Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:Have to see on that one. I just wanted to point out that a lot of Mexicans here legally really hate having illegals around and would like to see something done about them, also.
A lot of these illegals are among the reasons they left Mexico in the first place. A good friend of mine sweated blood getting his family out of TJ legally to get them away from the crime down there. Imagine his happiness to see illegals up here doing the same crap that made him sacrifice a so much to get his family away from their type.

Well, we'll see what happens. I don't really understand why anyone would think that 1070 might deter gangbangers, but hey, maybe some good will come of it.

Definitely hope so, bro. I've had less than good experiences with illegals myself.

JEB_Stuart wrote:And its the one that matters, since SCOTUS essentially incorporated the right to bear arms to the states without the express requirement of service in a militia.

Heller v. D.C. specifies that the militia clause serves to modify the operative clause guaranteeing the right to bear arms. This is similar to what Fateweaver was describing, but isn't quite the same as it doesn't indicate that they are two separate ideas (ie. the amendment contains a dependent, and independent clause). That would require a semicolon, which the founders would have been well aware of.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Just a rough estimate of how much you think the state will have taken out of its budget by legal fees from nutters with an anti-immigration agenda suing because they think the authorities aren't going after illegals hard enough would be nice, thanks.

Well... this sounds like an Arizonan source.

Arizona immigration law could overwhelm state's court system, attorneys say.

Arizona's impending crackdown on illegal immigrants has the potential to overwhelm the state's court system with criminal and civil cases once enforcement begins, Arizona immigration attorneys Maria V. Jones and Kara Hartzler said.

Without accompanying immigration reform to make following the rules more practicable, enforcement of Senate Bill 1070 could triple the number of cases almost overnight, with no additional court staffing or funds to accommodate them, they warned.

Sounds like a great plan, Arizona...

Doesn't mean they have to go after everyone at once, though. A few really public examples might be enough to get the ball rolling, and scare a lot of illegals out. It might even bring on the extra reform talked about to help things along.

Just half assed speculation on my part here in hoping for a best case scenario, mind you.

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:Wasn't the law allowing infants born on american soil put in place around the time of the civil war to allow the ex-slaves to be considered american citizens? If so, we need to really look at that law and maybe remove it.

Personally I hate illegal immigration and its supporters. The whole "Well, they're just trying to better their familys' lives." argument especially. Why can't they get the part that they are ILLEGAL? I can't very well use that argument to defend a drug dealer now can I?

Also, illegal immigrants really have no rights seeing as though they aren't citizens of the united states. So, how can illegal immigrants protest in the streets without being deported or risking deportation? That's complete bull in my opinion.

Oh, and if you can point out a law that allows non-citizens the rights of citizens please point it out to me. Seriously, I mean this last part in the nicest tone possible.

What rights are you talking about?

Oh man, I've stayed away from this thread for too long and now I am behind. I will start with some earlier posts.

KK, I am talking about the rights given to american citizens by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Among those are the right to bear arms, the freedom of speech, etc.

Now, I am not sure about what Dogma meant about the whole assumption that illegals are protesting part. This part is not winnable for either side as doubts can be cast either way.

@Shuma,

I have no idea where you were going with the psychic and magician part. I think you mis-posted that in the wrong thread as it had nothing to do with what I said. It is a true fact, but affects this as much as the price of tea in China does.

Also, the basic freedoms are very,very broad. Freedom of speech can mean many things as can the second amendment(in fact that is argued on a near daily basis). However, I would like to point this out.

14th amendment wrote:Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is the exact wording of the beginning of the 14th amendment. This means that anyone born in the country becomes a US citizen. Now Shuma, remember when I said that you cannot compare the two?

This is why, the above amendment is very, very narrowed in on what they wanted to convey and you cannot argue what they meant by this. Both are amendments, but the 1st amendment to the 10th amendment were originally submitted along with the Bill of Rights. The other amendments were added later on (the 14th was added in the year 1868) and worked on the issue of slavery and the newly freed slaves.

In fact, the 14th amendment was one of the few amendments created to help a specific group of people instead of the nation as a whole. Not only that, but it gives immigrants the chance to try to stay in the country just because their child is a US citizen. We have tried to fight this by saying that the child cannot sponsor the parents until he/she is 18 years old though.

This leads to orphaned children and now broken families as the law also allows us to separate child from mother.

This amendment needs fixing as they forgot to include a date setting the cut-off limit to who it can apply to. We can do this though with a new amendment that sets a grandfather clause or something to it.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Unless, of course, they walk outside without their wallet, get picked up by the police, and get that $500 in costs you mentioned. Because until proven otherwise, the police will be acting under the assumption that they're illegal.

And again, this is a risk most of the legal immigrants are willing to take. It's not even a very big risk, because walking outside without your wallet, and "getting picked up by the police" is already a headache waiting to happen, as I stated in an earlier post. Isn't that big of a risk anyways; as long as you're not doing anything to attract attention to yourself, talking to the police is an uncommon occurrence. A good majority of the voting population here is willing to have to remember their wallets, in order to ensure the government (state and/or federal) cracks down on the illegal immigration happening along our border.

halonachos wrote:This amendment needs fixing as they forgot to include a date setting the cut-off limit to who it can apply to. We can do this though with a new amendment that sets a grandfather clause or something to it.

And the second amendment needs fixing as they forgot to include a clause stating what "arms" are. You can fix that though with a grandfather clause.

Lordhat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Unless, of course, they walk outside without their wallet, get picked up by the police, and get that $500 in costs you mentioned. Because until proven otherwise, the police will be acting under the assumption that they're illegal.

And again, this is a risk most of the legal immigrants are willing to take. It's not even a very big risk, because walking outside without your wallet, and "getting picked up by the police" is already a headache waiting to happen, as I stated in an earlier post. Isn't that big of a risk anyways; as long as you're not doing anything to attract attention to yourself, talking to the police is an uncommon occurrence. A good majority of the voting population here is willing to have to remember their wallets, in order to ensure the government (state and/or federal) cracks down on the illegal immigration happening along our border.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how 1070 solves the problem of people who would have gotten through such checks previously with false ID.

@Shuma,

I have no idea where you were going with the psychic and magician part. I think you mis-posted that in the wrong thread as it had nothing to do with what I said. It is a true fact, but affects this as much as the price of tea in China does.

It was reference to the fact that it's highly unlikely the police can parce legal from illegal status in mass protests. You were supposing that they should not be given the right to do so, I was noting that it's not like they can do anything about it without infringing on the right to assemble and the right to protest of the citizens you would naturally also be placing under arrest.

As for differentiating a very solid clause with a more vague one within the constitution I'm not particularly certain that the status of exacting language within the clause is actually an artifact of writing that can make it easier or more difficult to repeal or change. It's quite obvious that it's not so singularly defined, but that is neither something to it's credit nor particularly to it's detriment. It's irrelevant insofar as both clauses have purposes both historically and in modern practice, differentiated almost solely by legal precedent and popularity. Something vague can be altered just as easily as something well defined, and the formation of citizen militias and a guarantor of personal protection during an era of weak national militaries and a non existent national police force is not so much stronger of a cause than that which permitted the addition of the fourteenth.

And again, this is a risk most of the legal immigrants are willing to take. It's not even a very big risk, because walking outside without your wallet, and "getting picked up by the police" is already a headache waiting to happen, as I stated in an earlier post. Isn't that big of a risk anyways; as long as you're not doing anything to attract attention to yourself, talking to the police is an uncommon occurrence. A good majority of the voting population here is willing to have to remember their wallets, in order to ensure the government (state and/or federal) cracks down on the illegal immigration happening along our border.

As a technicality these laws actually do absolutely nothing to deter illegal migration. They may seem like a level of control, but its highly unlikely they will lead to a significant enough increase in deportations to offset the number incoming illegals. Given the high cost of initiation as well as the largely unconstitutional nature of the bill itself it's likely to end up costing Arizona significantly more than it will save financially without noticeably easing the burden placed on the state by the presence of the illegals. A good majority of the voting populace wants something, anything, to make this problem go away. That doesn't make this a good law, and it doesn't make its enforcement particularly feasible considering Arizonas fiscal situation.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how 1070 solves the problem of people who would have gotten through such checks previously with false ID.

According to what I read in Wiki, a lot of illegals are leaving the state to avoid the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB1070

Check the impact section of the article.

Relapse wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how 1070 solves the problem of people who would have gotten through such checks previously with false ID.

According to what I read in Wiki, a lot of illegals are leaving the state to avoid the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB1070

Check the impact section of the article.

The article that is based off of notes that they are going to texas and california, not back to their home countries, though It's unlikely arizonans really care about the distinction. Immigration flight is rarely anything but a repositioning within America itself as previous local crackdowns have shown.

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:Wasn't the law allowing infants born on american soil put in place around the time of the civil war to allow the ex-slaves to be considered american citizens? If so, we need to really look at that law and maybe remove it.

Personally I hate illegal immigration and its supporters. The whole "Well, they're just trying to better their familys' lives." argument especially. Why can't they get the part that they are ILLEGAL? I can't very well use that argument to defend a drug dealer now can I?

Also, illegal immigrants really have no rights seeing as though they aren't citizens of the united states. So, how can illegal immigrants protest in the streets without being deported or risking deportation? That's complete bull in my opinion.

Oh, and if you can point out a law that allows non-citizens the rights of citizens please point it out to me. Seriously, I mean this last part in the nicest tone possible.

What rights are you talking about?

Oh man, I've stayed away from this thread for too long and now I am behind. I will start with some earlier posts.

KK, I am talking about the rights given to american citizens by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Among those are the right to bear arms, the freedom of speech, etc.

Some of the constitution applies only to citizens and some applies to non-citizens as well.

And it doesn't really address what I meant.

If they stay, and they have fake ID which is realistic enough to have fooled social services, in what way are they affected by this?

Oh, and the penalties have apparently gone down from $500 to $100 and from 6 months to 20 days for a first time offence.

I find it funny that people from outside the US want to mention the 2nd amendment. As far as I know, the U.S. is the only country that includes the rights of the bearing of arms and militias in the structure and wording of their Constitution.

The constant rehashing of 1070 is also humorous. That law was written and later revised with certain explicit criteria for the reqiurement of ID... all of which was discussed elsewhere in this forum.

This thread is about the question of "Anchor Babies".
What Arizona is proposing is that if the parents are found to be in this country illegally, then the state has the right to deny them a certificate of birth.
Is that unconstitutional, maybe, let the courts decide that.
The idea though is to discourage a mother from coming here illegally simply to have her child as a means of becoming a resident alien.
Some people do not see that as an issue, but it happens and frequently. And yes, these mothers then qualify for a variety of Welfare programs as a result.

People want to talk about the "rights" of these people that have already shown a total disrespect for the laws of this country.
What about the "Rights" of the people that are here legally?
What about the rights of the actual citizens of this country?
Do they not matter?

As I understand it, there is a significant amount of case law which supports the amendment giving citizenship to everyone born in the USA.

As such the 1070 denial of a birth certificate would seem to be unconstitutional, however we shall have to wait for a case to be brought, which may have to go all the way up to the SCOTUS.

To clarify... AZ 1070 has little to do with the Anchor Babies issue. That law is still in the "writing" stage. It only gets mention due to it is being written. What it will actually say is still to be seen.

helgrenze wrote:I find it funny that people from outside the US want to mention the 2nd amendment. As far as I know, the U.S. is the only country that includes the rights of the bearing of arms and militias in the structure and wording of their Constitution.

Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Constitution of Cuba "When no other recourse is possible, all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle, against anyone who tries to overthrow the political, social and economic order established in this Constitution.""'

Chapter IV, Article 60 of the Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) "The State shall (...) arm the entire people and fortify the country on the basis of equipping the army and the people politically and ideologically."

Article 10 of Mexico's Constitution states the following: "Article 10. The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms within their domicile, for their safety and legitimate defense, except those forbidden by Federal Law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Militia, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law shall provide in what cases, conditions, under what requirements and in which places inhabitants shall be authorized to bear arms."[7]

Under Sharia law, there is an intrinsic freedom to own arms

Under Swiss law, certain adult males who have received training in the Swiss armed forces are reservists who are required under law to keep their official firearms at home.

helgrenze wrote:To clarify... AZ 1070 has little to do with the Anchor Babies issue. That law is still in the "writing" stage. It only gets mention due to it is being written. What it will actually say is still to be seen.

The point still stands.

It's probably a waste of time to discuss as someone will bring up the constitutional issue during the formation of the law, and it may get dropped before it goes much farther.

reds8n wrote:

helgrenze wrote:I find it funny that people from outside the US want to mention the 2nd amendment. As far as I know, the U.S. is the only country that includes the rights of the bearing of arms and militias in the structure and wording of their Constitution.

Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Constitution of Cuba "When no other recourse is possible, all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle, against anyone who tries to overthrow the political, social and economic order established in this Constitution.""'

Chapter IV, Article 60 of the Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) "The State shall (...) arm the entire people and fortify the country on the basis of equipping the army and the people politically and ideologically."

Article 10 of Mexico's Constitution states the following: "Article 10. The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms within their domicile, for their safety and legitimate defense, except those forbidden by Federal Law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Militia, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law shall provide in what cases, conditions, under what requirements and in which places inhabitants shall be authorized to bear arms."[7]

Under Sharia law, there is an intrinsic freedom to own arms

Under Swiss law, certain adult males who have received training in the Swiss armed forces are reservists who are required under law to keep their official firearms at home.

I did say "as far as I know".
But if you wish to compare... 4 of the above are basically conditional, The 2nd amendment isn't. as for the other one.. 'Intrinsic' is not the same as 'written'.

..can the Constituitional NEVER be suspended then ?

Do all USA citizens, even felons, get to own firearms ?

All U.S. citizen have the right to bear arms. A felony conviction brings forfiture of your rights.

In your examples above;
Cuba gives no guarentee of the right, only the right to defend the nation, with arms if no other recourse is available.
N. Korea: It kinda helps to read the whole article.....

Article 60.
The State shall implement the line of self-reliant defence, the import of which is to train the army into a cadre army and modernize the army, arm the entire people and fortify the country on the basis of equipping the army and the people politically and ideologically.

as well as the chapter (titled "National Defense") that includes it and not just the Wiki crib notes. Weapons are not privately owned, but are property of the state.

Mexico: Federal law shall provide in what cases, conditions, under what requirements and in which places inhabitants shall be authorized to bear arms

Swiss: that law covers only people with military training.

helgrenze wrote:All U.S. citizen have the right to bear arms. A felony conviction brings forfiture of your rights.

So , in other words, it's entirely conditional upon the actions of your Govt. with regards to your legal status. Wow.

Wrong... it is conditional on the actions of the individual.
If you commit, and are convicted of, a felony, certain of your rights are forfeit.

The Govt. cannot make laws that "Infringe" on that right for everyone. They can, however, make laws that remove those rights from individuals that commit certain crimes.

What's all this got to do with birth certificates?

Not a damn thing really....

Like you said before... the constitutional issue will probably be brought up well before passage and likely kill that particular bill.

Kilkrazy wrote:What's all this got to do with birth certificates?

You can't have a birth without a certificate. prudent parents plan ahead and take care of that weeks, even months before the birth (sometimes years). Otherwise its very rushed. The government is quite strict and they won't let you complete labor until the proper forms are filled out and notarized. Everyone forgets the notary.

helgrenze wrote:
If you commit, and are convicted of, a felony, certain of your rights are forfeit..

Because, of cause, everyone convicted is guilty of what they did, in every single case ever in the entire history of the country.

So, as long as you can trust what the Govt. does, then you're fine. Brilliant.


So, it's conditional then.

Now see, thats what I would call 'troll baiting'.

But, since you seem so keen to learn American Law....
I am sure you can find a school that will teach it to you... For a Price.

helgrenze wrote:'troll baiting'.

I find it funny that people from outside the US want to mention the 2nd amendment.

But, since you seem so keen to learn American Law....
I am sure you can find a school that will teach it to you... For a Price.

I'll wait until you've studied the laws and Cons. of other nations, which you are, apparently with no sense of irony, willing to comment on.

..see ?

I also tried to get the thread back on track.
I doubt England has the extent of immigration problems we have here:
Daily illegal border crossings. Pregnant women almost giving birth on the roadside, just over the border. Gangs conducting turf wars on both sides of said border. Agents of the INS being attacked for escorting some-one to the border. Agents being attacked for enforcing the laws in this country. Citizens being shot on their own property by either illegals or the coyotes that transport them.

Is Arizona doing everything right? probably not. But the problem is bad enough that the state legislators felt the need to address it with these laws.
Constitutionality will be decided in the proper courts.

Just note, only one law was passed 1070, and that is not going into effect until the end of July.
The other, the one this thread is about, would deny a state certificate of birth to a child of a woman that is in this country illegally. It is an attempt at limitting the "anchor babies" issue.

Which has NOTHING to do with the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

As for my comments on other countries constitutions... I did preface it with "As far as I know", YOU posted specifics which, on comparrison, fell short of the point you attempted to make.