Anti-Anchor Baby Law

[charrison]

Thats part of the problem. Allowing people to stay on unemployment for 2 years is asanine.

That is the point. People would rather not work if they dont have to. A lot of those jobs that are done by illegals require real work.

 

[her209]

There was an interesting article about a lawn care company that could not hire people at $12/hour because people wanted to stay on unemployment.

Was this a recent story? Is it the same one where people were surprised that they were offered the job?

 

[Double Trouble]

It's a smart idea that makes logical sense. Most other countries that I'm aware of have similar rules. The lefty fringe that loves illegals will surely want to crush this initiative, but with the supreme court set up the way it is right now, there's still a chance that an initiative to update the laws could be upheld.

 

[Slew Foot]

That is the point. People would rather not work if they dont have to. A lot of those jobs that are done by illegals require real work.

Take away the lifetime of unemployment checks and watch those lazy ass losers get to work fast.

 

[nick1985]

Take away the lifetime of unemployment checks and watch those lazy ass losers get to work fast.

this

 

[charrison]

Was this a recent story? Is it the same one where people were surprised that they were offered the job?

THe story ran int he past couple of week. Detroit news I think.

 

[nick1985]

Detroit

lol

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Ha! Good luck with that.

We'll need luck given our incompetent Congress. In this case, they are on the right track.

Legal immigrants already have an avenue to citizenship.

 

[ProfJohn]

14th amendment: < oops wrong amendment

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.


I wonder if an argument can be made that since their parents are there illegally that this provision would not apply to them.

 

[Carmen813]

Always knew that a bunch (read: a lot, not all) of the right-side people here crying about the Constitution were full of it.

"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."

If people on this forum don't realize what a ridiculously slippery slope this law could become, then I'm not really sure there is any hope for them.

*Edit* Damn, ProfJohn beat me to it Though I believe it's actually the 14th Amendment. There is nothing to stop you from making that argument ProfJohn, but it won't pass constitutional muster. It doesn't matter if your parents are illegal immigrants, citizens, or test-tubes.

 

[Kappo]

Overall, I like what they are doing, but I seriously doubt they will score any real wins or change America as a whole.
Having said that, its sorta nice I can hate on illegals without being branded a racist in P&N.

Honestly, I can't see how hating on a criminal is bad. I personally don't even hate on the people themselves, but the drain on our infrastructure. I like what they are doing as well, basically saying "If you can't be bothered to do things the right way, the piss off".

Although, things have been all lax and our laws were just not being enforced, so I can't really blame THEM in particular. At least things are shaping up!

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Always knew that a bunch (read: a lot, not all) of the right-side people here crying about the Constitution were full of it.

"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."

If you don't realize what a ridiculously slippery slope this law could become, then I'm not really sure there is any hope for you.

*Edit* Damn, ProfJohn beat me to it Though I believe it's actually the 14th Amendment.

Funny how the "slippery slope" argument was dismissed as "alarmist" when we discussed it relative to the government potentially taking over health care, which it has no explicit constitutional mandate to do.

 

[nageov3t]

12th amendment:

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.


I wonder if an argument can be made that since their parents are there illegally that this provision would not apply to them.

I think it would really depend on how you define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

 

[her209]

12th amendment:

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.

I wonder if an argument can be made that since their parents are there illegally that this provision would not apply to them.

Its the 14th Amendment, not the 12th.

Everyone in the US (legally or illegally) is subject to the laws of the U.S.

 

[Carmen813]

Funny how the "slippery slope" argument was dismissed as "alarmist" when we discussed it relative to the government potentially taking over health care, which it has no explicit constitutional mandate to do.

Woah, almost caught me there with your red herring. Here I thought we were talking about American citizens being expelled from the country without any legitimate Constitutional reason.

 

[ProfJohn]

Always knew that a bunch (read: a lot, not all) of the right-side people here crying about the Constitution were full of it.



If people on this forum don't realize what a ridiculously slippery slope this law could become, then I'm not really sure there is any hope for them.

*Edit* Damn, ProfJohn beat me to it Though I believe it's actually the 14th Amendment. There is nothing to stop you from making that argument ProfJohn, but it won't pass constitutional muster. It doesn't matter if your parents are illegal immigrants, citizens, or test-tubes.

As Loki said: "it would really depend on how you define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof""

The ironic thing is that if you use the right wing 'strict' definition of the constitution then they are most likely citizens.

But if you use the left wing 'squishy' definition then you could come up with some argument stating that they are not.

Something along the lines of "do we follow what the text actually says, or do we follow what the intention of the amendment was' etc etc. Obviously this amendment was written to give slaves citizenship, not to give citizenship to the babies of people here illegally.

 

[her209]

Legal immigrants already have an avenue to citizenship.

So do people born in the US. How does someone claim "immigrant" status when they were born in the US? Where does said "immigrant" get deported to?

 

[Carmen813]

As Loki said: "it would really depend on how you define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof""

The ironic thing is that if you use the right wing 'strict' definition of the constitution then they are most likely citizens.

But if you use the left wing 'squishy' definition then you could come up with some argument stating that they are not.

Something along the lines of "do we follow what the text actually says, or do we follow what the intention of the amendment was' etc etc. Obviously this amendment was written to give slaves citizenship, not to give citizenship to the babies of people here illegally.

It's not only the left-wing that creates "squishy" definitions. Both sides do it, especially when they don't like something the Constitution says. I'm not going to go into it here, but I think if you give it some thought you will agree.

I disagree with part of what you said. The amendment was meant to address slavery, but it was also meant to clarify what a citizen is.

I don't see how you can possibly make the "subject to the jurisdiction of" argument, as it would seem to imply that somehow the U.S. government does not contain jurisdiction about determining who a citizen is. That is why the second half of the amendment is there. The amendment makes it fairly clear that states do not have the power to deny citizenship to anyone born inside the country. You can't have "equal protection of law" if you are treating a specific subset of persons (i.e., illegal immigrants) differently.

 

[Genx87]

As much as I dont like anchor-babies. I dont know how this will stand up to the constitution.

 

[her209]

I read this awhile back and thought it was an interesting case to make...

Quote:
in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his "own will without the action or assent of the United States." And "no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." Graglia says this decision "seemed to establish" that U.S. citizenship is "a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States." So: "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal."

Maybe that's why Congress passed the Indian_Citizenship_Act_of_1924

 

[spacejamz]

The sad part of this whole story is the fact that the illegal immigrant lovers here cannot see how these illegals are exploiting our system and they don't have a problem with that. Yet when legal means are used to try and fix the problem, they cry "racism"!!!!

Because illegals continue to bend our system to suit them, we need to make changes to fix the problem.

How is it the US citizens cannot get free diapers, forumla, car seats without going through tons of paperwork to prove they are low income earners yet illegals can get this easily by simply claiming they are here illegally?

 

[nageov3t]

So do people born in the US. How does someone claim "immigrant" status when they were born in the US? Where does said "immigrant" get deported to?

don't we already deport illegal immigrant babies back to Mexico with their parents?

 

[ProfJohn]

The argument I am making would be a tough one and I don't know if it would work.

It may take an amendment to change things and we are a long ways away from that politically.

 

[EXman]

AZ is on a roll lately.

uncommon common sense.

anchor babies clog up our public assistance system in KY I can only imagine what it is like in AZ. And we have lots of poor white trash.

 

[her209]

don't we already deport illegal immigrant babies back to Mexico with their parents?

Babies born to legal immigrants aren't deported to Mexico.