Arizona Lawmakers Introduce Proposal Challenging Birthright Citizenship

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bradl, Jan 28, 2011.

  1. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #1
    We thought it was crazy enough before, and it's about to get crazier.

    From NPR, via the L.A. Times:

    NPR also reports, via the Christian Science Monitor, also reports that something similar is making its way through Congress:

    What the ignorance of this is, and I'm surprised the Reds are acting blissfully unaware of it, is that if this is applied retroactively and countermands the 14th, everyone prior to the 14th's passing will lose their citizenship, meaning their descendants will lose their citizenship. This includes everyone whose ancestors were in Arizona before and after it became a state.

    And this STILL would mean that slaves and descendants of those slaves would lose their citizenship. That is asinine.

    What are they thinking, if at all?

    BL.
     
  2. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #2
    More wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    It won't go anywhere, not even in the AZ state senate.
     
  3. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #3

    while the law will never hold up in the courts but that being said you are trying to apply things to it that are not there.

    It would not go retro active removing citizenship. instead it prevents FUTURE children of illegals from getting it. Trying to apply the things like what you are trying to apply to it is even dumber than the law itself.

    I translate this as another example that something needs to be done about immegration reform because the southern states are having a much harder time dealing with it and the country itself as not done much about it and sadly will not do what is needed to curb illegel immegrents.

    All they need to do to really kill off illegal imegration is go after the reason they are hear and that is jobs. Make it very costly in terms of fines to employer illegally imgration and I would also argue pass laws that make it agaist the law to rent property unless you are hear legally.
     
  4. callmemike20 macrumors 6502a

    callmemike20

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    Even though it will most likely not make it through the court system, it is a good way to tell Washington to do something about immigration. Last year's immigration law was a big deal for a few months, and now Washington doesn't even acknowledge it. Something seriously has to be done, especially in AZ, about illegal immigration. Drugs are smuggled in, people are getting killed, and citizens are even advised to avoid state parks because of the crime due to illegal immigration. It's ridiculous. Washington doesn't live out here and they don't fully understand the impact that illegal immigration has had on the state. They just think everyone is here for an "opportunity." If kidnapping, murders, drugs, and smuggling are opportunities, then they are right.

    The liberals need to stop believing that all of the people coming in are good and start enforcing our country's borders. We have laws, so lets start enforcing them.
     
  5. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #5
    Ahh, but here's the telling lack.

    That act that was used to say that John McCain is a natural born citizen was applied retroactively, as it was passed well and truly after he was born. So precedence is there. Nothing in the bill states that it couldn't be applied retroactively, so if it is, and those descendants lose citizenship, by blood, they would as well.

    What I'm attempting to do is point out an outcome based on the idiocy of this bill, and how dangerous it is.

    BL.
     
  6. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #6
    If he's that not interested in citizenship based upon location at birth, then why were so many of his people in an uproar over Obama's birth certificate?
     
  7. Full of Win macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #7
    Sounds good to me. Anything to cut the line that Anchor Babies provide for their law breaking parents/resource thieves. The sooner we can remove these law breaking illegal alien leaches, the sooner the United States will stop circling the drain.
     
  8. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #8
    YEAH! And while we're in the process of repealing the 14th amendment, we can throw out the 2nd amendment too! YEAH, HIGH FIVE! WHOS WITH ME??
     
  9. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #9
    John McCain was born on a US military base which is US Soil (aka native born). So again that argument is BS.

    What you tried to point out is what I would say is even dumber logic than the bill in this case and the bill is pretty dumb.
     
  10. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
  11. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #11


    John McCain was born on a US base that was not indicated as US Soil at the time he was born. It took an Senate resolution applied retroactively to declare him a natural born citizen, setting the precedent that all US bases, military installations, etc. are US soil, making anyone born there a natural born citizen:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#2008_presidential_campaign
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html
    Hence, the non-binding Senate resolution.

    And what I have been trying to point out is how extreme this bill, if passed, could be taken to. As WashPo also points out, what would have been said if Goldwater or Romney won. And if a Senate resolution can go back to say that McCain was a natural born citizen, what is to stop Congress as a whole to go back and say that this can't strip people of citizenship by simply by this amendment repealing that part of the 14th?

    I know it won't pass any muster, because the States must also ratify it, but there is the extreme you have. Just because it has no chance of happening doesn't mean that that extremity couldn't be discussed.

    BL.
     
  12. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #12
    I remind you yet again that your great-grandparents did the same exact thing here over 150 years ago. So like I said, if taken to the extreme and applied retroactively, you, by blood relation to those great-grandparents of yours, would lose your citizenship too.

    So tell us. How would you feel to be booted back across the pond over something you had no control over?

    BL.
     
  13. JoeG4 macrumors 68030

    JoeG4

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Bay Area, Ca.
    #13
    At what point do these *******s draw the line? I say we kick everyone out except the Native Americans that were here before us.......

    Unfortunately, a lot of the people in question in the states that would appear to want that the most, have more Native American heritage than the people that want to kick them out. :D
     
  14. callmemike20 macrumors 6502a

    callmemike20

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Location:
    USA
    #14
    My grandparents and great grandparents came to this country legally. They worked hard and lived comfortably. They didn't come here and sell drugs, kill people, destroy others' property, and simply make the living conditions unsafe.

    Sure, there may be a few decent people crossing the border illegally to escape trouble and honestly have better lives, but a lot of them are not in that position. There is a reason for all this criminal activity by illegal immigrants in Arizona, and its not because of US. It's because they want to take advantage of our broken system. We need to control the border and stop feeling bad for these people. View them as a threat, which at this point they are. A few good men may be left behind, but that's what happens when one ruins it for all. Take for example:

    -War: We lose a few good men to protect our nation. Although no one likes war, it is sometimes necessary. The death of an American soldier is not necessary, it but will happen.
    -Sarbanes Oxley: Because of a few messed up people at Enron and a few other corporations, businesses are now required to spend a ton of money making sure they follow these rules.

    We have become a nation of pansies who want to be nothing more than politically correct and not "offend" anyone. Well guess what, I'm offended by the fact that our country doesn't defend itself from intruders. We fought hard for our freedoms, and we are just letting people screw things up.

    Note: Since I am not a minority or a member of a "marginalized" group with some tearful story that Obama can share with everyone, no one will care about what I have to say.
     
  15. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #15
    While my post was not directed towards you, since you interjected, may I ask one simple question?

    In which state did your ancestors settle when they immigrated to here?

    BL.
     
  16. callmemike20 macrumors 6502a

    callmemike20

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Location:
    USA
    #16
    Illinois. They were from various countries and came here at different times. It just ended up happening that they all were in the same state, got married, reproduced, and yea...I'm here a few generations later.
     
  17. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #17
    Aren't we all descendants of illegal immigrants? The pilgrims never applied for a visa then citizenship from the Native Americans when coming over here.
     
  18. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #18
    Native Americans didn't have laws regarding immigration. Kind of hard to break something that isn't there. Added to the fact even if they had laws such as that we pretty much dethroned them of their land replacing the law structure with our own. The word illegal implies there is some law to break, if we are going to just assume laws were there the land really belongs to some primitive form of life who was here first.
     
  19. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #19
    Can you prove that?

    If they came to America before 1900 and they weren't Chinese, then the concept of legal/illegal is moot. Because back then there was only immigration. Yes, a person could be excluded if they were an enemy of the state, but the US border was very porous and people could walk north over the Rio Grande or south over the 49th parallel without being declared legal or illegal.
     
  20. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #20
    The Constitutionalists will fight against this proposal.
     
  21. Full of Win macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #21
    My family has been here for well over 200 years. In fact that land I currently own has been in my family for 164 years, verified thought my country records.

    It is not the exact same thing. My forefathers came here LEGALLY, and when they did they did not come as moochers with their hands out. The difference are these ILLEGAL alien leachers are using anchor babies to play the system. They use them to latch themselves onto OUR system and engorge themselves on our resources (Medical, Educational, Welfare ect...) that have took generations to build.

    Its similar to locus, they take take take, overwhelm the system, and destroy it. It is just not sustainable, as a result of quality of life goes down because of these parasites.

    I have no issue with legal immigration. If you want to come to the US, then play by the rules, follow our prescribed laws. However, I take umbrage at these parasites that break our laws, do not respect the US and then have an anchor babies to game the systems and take our hard earned resources.
     
  22. Full of Win macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #22
    How so? Constitutionalists understand that the document can be amended, or shall I say emended in this case. Indeed, its a high barrior to reach, but that is the point.
     
  23. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #23
    Just for the record, my family has been here much longer than yours. But . . .

    Your family took it from the Native Americans. In the south west, hispanics took the land from the Native Americans long before the Europeans took it over.
     
  24. callmemike20 macrumors 6502a

    callmemike20

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Location:
    USA
    #24
    Well, since the land is ours now...

    If hispanics are illegally invading our land, should we see it as a threat of them taking it over the southwest? Should we declare war against Mexico to protect our borders. We can't look back hundreds of years to see who the land belonged to. It's moot. The fact is that now it is considered American soil and we have a right to protect it.

    However, it doesn't seem like they want to take their land back. In fact, they are crossing the border illegally in order to reach America. If the American border ended in Kansas or Nevada, they would still be trying to come in illegally. They are not coming for the land; they are coming for our way of life. So, the idea that the land was once theirs and they have a right to it is moot.
     
  25. Full of Win, Jan 29, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2011

    Full of Win macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #25
    Are you serious? My family did not take anything from Indians. The land was acquired from the indians by European countries....eventually the United Sates of America (you know, a country) took dominion.

    If they want it back, they are free to declare war against the Unites Stases.

    Moreover, I hope you do understand that there were several Indian nation (s). I have made the S bold and red, so you can see there were several of them in North America. These nations would routinely seize land from the other indian nations via conquest. European counties just joined the fray and came out on top.
     

Share This Page