New Arizona law against illegals : no automatic citizenship for children born of illegals

reply to post by guohua


is this picture authentic? if it is i'll be the first to denounce it, what i do like in the pic is all the american flags. it shows they are showing allegiance to the american flag, i respect that!

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Yes the picture is authentic and I had to change the format to jpeg from bitmap.
Why would I fake a picture?
The American Flags are nice, but, the flags were handed out to the protesters alone with t-shirts.

Originally posted by broahes
When did we get rid of section 1 of the 14th amendment?

We never got rid of it, but let's look at it a bit more closely:

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.

For one thing, United States jurisdiction is different from State jurisdiction. US jurisdiction is geographically limited to those lands & properties that are US Possessions & Territories (such as Guam, Puerto Rico, etc) as well as those lands specifically given to the Feds by the State (such as National Parks, Military installations & other such "needful buildings").

So for any child to be "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the child would have to be born inside of officially designated federal territory. The same holds true for naturalization...In that it means becoming documented for the Naturalization process through Immigration Services to become a US citizen.

The Congressional Journals (these Journals are where you'll find the original intent of Congress at the time any legislation is considered!) at the time this Amendment was ratified also explain another reason was to prevent the families of foreign dignitaries (such as diplomats & the like) from popping babies as American citizens. Said dignitaries themselves were still under the jurisdiction of their home country & therefore their children were also born under foreign jurisdiction.

The amendment was originally written to also provide certain (albeit limited) civil rights for the newly-freed slaves at the time, so that they would have some form of protection under the law. However, becoming a US citizen (as compared to being a Natural Born Citizen not born on US lands) meant that only those Rights specifically mentioned in the Amendment would be upheld. In contrast, a Citizen born within State boundaries (not on federal territory) are accorded the full range of Natural Rights enumerated by the Constitution & the Common Law.

Originally posted by djvexd
Seeing how citizenship is applied and given by the federal gov't

Not entirely true...The federal government can only grant or revoke US citizenship. Natural Born Citizenship is a birthright that existed & was upheld by the "several states" even before the US government was created! Remember that the "states" (after the War of Independence) were more like individual nations in their own right...they were the original English colonies that had won independance from England. The national level of government wasn't created until some years after the end of the war & the state governments were then acting as diplomatic envoys among each other...This was the Continental Congress. The federal government did not create the States...The States (under We the People who had delegated our state governments with certain political powers) created the federal government!

Yes, this does mean that there are two different classes of citizens in America: The superior form is (by legal definition) spelled with a capital "C" & represents a Natural Born Citizen within State boundaries; The US citizen (legally spelled with a lower-case "c") is quite literally a "second-class citizen" protected only with the limited range of Rights as specified within the 14th Amendment. The federal government can legally strip anyone of their US citizenship, because it's defined by the 14th Amendment (not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights), but no one can legally strip a Natural Born Citizen of their Natural Rights.

Originally posted by broahes
I am not disputing what was intended. I am disputing the false interpretation of legal definitions.

And this is what the federal government has done...Falsely interpreting the law & enforcing the resulting "policy" as if it were law. The whole "anchor baby issue" is not specifically written in the laws...By SCOTUS ruling, when it comes to examining the law, they've upheld that "what is not specifically included must be expressly excluded." This means that if any "intent" is to be applied, it must come from those who originally wrote & passed it as law, not by the modern-day individual who reads it.
And yet, when political pundits try to interpret the law, they tend to apply their own personal viewpoints, instead of going to the Congressional Journals of the time & actually using the original intent as it was written. This is a psychological delusion that seems predominant within the far-left political mind (although the right is also guilty of the same problem).

A good example of this is when, before the Health Care Reform Bill was passed (illegally, against established Legislative Procedures, no less), the left wing-nuts were telling us that health care coverage was a Right! What a load of BS that was! Health Care is not a Right because no one is born with it...It's not an endowment from the Laws of Nature. It is a "good," a product or service that must be paid for by somebody...It is a product used in an act of trade. This is how the government messed everything up...By convincing Americans that we are "entitled" to these goods & services that the government promises. In truth & by Nature, such entitlements are not birthrights & never were.

However, this wasn't really a problem in America until the advent of the "New Deal" & Social Security. One of the tricks that the Feds pulled on Americans is the "registration" of the Birth Certificate. What this means is that the parents who fill out the application are "offering to enter into contract" with the federal government. The Birth Certificate makes its way (eventually) to the Bureau of Commerce, the Federal Reserve Bank & the International Monetary Fund! In essence, the parents have simply asked the feds to consider their child to become the "second-class citizens" as defined by the 14th Amendment, instead of retaining the Natural Born Citizenship! There's a lot more to this, but this is the nutshell version...More info has already been researched right here at ATS in this thread, this thread & this thread.

Also note the fact that the Bill of Rights does not enumerate the full range of Natural Rights...The 9th Amendment establishes this. The Bill of Rights was derived directly from the Common Law, so it is within the Common Law is where other Natural Rights may be enumerated.
So, by law, the only legal "anchor baby" that could be granted automatic US citizenship are those born on actual Federal property, which is very, very limited.

Originally posted by broahes
I do not believe in law, the rule of law, the interpretation of laws, or the legal definition of legal terms.. I figured you should clearly know that about me before we carry this on all day.

I understand what you're saying here. I'd just like to point out that the Common Law is also referred to as the Natural Law. That is to say that it's the same as "the Laws of Nature as set forth by the Creator." The Natural Law literally governs over all life on this planet & is distinctly different from the other laws created by men & governments. I felt that I should point this out so that those who see me writing about Natural Law & legislated law knows what the distinction actually is.

The Constitution & Bill of Rights were originally written with the Natural Law firmly in mind when being discussed/debated by the Continental Congress. In fact, the Continental Congress weren't ever going to ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was already amended to it! The various states were concerned about the eventuality that whatever national government they create would expand its powers & violate individual & state sovereignty! This is what the 10th Amendment was all about.

For another example, the 2nd Amendment Right for the States (militias) & the (individual) People to own & bare arms simply affirms that all life forms have some form of self-defense...The chameleon changes colors, the bird can fly away, the gazelle has its speed, the turtle has its shell, etc. Since humanity doesn't really have such natural "in-born defenses," we use our minds & intellects to create tools to survive & defend ourselves. The 2nd Amendment confirms that our tools for self-defense consists of the "arms" we build. So when you see or hear about any kind of regulation that restricts or hinders people from owning "arms," stop & wonder: what part of the phrase "shall not be infringed" do they have trouble understanding?


[edit on 29-5-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]

reply to post by conspiracy nut


The day before it was Mexican flags, but after the (conservative) media outlets began screaming (well to be fair, so did lou dobbs) the organizers started passing out the flags.

Not so much showing respect as covering their own arses.

This is great news. I hope it passes. I think we should close our borders, kick out illegals, put up minefields at the border, banish the children of illegals, recall all our troops from all foreign countries and then go back to being isolationists the way we were prior to WWII.

I have some personal experience with the immigration issue, here's my story. when my parents got married they moved to France, My Dad worked for a company that sold encyclopedias, no Frenchman was qualified for this job. within two weeks of moving there they enrolled in a class to learn French, they stayed ten years and had 4 kids, all of the time they had permission from the government to stay because my Dad was still working for the same company. I was born in 1961 and have a French Birth Certificate....but I would still have to apply for Citizenship if I wanted to live in the Country where I was Born. My point is, Our Government has allowed all the people of the world to come and live with us, and now that things are getting out of hand...people want to point fingers at somebody else. this is going to take a collective effort from every side, the illegal immigrants who know they are getting a free ride need to understand that nothing is free, somebody has to pay, and it shoudn't be your neighbor, and our Government needs to understand that they need to change the law and put a stop to one of thier biggest screw-ups in history, or the children that are born today to all Americans and past immigrants who became citizens of this country will only suffer more . Another point; I knew a family that rented from one of my relatives for approx. twenty "20" years, a few years after I moved away fom that town I was told a story by that relative, they said that they knew that the Dad of this family lived at another address so his wife and kids could receive welfare checks at her address. like I said, Personal Experience! (I don't want to pay money to familys that I don't know when I am struggling to pay my own family...but my Government makes me do it !!) Please Don't Reply to my post in anger, I don't know any of you well enough! Thanks

mexico has overpopulated itself. did america overpopulate it? no we did not. have we done anything to motivate mexicans to "become citizens" of america? this is a poor country leaking into another poor country. americas financial, and economical system is dwindling. i believe mexicans should go back to mexico. if they have so much pride in their heritage, then they can proudly go back.

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by broahes
When did we get rid of section 1 of the 14th amendment?

Thing is...the 14th amendment was never ratified by Arizona... so there ya go.

But still it probably won't fly since this is a federal matter...

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Vitchilo]

Arizona, by choosing statehood in 1912 became subject to the Constitution and all amendments, including the 14th, which was ratified 1n 1866. Even the Arizona State Supreme Court acknowledged that AZ was subject to the 14th Anendment in STATE OF ARIZONA v. HOMER ROSEBERRY
No. CR-03-0247-AP.
So Arizona has no say over who is or is not a citizen of the United States. It is a strictly federal matter. Of course, it can try to secede from the US. And give up the billions of dollars it gets in federal funding each year.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by 4nsicphd]

reply to post by guohua


I am not accusing you of faking the picture, i am questioning if the picture itself is a fake and maybe you didnt know, the language on that sign is appaling. it definitely does not help their cause.

reply to post by Rockpuck


they didnt have to wave the flags, if they are such america haters they would have ditched the flags, i say good for them for holding on to the flags and walking with them! sometimes i wonder if it would even make a difference if all the illegals were flag waving, ultra conservative, fluent english speaking, model citizens to some of you. some of you may seriously be in denial of your racism.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by guohua

 

I am not accusing you of faking the picture, i am questioning if the picture itself is a fake and maybe you didnt know, the language on that sign is appaling. it definitely does not help their cause.

That's OK, I knew you were asking about the picture and not my honesty.
The picture is Very real, the protester holding the sign was one of their main agitators in the crowd with out a bull horn.



[edit on 29-5-2010 by guohua]

All i can say is this that Arizona is just inforcing federal law anyways. People need to be quite when it comes to saying Arizona is wrong because its a law they are illegal key word illegal i think that people should go out and commit and crime and when the judge asks you why you did it you say it was illegal judge but i thought since illegal immigrants can break the law so can i. Thats just my view on it all i know is i think were do to have a new civil war soon because you have state against state country against state and sooner or later this tug of war that their playing is going to end badly and i think Arizona will separate from us and all i can say is im going to be on Arizonas side. I believe our borders need to be shut down and armed with our soldiers or better yet minutemen armed to the teeth with the best weapons out there. All who are caught illegally coming over our border should be presecuted as a terrorist because you are invading our country and last time i checked that is a big nono but this is just my view on it and i know many may disagree and that is your opinion but this is mine.

Well, this is a bittersweet sort of thing.

Sure, it sounds good when you apply it to illegals and illegals only, however, a bigger picture is forming here. For those who play chess, you should be able to gauge the true reason behind this form of legislation, and how it can be actually used against American Citizens when, or if, martial law gets declared in the U.S.

Use your instincts on this one. Something is brewing, and the vice grip is clenching.

Its about time,no other country allows this to happen in there country........................bunch of damn racist anyway.



[edit on 29-5-2010 by Battleline]

reply to post by daskakik


I don't know. In the last decade or so I have observed many in politics making legitimate legal pushes to try and enact laws or policies which I would have believed in the past were unconstitutional or illegal, and some have succeeded (much to my personal dismay.) So perhaps they actually believe they'll be able to do this? I hope not.

Originally posted by zzombie
Its about time.

Take away the incentives to come here & let them throw off the chains of their oppressors in their own F'n countries. Its not just Mexicans its Guatemalans & another dozen countries.

Anybody with brown skin is what you're saying, right?

Originally posted by Mr. Toodles
Talk about an excellent move! Considering how many states have already backed Arizona's previous legislation, I believe this may go a long way. Even if it is just political babbling. The fact that it has been proposed may raise questions and put ideas in the rest of the States. Way to go Arizona!

reply to post by piddles

 

Seriously? You are going to call him racist because of the "foreign Hoarde" remark? Look at the country, that is exactly what it is. They have overwhelmed our local governments. They have run our neighborhoods down. And taken the jobs that LEGAL citizens should have. A hoarde is exactly what they are. They have destroyed us.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Mr. Toodles]

It's funny that a English-first fanatic would use a word not in the dictionary. I looked at all the online dictionaries for "hoarde" and it's not English - It must be a hillbilly dialect of ignorante, the language of bigots or in one "special" case, a gay guy looking for a NSA, which I assume is "No Strings Attached" f#$%buddy for one night stands. Look at www.fbuds.com... for an interesting read. People really should use different usernames for different activities, shouldn't they, sd?

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by broahes
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

Amendments have to be ratified by 3 quarters of the states to pass.. the 14th amendment was ratified by the needed number, so it did indeed become an amendment for all of the states.

Wrong. Review here:

The 14th Amendment Was NOT Ratified

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT

THE 14TH AMENDMENT - EQUAL PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OF USURPATION

These spurious and continually rejected arguments are based on a claim that senators and congressmen from certain states like Georgia, were not included in the count. The problem was that these states had withdrawn from the Union, and had not yet been readmitted, when the 14th Amendment was brought up, considered and ratified in 1866. Georgia was not readmitted back into the Union until 1870. Kind of like moving from Arizona to England and then complaining when AZ won't let you vote.

I am of Native American decent and take offense that these laws are only targeting "Brown people" people forget Illegal Immigration effects indigenous peoples also as Illegals take jobs that Americans and Native Americans may want.

Not to mention how Mexico itself treats it Illegal Aliens and it's own Native Mexican population and suffers from major anti native sentiment and I would guess the illegal immigrants would still harbor many of these views.

I know this seems cliche but I support legal immigration not Illegal immigration.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


He threw in one "A" too many... it most certainly is English.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Now quit troll baiting and either contribute to the discussion or go away. Sometimes I wonder just how egregious an insult has to be before the mods actually do something about it

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Legion2112]