the discount, sometimes it's hard to get off the soapbox.

    So you are saying that we should issue green cards to all immigrants that don't have records, then nearly in the same breath, you want to eliminate the 14th Amendment which does essentially the same thing.

    That doesn't jive.  So at some moment in time, we say everyone here is legal, except for criminals, then no more.  

    Without the 14th Amendment, a family could be here for a hundred years, and at any moment be uprooted and deported.  Sorry, but I can not buy into that.  That is no way to treat human beings that have done nothing wrong but yearn to be free.  Trust me, any debt your 'illegals' have accumulated has been paid in full through exploitation many times over.

    12 years I have been in Houston, and I still don't understand what the problem is ?  Too many immigrants, please, this area has 7 million people, half of them Mexican, and yet we have the same crime rates, lower unemployement rates, lower tax rates, and the same problems as all metropolitan areas.

    What are the Mexicans doing that is so god awful that the Constitution needs amending.  I just don't understand where the fire is and how ridding the country of new Mexicans is going to change anything, except our self respect and our claim to fame, that we will take the poorest of the poor and forge onto be a grand Nation.


    "could be" is a nice (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 12:24:02 PM EST
    qualifier. And I don't believe it.

    As for what I want, I see that you ignore the "close the border part."

    That means no more, no way and no how illegal immigrants will be tolerated in any shape form or fashion.

    BTW - I love your anecdotal about Houston. I use to hear it all the time in the 60's from people I knew in Memphis and other southern cities who just couldn't understand why some people were upset with the status quo.


    Sorry, but illegal immigration has been (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:26:31 PM EST
    used an excuse to justify plain, old bigotry.

    Illegal immigration is sharply down--most likely because of the down economy.

    Crime in Arizona is down.  The murder rate is down sharply.

    The drug wars that will spill over onto U.S. soil?  Not really at all.  Juarez and all its killings....has not spilled over into El Paso--which has about 10 murders--a year.....Yeah, all those illegal immigrants will cause a crime wave.  El Paso is 80% Latino, my friend.  So, one could convicingly argue that more Latinos with their traditionally strong family ties means less crime.

    The reason illegal immigration is now a big issue is that racists have come to power in Arizona.  The guy who pushed the papers please law said people could be stopped by cops as part of an effort to enforce zoning issues.....He gave the example of cars up on blocks in the front yard or too many people living in the same residence.

    This racist in Arizona supported firing teachers with accents and a new law that bans Latino Studies classes in public schools.  And, there was the mural in Northern Arizona of school kids that drew racist taunts because the kids' complexion was too dark--and the order was given to make them lighter.  The artist based his original work on photos of actual school kids.

    The reason for birthright citizenship is to prevent the creation of a permanent subclass of people who are not citizens.  It has been the law for over four hundred years and predates the Fourteenth Amendment and goes back to at least Queen Elizabeth I.  (Do you want to repeal the Magna Carta too?)  According to your logic, people could be deported even if their family had lived here for a hundred years....Thus, you create the anti-melting pot.....A permanent, ever-expanding group without rights--always in fear of deportation.  That is fundamentally unAmerican.   We do not have Helots here.

    That you want to get rid of the Fourteenth Amendment shows how radical you are.  That Amendment was secured so that no longer would there be a subclass of noncitizens who had been born here but who had no rights....It is part of our cherished history bought with blood.  And you want to change it now?  For what?

    Because you fear we are being invaded by "them."....You have used the words of invasion.  You are wrong about the economic impacts of illegal immigration and increase in crime.....But you make up data.

    The reason is bigotry.....nativism....Know Nothingism.  It is a down economy and there are easy scapegoats out there to pick on.....

    Needless to say the drive to repeal perhaps the most sacred Amendment to our constitution because of an ignorant need to scapegoat is wholly incompatible with Christianity.....


    If you want to establish a cutoff (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:04:13 PM EST
    date that would say "prior to x anyone born is a citizen....after X anyone born of a non-citizen is not..." that would work for me.

    See, I'm easy to deal with.

    And no. Insisting that people follow the law is not bigotry. And you know that so please stop with the wild attacks.

    BTW - You gonna show up next Sunday and teach Sunday School?



    It is the basic concept (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:20:56 PM EST
    that we do not have separate categories of citizens or people.

    Arbitrary Cut-off dates do not change the problem.....

    I really do believe that you are unaware of the bigotted nature of your beliefs....They are based on scapegoatting that goes way back....and are not based on actual data.....

    If your views are contrary to the data and based on your own "common sense," then you are basing your views on something that you have not articulated--and it appears given your language of invasion, that you are basing them on the fear of the changing nature of our society.....

    As to teaching Sunday School, I could do a very good job.....


    We do have categories of people via citizenship (none / 0) (#94)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    A citizen is the LEGAL person who has the rights, privileges and protections of their country.  Those distinctions and categories are displayed and enforced with items like passports, voting rights and social benefits.  All protected and enforced by the nation.

    One who enters another country in violation of that nation's immigration laws does not enjoy the "category" of "Citizen".


    Your response makes no sense (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:47:57 PM EST
    We do not have Helots in America--that was the entire point behind this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment we are talking about.  The historical predicate to the Fourteenth Amendment shows bad things happen when people born here are not given citizenship.

    If we have a group of people who do not have rights of citizenship--even though born here, you create a permanent underclass--an evergrowing one as children grow up and have children here--all without rights or citizenship.

    You guys are taking off after the kids....Good gawd....such loss of a moral compass.  The kids born here did not commit a crime.  By law and custom and the Fourteenth Amendment and the 1898 Supreme Court case in Wong, they are citizens--and innocent of any crime....


    The Constitution allows the rules (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:29:12 PM EST
    to be changed.

    Get over it. That's the way it is supposed to work.

    I'll ignore your other baseless personal attacks and claims...

    And I doubt you'd do a good job.


    Sure Does (none / 0) (#114)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:31:44 PM EST
    Let me know when you have done the math.... lol

    Maybe not (none / 0) (#123)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    such a good job.....I do know the material....but perhaps my patience would wear thin when dealing with those who think being Christian means having a better army and navy than anyone else....

    Fine.  Knock yourself out trying to eliminate the Fourteenth Amendment.....We'll see what happens....  


    OK (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:36:34 PM EST
    I've picked-up that you went from rational to somewhere else.

    I can't even wrap my head around my town to your comparison to the Jim Crow south.  That is a leap of logic my mind won't jump.  Because someone doesn't see a problem you do, they are equal to compliant racists that engaged in systemic racism.  Nice try McFry.

    I'm interested in why Mexicans pose such a threat to you specifically or you city or state.  But please don't answer because I can practically write the imagined non-sense that will invariably lead to your taxes and cartels, maybe even defiling of your women or some equivalent.


    I have never mentioned Mexicans (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:15:30 PM EST
    My comment re anecdotal re Houston was to point out that it was anecdotal and has a high probability of being as inaccurate as was the comments from my friends in the 60's.

    I am opposed to illegal immigration. Period. We have about 12 million, almost 5% of the population, in the country taking jobs that citizens would otherwise have. And not only taking jobs, but driving down the wages and benefits of all the other employees. This is concentrated in construction, farm labor and meat packing.


    The downward pressure on wages (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:32:59 PM EST
    can largely be addressed by legalizing those here--or who have been here for quite some time.

    The reason undocumented workers put pressure on wages is that they are here illegally and employers exploit that fact.  Legalize them.  Let them unionize.  And wages will increase....


    Not exactly. (none / 0) (#96)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:43:35 PM EST
    If you legalize the ones here, as has been done in the past, but still allow more new illegal workers into the marketplace, the downward pressure on wages will continue.

    Okay--tighten the border (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:50:49 PM EST
    But the basic laws of supply and demand will cause some illegal immigration no matter what....

    The problem will be solved when wages increase in Mexico and elsewhere....That is the real answer....


    I have commented on (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:35:40 PM EST
    green cards for those here.....I'm for it. But if you don't shut off the supply the downward pressure will just continue.

    Morally disgusting comparison to (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:35:25 PM EST
    Civil Rights movement.....You think elminating the Fourteenth Amendment (or portions thereof) is akin to the push for Civil Rights?  That taking away the civil rights of some is similar to to the Civil Rights movmement?  

    That is really quite laughable.  Americans have learned that the Civil Rights movement was historically moral and important.  So, conservatives at times try to cloak what they do in terms of the Civil Rights movement....with often awkward results....It shows how little they understand Civil Rights.

    The Fourteenth Amendment was the legal backbone of the Civil Rights movement.  And all clauses of that Amendment serve an equally important purpose....


    Have learned? (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:08:44 PM EST
    Quite a few of us knew up front.

    All I want to do is to stop illegal immigrants, or visitors who come here and have their baby for the purpose of having dual citizenship, to be stopped.

    Look, I think we all know that Open Borders is a touchstone of the Left. That is what is triggering all these complaints about AZ, etc., etc.


    Back to the Open Borders (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:25:40 PM EST

    One can be for border enforcement and not repealing portions of the Fourteenth Amendment.  It is not an either/or proposition.

    Why are you so freaked out about illegal immigration that you want to change a legal concept of birthright citizenship that evidences the best of America, indeed is one of the great symbols of American egalitarianism, and is a concept that goes back to Medievel England?


    If it walks like a duck (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:31:31 PM EST
    quacks like a duck, swims like a duck.... it's a duck.

    What's best about giving the children of people here illegally, or here just for that purpose, citizenship because they were born here?

    Come on. Tell me. What magic is in that?


    It is a basic notion of liberty and fairness (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:53:13 PM EST
    That if you are born here, you and your children will not be consigned forever to second class status.....

    The notion of birthright citizenship is not a "Lefty" invention of the 1960s.  It has been around for awhile.....


    That is what you want today . . . (none / 0) (#91)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:31:11 PM EST
    tomorrow it may be staging of citizenship, or probationary citizenship for first generations.  



    What a nutso claim...... (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:33:54 PM EST
    That's the world's greatest strawman.

    Oops, forgot (none / 0) (#148)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 06:46:40 PM EST
    planting mines along the border is next.

    enlightened europeans (none / 0) (#7)
    by diogenes on Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 10:24:48 PM EST
    You do not automatically get German, Swedish, Italian, Norweigian or Dutch citizenship if you are born inside one of those countries to a tourist, guest worker, or to a person in the country illegally.  If what Arizona is doing is so bad, maybe there should be a hue and cry against all other countries with similar policies.

    Exactly. (snark) (none / 0) (#9)
    by free the wm3 on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 01:11:24 AM EST
    We have our laws, and other countries have their laws.  If you object to a law in this country, there is a method to changing those laws, and the stamping of feet and babbling on in xenophobic rants is not that method.

    Foot stamping and babbling (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:17:08 AM EST
    appears to be very democratic...... and is very much part of getting a law changed/deleted.

    "enlightened" europeans (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:02:11 AM EST
    have a lot of laws I wouldn't want.

    But it's their country, they are free to do as they choose.

    Arizona is free to try and secede if they want their own rules.  Good luck with that.  Maybe they can join the country of Mexico.  I hear they have stricter immigration laws.

    Because you're not convincing 2/3 of the federal government and 3/4 of the state legislatures in THIS country to change it.  Not gonna happen.


    I agree (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:07:02 AM EST
    Europe is importing Muslims by the dozens
    and getting radicals by the score
    who every day love their new country less
    while EU's love them more

    with apologies to Ray Price


    Muslim equals "radical"? (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:40:54 AM EST
    equals what? gol dang terr-ist?

    The longer the thread goes, the more those knuckles inch toward the ground..And the more them furners is threatenin' our way of life..


    No, it's not furners (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:02:53 PM EST
    It's furiners....And watch 'em good cause they speak that there furiner language.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 11:31:42 AM EST
    Send em back where they came from....  oh, I forgot, according to you that is reprehensible... you should be fired immediately.

    You prove the point (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:52:32 PM EST
    Europe does not assimilate people as well as the U.S.

    And the reason for that includes not giving the new people citizenship.  So you create ghettos of people who are not citizens.....That is a very destabilizing and dangerous situation.


    You are not keeping up with (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:16:43 PM EST
    what is happening in Europe and your understanding of Islam appears to be poor.

    You mean as in Islam is an (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:26:51 PM EST
    inherently violent religion?

    No, I don't think Islam is a (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:43:03 PM EST
    "religion of peace" no matter what Bush said.

    History proves otherwise.

    Hopefully at some point Islam will be reformed as the Christian church was... and hopefully that won't be as bloody as the Christian Reformation.

    But at present there is no recognized equivalent of Christ teaching peace and brotherly love.

    Islam is a complete package. It has requirements for everything from food preparation to banking to taxing non-believers to who you can marry to how many times a day you must pray and what direction. That makes Shari law problematical in the US on a number of fronts. We are currently just starting to see the various challenges that will be brought forward.


    Social Liberal? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:07:34 PM EST
    How does that square with your abject bigotry?
    No, I don't think Islam is a (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:43:03 PM EST
    "religion of peace" ...

    History proves otherwise.

    Hopefully at some point Islam will be reformed as the Christian church was.

    Please stop with your racism and bigotry. Islam is a religion that 1.3 billion people practice. The percentage of usually right wing fanatics who advocate violence using religion as their basis or justification, is largest amongst the Christian and Jewish religion, with Muslims trailing way behind. And that proves nothing about any religion, it just goes to show that a relatively tiny group of people will use any justification to use violence.

    Just like you say, guns don't kill people do, religions do not advocate violence, people do.


    Saved by a thread (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:05:28 PM EST
    Your post is chock full of religious stereotypes and bigotry....

    But you did point out that Christianity is not today as it once was.  Medievel Christians not being so consumed with peace.  And Islam is still growing as a newer religion.....

    But there are a billion Muslims and you just tarred them all.....That is bigotted....Go hang out with Franklin Graham.....

    As to Jesus teaching peace and brotherly love, too many Christians are quite selective in applying that teaching....and conservative Christians tend to forget the whole thing....


    You said it (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 06:40:52 PM EST
    And Islam is still growing as a newer religion.....

    And we are supposed to accept Shari law because of that?

    And keep on with the bigot nonsense. I never said they had to return to where they came from...



    Shari law? (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:00:50 PM EST
    Where on earth did that come from?  Really?  I have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about......

    Did this come from Limbaugh or Beck?

    What does Sharia law have to do with immigration in the U.S.?


    lookee lookee I mispelled a word (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 08:13:25 AM EST
    Oh, the humanity... the shock...the giggle.

    Really MKS, can you do no better than that?

    Again, start following what is going on in Europe and project that 10 years down the road in this country.

    That will have to concern you.


    Sharia Law (none / 0) (#154)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:06:13 PM EST
    hey there's an upside to that, Jim..You may actually have an opportunity to "serve" by giving and following orders..

    peace and brotherly love.. (none / 0) (#153)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 08:55:27 PM EST
    yeah, that pinko peace activist..That kind of thing emboldens the enemy.

    If he were around today, they'd be burning him in effigy at Tea party rallies.


    heh (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 08:14:29 AM EST
    France does (none / 0) (#155)
    by diogenes on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:29:14 PM EST
    France gives citizenship by birth and has awful ghettos and riots.

    True, continental Europe does not (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:01:00 PM EST
    follow the English Common law on birthright citizenship as we do....

    But the U.S. is the leader in Civil Rights and personal dignity.  That is what makes us great--not our military.....Europe has significant problems assimilating their immigrants....

    If Latinos born of families here for generations are not U.S. citizens, of which country are they citizens?  People without any citizenship.  A permanent underclass of workers....who have no rights....because people are tired of hearing so much Spanish being spoken and don't like all those brown people coming here (and we don't have a problem of too many Koreans or Irish, so, yes, it is targeted at Latinos in spite of the effort to cloak such intent in neutral sounding words.)


    I see a lot of posters in this thread (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 12:36:47 PM EST
    who seem to looking for offense as though there is a reward for it, so they are reading into other poster's comments things those posters didn't say...

    I dunno (none / 0) (#49)
    by CST on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 12:53:14 PM EST
    I think comment #30 is pretty offensive in it's own right.  No need to read into it.  But what do I know.

    Yeah what do I know (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:21:58 PM EST

    After all, Ole Blood 'n Guts didn't come right out and say ALL Muslims are radicals..


    My point remains. (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:11:13 PM EST
    Reward? (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    The group who wants to overturn the 14th amendment is racist, bigoted and unamerican. This ugly sentiment traces back to white separatist movements, neo nazis, and the ugliest of human sentiments.

    FOr those here who support the "movement", no need to read to deeply into their comments, as they are on the face ugly and offensive.


    Did you see this? NM GOP candidate (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 01:21:41 PM EST
    suggests landmines on the U.S./Mexico border:  link

    Wow (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    It amazes me how this issue crops from time to time, having nothing to do with Mexico, immigrants, but instead fearmongering in order to rally an ugly right wing political base who will reflexively deliver votes.  

    Turns out New Mexico has its own (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 01:34:04 PM EST
    Border Patrol agency.  

    Very interesting that the 14th is (none / 0) (#48)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 12:52:58 PM EST
    so sacrosanct in the defense of individuals who intentionally violate the law, yet in other matters (to include the AZ law), the 10th is completely ignored.

    14th amendment (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 12:55:29 PM EST
    says nothing about those who violate the law.  And it is VERY clear, no minced words, about those born in this country.  Not sure what laws you think those babies have violated.

    Please... (none / 0) (#51)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    Other than Treason, the Constitution makes no other mention of violating the law.

    That is a non sequitur that also deflects from my point.


    what? (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 01:12:01 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure "the Constitution makes no other mention of violating the law" that's what I said...

    The 14th amendment is not about law breakers.  It's about children born in the U.S.  Those children are not law breakers.  That was my point.

    What was yours?


    You make better arguments and debate (none / 0) (#57)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 01:35:41 PM EST
    points that than.

    The children of individuals who intentionally enter the US illegally for the sole purpose of having a child are the violators.  They they attempt to hide behind, or have others here use the 14th as their get out of jail free card is the issue.  You know that.

    One could make the argument that the child is the "fruit of the poisonous/tainted tree" which is a common occurrence in other criminal matters.  If A had not occurred, then B is not allowed.  Though, it is primarily used in the exclusion of evidence, the logic is the same.


    Do you favor deporting the parents? (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 01:39:40 PM EST
    Leaving the kids here as public responsiblity?

    If the child is under 18 (none / 0) (#59)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 01:48:49 PM EST
    then the child should go with the parents.  Being born of foreign (non-US) citizens the child will automatically have the citizenship of the country he/she and the parents are being returned to.

    You assume you deport eveyone here (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:14:30 PM EST
    illegally including those born here to those here illegally.

    The logic behind this is very, very shaky.  If you deport everyone here illegally, then where is the impetus to change the Fourteenth Amendment?  Problem solved.

    But if you will have people here illegally that you do not deport, then their children and their children's children will be born here and be without any rights or citizenship.  A permanent underclass.


    I assume/speculate the commenter (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:34:17 PM EST
    thinks if the parents are deported they will take their U.S. citizen children with them.  But I'm not sure that assumption is a good one.  Many of these parents risked alot to come to the U.S. so their U.S.-born children had more opportunities than they did, espec. re education.  

    Violators? (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:03:35 PM EST
    In your mind only. But every one has irrational hatreds and dislikes, most learn to tolerate them, and some act out and wind up living a criminal life.

    The violators are not those with intentions for doing things within the law, the violators are those with intentions of breaking the law, namely those who advocate harm to others.


    Children are fruit of a poisonous tree? (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:11:38 PM EST
    Gee, and I thought kids are innocent beings....

    So, we punish the children for the sins of their fathers?

    The Fourteenth Amendment is at the heart of the what it means to be an American.  It is not what your father or mother did.  It is about what you do.  Everyone has an equal chance.  We do not believe in special treatment for royalty or a permanent class system.


    Once the child reaches the age of majority (none / 0) (#98)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:45:17 PM EST
    they are welcome and fully entitled to apply for any status that they may be entitled to.

    To shelter one who has broken the law behind a child is just as wrong.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:54:50 PM EST
    The kids are entitled to what they are entitled to.  Sounds circular.

    We are not talking about people hiding behind kids--we are talking about the kids.....You guys want to change the Constitution--and hundreds of years of legal precedent--to prevent the kids born here from obtaining citizenship.  


    My wife is a British citizen (none / 0) (#129)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:17:35 PM EST
    who went through the entire "Green Card/Registered Alien" process 27 years ago.  We paid all the fees (and recurring fees), submitted to all the required medical physicals, background investigations and multiple interviews with the requisite "family photos".  

    Her daughter/my step daughter went through the same process at the time. Just two weeks ago she became a US citizen.  

    They did it the right way.  Neither would even consider using their children as a way of circumventing the law to their benefit.  The individuals we are discussing are.  I have zero sympathy or patience for those who chose the illegal path.


    Interesting piece on yesterday's (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    "Marketplace," broadcast on NPR, re effects of AZ law on families, and on schools. Also discussion of whether undocumented families contribute more to the public fisc. than they use.  And the effect of relatively low pd. workers immigrating legally from other states to AZ.  Conclusion is any family at that pay level will require government social service expenditures.  BTW, one woman interviewed (Mexican. undocumented) has been in AZ for 10 years.  Does child care in home for children of working undocumenteds. $400 a month incomde from this work.  But now down to $90/month due to families leaving AZ.  Of course, that is the desired effect of the law.   Marketplace

    subject to the jurisdiction (none / 0) (#62)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:05:57 PM EST
    "All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

    Does anyone know what the emphasized portion means.  Pretty clearly it provides an exception to "all persons born or naturalized", as leaving it out makes all mean all.  Who would that apply to?  Children of foriegn diplomats?

    Yes Diplomats (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:07:12 PM EST
    Exactly (none / 0) (#95)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:41:28 PM EST
    The parents are not "subject to the jurisdiction" in a Constitutional and Citizenship definitions.  They are subject to the jurisdiction, from a Citizenship perspective of their native country.

    just to clarify (none / 0) (#105)
    by CST on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:14:39 PM EST
    there was a supreme court case in the late 1800s that determined that this means that the children of illegal immigrants (at the time any Chinese immigrant was illeagal) were in fact citizens.

    So yes, it means diplomats.  And no, it does not refer to illegal immigrants - who are, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law when on our soil.


    US vs. Wong Kim Ark (none / 0) (#166)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 05:20:13 PM EST

    In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

    I could show you (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:02:35 PM EST
    link and after link to stories of children being molested by Catholic priests....

    Are you really that invested in bashing Islam as a religion?

    The problem you have is that (none / 0) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 07:59:25 AM EST
    the actions of the priests are recognized as wrong by Christians as a group and their are no loosely organized groups focused on molestation..

    Your search for equality between the current actions of the Christian "church" as a group versus the current actions of the radical Muslims and the failure of Islamic religious leaders to condemn them is laughable and you know it.

    Why you even attempt it is a question.


    Recognized as wrong by SOME (none / 0) (#163)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    Christians, but not by the ones who spent considerable time and effort covering up the priests actions..

    Just as the actions of Muslim fanatics -- whom you in your crude, propagandistic manner want to make representative of all Muslims -- are recognized as wrong by SOME Muslims.


    No. The people doing the covering up (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 01:19:28 PM EST
    knew that it was wrong. That's why the covered it up.

    this thread is closing (none / 0) (#167)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 11:36:32 PM EST
    It got trashed by commenters hurling insults. Jondee is on notice to stop.