• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,116
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
link


In this, those supporting a state law to not recognize such birth certificates are going way too far. This is CLEARLY a violation of the U.S. constitution which grants U.S. citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

Don't like this, work to change to Constitution. However, unlike the other two controversial laws (which I support), I can NOT support this proposal. It is blatently unconstitutional.
 

This is indeed a constitutional matter, enough said. However I'm sure some people are bound to come in to cheer in support of this possible state law.
 

His first law hasn't been tested yet and he's already going after the babies.

And, some might say, based on his first law, he hasn't really read the U.S. constitution or bill of rights in quite some time.
 
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged." - Jean Luc Picard
 
how retroactive are you willing to make it Russel???????????
 
hazlnut said:
His first law hasn't been tested yet and he's already going after the babies.

And, some might say, based on his first law, he hasn't really read the U.S. constitution or bill of rights in quite some time.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with the first law, it is actually not as broad as existing federal law. However, this new proposal clearly violates the Constitution.
 
ludahai said:
Nothing wrong with the first law, it is actually not as broad as existing federal law. However, this new proposal clearly violates the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The test of the first law is still to come.

Fed Courts won't rule on state laws on paper, once it goes into practice and they have actual cases to review... Then we'll see.
 
While I dislike the idea (albeit stereotypical) of illegal immigrants intentionally having a child so that it becomes a citizen (thus making one of their family members a citizen of the US, the so-called "anchor baby" bit)...

If those children are put through public school properly, they should become productive citizens...Assuming the public school system functioned properly, which it does not currently (pet issue here).

But yeah, the law is fine as is, although perhaps requiring several months residency (even if illegal) would be an idea.
 
He need to go read the freaking continuation of America. Am I the only on, that is worried that what Arizona is doing might become reality? I mean come on the birth right is constitutional. The author of this bill needs to go read the continuation of America.
 
The Constitution was amended to say that anyone born within the United States is automatically a US citizen. It can be amended again to say that only those born to US citizens are automatically granted citizenship-- and I think it should be.

Failing that, however, his proposed law is unconstitutional and should not be pursued.
 
hazlnut said:
The test of the first law is still to come.

Fed Courts won't rule on state laws on paper, once it goes into practice and they have actual cases to review... Then we'll see.
Click to expand...

If the state law is misapplied and racial profiling DOES occur, I expect cases of individual enforcement. However, if the AZ law is unconstitutional, so is existing federal law.
 
I hope states like New Hampshire pass this law. All those 'anchor babies' from Asia need to be done away with too.
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
huh?!?!? non sequiter?
Click to expand...

What? You think Mexicans are the only illegal immigrants? They illegal immigration from Asia is a problem too you know.

ALIPAC - Illegal immigrants from Asia are increasing along the US borders

 

We need to be careful here, otherwise we may lose our birthright citizenship rights in Mexico. Mexico can be a mirror to y'know...
 
ludahai said:
In New Hampshire?!?!?
Click to expand...

Why not? What? You think the only state that has illegal immigrants is Arizona?

And, yes I am aware that there are other illegal aliens. I disagree with the proposal in this thread, or did you NOT read the OP?
Click to expand...

I did. And my statement is this is exactly what those who supported the other laws deserve. It was only a matter of time before they came up with something like this. If they want to enforce it retroactively? I'm down. I ain't got nothing to worry about.
 
Hatuey said:
Why not? What? You think the only state that has illegal immigrants is Arizona?
Click to expand...

It makes sense to:

1. Apply this to a state with a demonstrable illegal immigration problem. Arizona has this. NH's illegals are very minimal and I doubt there are a significant number of Asian illegals there. Nice strawman, though.

2. It also makes sense to see if the Arizona law is effective before other states enact it. I have also said this previously.


Difference is that the first law is Constitutional and addresses a real problem. The current proposal is clearly UNConstitutional. I know some people have difficulty separating issues for partisan reasons, but these are NOT the same and reasonable people can support one and oppose the other despite what some partisan hacks may say to the contrary.
 
ludahai said:
It makes sense to:

1. Apply this to a state with a demonstrable illegal immigration problem. Arizona has this. NH's illegals are very minimal and I doubt there are a significant number of Asian illegals there.
Click to expand...

How do you know?

Nice strawman, though.
Click to expand...

Learn what a strawman is.

2. It also makes sense to see if the Arizona law is effective before other states enact it. I have also said this previously.
Click to expand...

Well then you should have no problem with this law. You see no problem with people being stopped and asked for documentation papers simply because they seem like they're not from here. I have no problem with anchor babies being removed with their parents. What are we discussing?

Difference is that the first law is Constitutional and addresses a real problem.
Click to expand...

Since when is it up to local police agencies to enforce immigration laws? K thanks Bye!
 
Hatuey said:
How do you know?
Click to expand...

Do you know anything about NH other than it is one of the most beautiful states on the Eastern seaboard?

Learn what a strawman is.
Click to expand...

I know what it is, hence I can detect them when you make them.


Of course I have a problem with this law. The US CONSTITUTION states that anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That is a bit different than being asked for documentation. Also, the AZ law does NOT empower Law Enforcement Agents to simply stop over people and ask for their documentation papers (though by law they are legally required to possess them), it requires them to stop them for another legal reason first before asking. If you don't have identification, that may be one reason for reasonable suspicion...

As for "anchor babies", they are U.S. citizens. That is NOT the same as requiring documentation from immigants as they are NOT immigrants in the first place.

Since when is it up to local police agencies to enforce immigration laws? K thanks Bye!
Click to expand...

They are responsible for upholding the law. The State government is now saying that this now falls under state law. In the absense of action from the federal government, the State has the right to protect its own citizens.
 
ludahai said:
Do you know anything about NH other than it is one of the most beautiful states on the Eastern seaboard?
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to show us how you know.

I know what it is, hence I can detect them when you make them.
Click to expand...

Obviously not because at no point did I misinterpret your position.

If I had attributed an argument to you,
Of course I have a problem with this law. The US CONSTITUTION states that anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That is a bit different than being asked for documentation.
Click to expand...

The 4th disagrees with you.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment



Sowwies. Your broad interpretations and vague wording aren't sufficient.

As for "anchor babies", they are U.S. citizens. That is NOT the same as requiring documentation from immigants as they are NOT immigrants in the first place.
Click to expand...

They're the children of people who are here illegally. Their "citizenship" has been obtained by way of an illegal activity and thus invalid.

They are responsible for upholding the law. The State government is now saying that this now falls under state law. In the absense of action from the federal government, the State has the right to protect its own citizens.
Click to expand...

If enforcing federal immigration laws falls under the duties of states - I see no reason for this not to.
 
 
Jetboogieman said:
This is indeed a constitutional matter, enough said. However I'm sure some people are bound to come in to cheer in support of this possible state law.
Click to expand...

The constitution should be amended so that the status of the parents is the status of the child but I agree Arizona cannot unilaterally ignore the 14th amendment etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…