It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ariz. lawmakers to target automatic citizenship

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by guohua
 





I did have a grade school call me once wanted to know why Maris Sanchez was not in class yesterday,,, I told them maybe she went to have her baby, how would I know, I'm not a Sanchez and I've been blowing dust for 25 years and I don't have Grand Kids either

That's classic, thanks for sharing . I needed a good laugh today.
L2..................




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Another illegal sympathizer I see? Did you fail to listen to the added video from page 1? The female doctor who proves with facts that my original statement about diseases returning from the South of border. Oh, but I bet that's not a legit source for ya? No, your comments and sources are laughable at best. At that comes, in the " highest order".
edit on 31-1-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 





Another illegal sympathizer I see?


Absolutely not.

I am a supporter of the Constitution of the United States of America. Illegal immigration is not going to be solved by unconstitutional clap-trap laws like this.



Did you fail to listen to the added video from page 1? The female doctor who proves with facts that my original statement about diseases returning from the South of border.


She proved no such thing. She quoted statistics, then made unsourced and unfounded assertions about the meaning of those statistics. Those assertions are her opinions and her opinions only.

For example, she mentions Drug Resistant TB (meaning TB resistant to 'traditional' drug regimes), which has been known since the 1970's, I believe. DRTB evolves where those 'traditional' drug regimes are over used. Its recognition was in returning Viet Nam veterans who were heavily dosed with lots of different drugs to protect them from all kinds of tropical 3rd world diseases. Drug Resistant Hepatitis and Syphilis came in this way from Viet Nam as well, I believe.

There are many other drug resistant diseases in the population today, see About Antimicrobial Resistance: A Brief Overview

These resistant diseases are not necessarily coming into the US from outside, they are developing the resistance in the good ol' US of A where the first thing a doctor does when you show up with a cold is to prescribe a course of antibiotics that has nothing to do with solving a cold virus, but everything to do with enabling bacteria to develop resistance to those drugs.

From that CDC link above:


Antibiotic use has been beneficial and, when prescribed and taken correctly, their value in patient care is enormous. However, these drugs have been used so widely and for so long that the infectious organisms the antibiotics are designed to kill have adapted to them, making the drugs less effective. Many fungi, viruses, and parasites have done the same.


Blame the big pharma for that, they WANT diseases to become resistant to old drugs. They don't make money selling drugs that are off patent and onto the generic lists, they have to keep developing new drugs, and new drugs need diseases to treat that old drugs can't.

Blaming this on illegal immigrants is beyond laughable. Any illegal immigrants that are carrying these diseases probably got the disease on the US side of the border.
edit on 1/2/2011 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
I am a supporter of the Constitution of the United States of America. Illegal immigration is not going to be solved by unconstitutional clap-trap laws like this.


Constitution is supposed to be a living document whose sole purpose is to protect the country and its people and carry them happily into the future. There have been amendments before, and I hope there will be more -- especially in the subject of this thread.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Its about time. Birthright citizenship is an absurd ad-hoc idea with no logical basis, that has no place in modern state. Go, Arizona!

edit on 1/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mtnshredder
 


As an Hispanic immigrant, I'm speaking from an unbiased point of view here. Race or color has nothing to do with the countries' immigration issue. Had China been across the border then the same precautions should/would apply. I came to this country legally at the age of five twelve years ago. I learned the language, rules, customs, and trades of this country at an extraordinary pace and level. I disapprove of illegal immigration but I don't know if ammending the fourteenth amendment would be the best way to go. Just like we can't read the minds of our dead forefathers , we also can't read the minds of fetuses so ammending section one wouldn't be the most viable recourse :


"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."
Who are you to say whether said unborn babies are faithful to the country? Instead of seeking the easy way out by changing the constitution, why don't we work harder to secure our borders, target and punish private sector corporations, and actually enforce the state laws before we go for the jackpot. Make it harder for them to thrive and eventually illegal immigration will be undesirable. If illegals don't want to learn the language, culture, and systems of America then they deserve as minimum punishment deportation and or further prosecution. As of 2011 the amount of illegal immigration has dropped : Number of illegal immigrants in US steady at 11.2 M

My two cents. Hope you can make out a fair judgment from those numbers.
edit on 2/2/2011 by MustNotSpeak because: Ask again later



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MustNotSpeak
Instead of seeking the easy way out by changing the constitution, why don't we work harder to secure our borders


Ever heard of the term "anchor babies"? Changing the birthright clause IS one of the ways to secure our borders.

The birthright concept belongs in the era when the continent was not completely settled and the society didn't take its present shape with social institutions we now have in place. There is only so much load this horse can bear.


target and punish private sector corporations, and actually enforce the state laws before we go for the jackpot. Make it harder for them to thrive and eventually illegal immigration will be undesirable.


How about we also make the life of illegals here undesirable? Need to work in all directions.


If illegals don't want to learn the language, culture, and systems of America then they deserve as minimum punishment deportation and or further prosecution.


That's wishful thinking. All across the states, the official forms are often printed in two languages (another expense, by the way). In the ideal world, you maybe right. In the imperfect world we live in, that's not clear.

People would come here, have anchor babies and yes, actually refuse to learn the language. I've had neighbors like this. I've seen many families like that. And you can't deport them. What's your point???



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by MustNotSpeak
Instead of seeking the easy way out by changing the constitution, why don't we work harder to secure our borders


Ever heard of the term "anchor babies"? Changing the birthright clause IS one of the ways to secure our borders.

The birthright concept belongs in the era when the continent was not completely settled and the society didn't take its present shape with social institutions we now have in place. There is only so much load this horse can bear.


target and punish private sector corporations, and actually enforce the state laws before we go for the jackpot. Make it harder for them to thrive and eventually illegal immigration will be undesirable.


How about we also make the life of illegals here undesirable? Need to work in all directions.


If illegals don't want to learn the language, culture, and systems of America then they deserve as minimum punishment deportation and or further prosecution.


That's wishful thinking. All across the states, the official forms are often printed in two languages (another expense, by the way). In the ideal world, you maybe right. In the imperfect world we live in, that's not clear.

People would come here, have anchor babies and yes, actually refuse to learn the language. I've had neighbors like this. I've seen many families like that. And you can't deport them. What's your point???


Actually, yes you can deport them. Step One: You pick up the phone mister 'do you know what anchor babies are'.

However, if you wish to report a person(s) you may do so by calling United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE) at 1-866-347-2423. It is advisable to contact the local ICE Field Office for a faster response. Most of the time if you call the main number, they will refer you to your local field office. For a listing of ICE field offices click HERE.



Anchor babies aren't the problem. The problem lies in the immigrants themselves. Obviously common sense tells us that if we weren't sponsoring their visits here then they wouldn't reproduce here. First, we make sure they stop coming here. If we take their citizenship away, that doesn't mean they'll stop coming. It means they'll still have opportunities to work, evade taxes, thrive and escape the law in general. Your logic makes no sense, but I guess some people just like arguing for the sake of arguing. Changing the fourteenth amendment does not equal SECURING our borders. That's the easy and lazy way out. Securing our borders means employing troops to physically secure the borders and punishing anyone that encourages illegal immigration. Entities such as businesses should stop soliciting illegal practices. Once businesses and states obey the laws, it will become undesirable to live here illegally.

How will they pay the medical bills for their babies without the money? It should become illegal for hospitals to treat them. How will they live with a roof over their heads when they aren't allowed to rent a place? This will be the warning shot that would spell: 'Don't come to this country because we won't receive you'. Sounds rather cruel but desperate times call for desperate measures. This my friend is the solution.

There are millions of illegals that don't care about citizenship in the least, changing the fourteenth amendment won't change the fact that they can and will continue working here illegally until we give them the boot. Obviously your reasoning makes less sense now that you see that as long as they don't pay taxes or abide by any rules then they're fine here.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





Constitution is supposed to be a living document whose sole purpose is to protect the country and its people and carry them happily into the future. There have been amendments before, and I hope there will be more -- especially in the subject of this thread.


The Arizona bill is NOT a Constitutional Amendment. It is only a state bill that is unconstitutional and every Arizona legislator knows it; they may be insane, but they aren't stupid.

Part of the oath that they take on entering office includes a vow to uphold the Constitution of the United States, yet they insist on this bill, and the just as stupid 'birther' bill, in blatant violation of that oath in order to make some idiotic political point that does nothing to address the illegal immigration issue.
edit on 3/2/2011 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





The birthright concept belongs in the era when the continent was not completely settled and the society didn't take its present shape with social institutions we now have in place. There is only so much load this horse can bear.


Wrong.

There are two types of Citizenship anywhere in the world: "Birthright" and "Naturalized". "Birthright" means Citizen from birth, "Naturalized" means Citizen by law.

Would you have everyone go through a naturalization ceremony to become a citizen? Suppose they didn't do that, what would be their default citizenship? Would there be a minimum age when the ceremony can take place? Underage people wouldn't be citizens of anywhere?

Birthright citizenship is either according to 'place of birth' or 'following the parents'. Our system is 'place of birth' and we got it from the British Common Law that is much older than the American colonies. England didn't adopt that method because America was unsettled, it was adopted it because it made sense.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





Birthright citizenship is either according to 'place of birth' or 'following the parents'. Our system is 'place of birth' and we got it from the British Common Law that is much older than the American colonies. England didn't adopt that method because America was unsettled, it was adopted it because it made sense.


But it does not make sense. Citizenship should be inherited from parents only ("jus sanguinis"). There is no reason at all why someone born on US soil ("jus soli") should be granted citizenship if neither of his parents is already an US citizen. Jus soli is an outdated concept, currently used ONLY in Americas:

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 3/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by guohua
 


I think it's funny you think Republican's are trying to save you money.



But hey, we can revise history and over write the constitution just because republicans are doing it!



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





But it does not make sense. Citizenship should be inherited from parents only ("jus sanguinis"). There is no reason at all why someone born on US soil ("jus soli") should be granted citizenship if neither of his parents is already an US citizen.


Well that may be your opinion, but it is not the Constitutional situation, and a bill passed by the Arizona legislature cannot override the Constitution.

By the way jus sanguinis is still a birthright - one inherited from one's birth parents, not one's birth place.



Jus soli is an outdated concept, currently used ONLY in Americas:


I disagree. But if you want to change it, you'll need a Constitutional amendment, not a State law. It will not have any effect on illegal immigration, but you are free to campaign for such an amendment.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by guohua
 





Supporters of the proposal argue that the wording of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to people born in the U.S. who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of this country, doesn't apply to the children of illegal immigrants because such families don't owe sole allegiance to the U.S. This is a true statement.


Except "subject to the jurisdiction" doesn't have anything to do with allegiance. It has to do with what laws apply to them. When they are in the USA it is American law that applies, they are therefore "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA and the State where they are located.

Persons in the USA that are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA are foreign diplomats on the official business of their Government, and members of foreign armies invading the USA during time of war. Period.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


When you find some crediable evidence of illegals born in the U.S. who are "subject to the jurisdiction" My Country Please show me the proof,, as of now, they come and go as they please with no regard to American Citizens our Laws and Paying Taxes,,,, Don't give me this Sales Tax Crap!
They live 4 or 5 families to a home and that is on average 16 people per house, Now that's just nasty.
They are not Subject To The Jurisdiction to the United States Of America, They Don't Have Passports or Visa's.
They are not registered with any official government angeny other than the Welfare Office and Acorn!

They are nothing and they need to be deported NOW!



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by guohua
 




They are not Subject To The Jurisdiction to the United States Of America


Sigh.

If illegal immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of American law, by what authority are they arrested and deported? The answer is people are subject to the jurisdiction of American law, as long as they are physically in the United States no matter how they got here, legally or illegally (with the standard exception of foreign diplomats and invading armies). Citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Wikipedia: Jurisdiction



Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "oath" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. The term is also used to denote the geographical area or subject-matter to which such authority applies.


So you are saying that the USA is not a "formally constituted legal body" that has "the practical authority" to " administer justice within a defined area of responsibility" and that the United States and its territories are not " the geographical area... to which such authority applies."

If a British citizen flies in from London is he not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States? If he proceeds to rob a bank, can he not be arrested and prosecuted by the American jurisprudence system? Does his British citizenship make him immune from from the jurisdiction American law?

If an American smuggles coc aine into Indonesia, can he not be hanged by the Indonesians? Does his American citizenship make him immune from the jurisdiction of Indonesian law?

What is the thing about international extradition treaties? If a visitor is not under the jurisdiction of the country where he commits the crime and he leaves that country, what is the point of returning them to stand trial?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





Constitution is supposed to be a living document whose sole purpose is to protect the country and its people and carry them happily into the future. There have been amendments before, and I hope there will be more -- especially in the subject of this thread.


The Arizona bill is NOT a Constitutional Amendment. It is only a state bill that is unconstitutional and every Arizona legislator knows it; they may be insane, but they aren't stupid.


Don't you see, that's a desperate attempt to maybe move closer to an amendment, i.e. put the issue in the spotlight?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





Don't you see, that's a desperate attempt to maybe move closer to an amendment, i.e. put the issue in the spotlight?


No I don't. If that is what they want then they should campaign for an Article V Constitutional Convention, or get Congress to propose an amendment, not pass unconstitutional garbage laws.

What I see it as is a cynical exercise in blowing smoke up the rear end of voters the politicians involved have no respect for. They are pandering to the fears of the easily led, to trick them into thinking that they are actually doing something when they know very well that what they are doing has absolutely no hope of accomplishing anything worthwhile.

This is a waste of time, money, effort, money, political will, and money. All of which can be better applied to solving real problems.


edit on 4/2/2011 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 




But it does not make sense. Citizenship should be inherited from parents only ("jus sanguinis").


Of course you realize that this would make millions of Americans Dual Citizens, don't you? Of course many millions are already, but if jus sanguinis were to be the way of the world there would be very very few 'single citizens'.

Of course, you realize that most of the birther bills as proposed are trying to add new qualification requirements to the Constitutional requirements?

For example, most are attempting to require the "long form birth certificate", (the Constitution says nothing about a Birth Certificate) when that state doesn't even issue the long form anymore. Arizona's bill would mean that no one born in Arizona after 1989 will ever be eligible to run for President in Arizona.

Nebraska's bill is specifically aimed Obama, and attempts to add the requirement that the Candidate swear that they were born to two Citizen parents (the Constitution says nothing about a Presidents parents) and have never had dual citizenship (the Constitution says nothing about dual citizenship, several Presidents, including Thomas Jefferson were dual citizens). While the Nebraska bill is an obvious ploy to embarrass the President, it is also blatantly anti-semitic. It would also make ineligible every Jewish American without exception as Israel grants citizenship to every Jew no matter where they are born in the world. So two birds with one stone then, I guess that is pretty efficient and must look pretty good to a StormFrontiersman.

Look at your map again. Every American who has a parent, or in some cases even a grandparent, that was born in one of the jus sanguinis nations, is made ineligible by the Nebraska law.

All this fail in just one little idea.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
They are pandering to the fears of the easily led


I really don't think I'm "easily led". I'm an occasionally intelligent and always sarcastic person who doesn't just trust politicians because they are politicians. And fears... Too late for fears. It's not hypothetical, the rape of common sense and American law is complete by now. And you are splitting hair...


to trick them into thinking that they are actually doing something when they know very well that what they are doing has absolutely no hope of accomplishing anything worthwhile.


Don't underestimate symbolic gestures.


This is a waste of time, money, effort, money, political will, and money. All of which can be better applied to solving real problems.


How? Who's going to clear the county I live in, from illegal aliens? At least they are trying to shock people into action.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join