AZ plans to give the finger to the 14th Amendment

[Instant Sunrise]

From Time Magazine.

"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots — the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. — for their next move.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona — and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution — to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists — things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop.

But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave.

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.

But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.

Those who oppose the bill say it would lead to more discrimination and divide the community. Among them is Phoenix resident Susan Vie, who is leading a citizen group that's behind an opposing ballot initiative. She moved to the U.S. 30 years ago from Argentina, became a naturalized citizen and now works as a client-relations representative for a vaccine company. "I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create — and it's creating it now — a separation in our society." She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now." Vie's citizen initiative would prohibit SB 1070 from taking affect, place a three-year moratorium on all related laws — including the anchor baby bill — to buy more time for federal immigration reform. Her group is racing to collect 153,365 signatures by July 1 to qualify for the Nov. 2 general election.

Both sides expect the anchor baby bill to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court before it is enacted. "I think it would be struck down as facially unconstitutional. I can't imagine a federal judge saying this would be OK," says Dan Barr, a longtime Phoenix lawyer and constitutional litigator. Potentially joining the anchor baby bill at the Supreme Court may be SB 1070, which Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law in April. It is set to take effect July 29, but at least five courtroom challenges have been filed against it. Pearce says he will win them all.

So Arizona wants to deny citizenship to people born in the United States. In no way is this an explicit and massive violation of the 14th amendment. After all, it isn't like somebody could arrest and detain somebody who is a US citizen BY BIRTH and on the assumption that they are an illegal immigrant, and assume any proof to the contrary is forged.

Honestly, it's crap like this pushes Arizona closer to becoming a fucking sundown state.

I'd say that there is no way this is constitutional, but with the way the Supreme Court is packed, it could end up being affirmed in a 5-4 decision.

[Alyeska]

This law is going down in flames the moment it hits a Federal court. How exactly is this going to be enforced? Only the Feds can deport illegals. And the Feds follow Federal laws, not state ones.

[Alyeska]

Wait a second. Deny Birth Certificates? What The Fuck? You need to fucking record these things. And hospitals don't fucking ask for immigration status in the first place. This is a fucking feel good law that is going down in flames and is completely unenforceable.

[Instant Sunrise]

Just a quick clarification, that link at the bottom, "somebody," was meant to go to this article on Joe Arpaio (the original article is behind a paywall now).

Sheriff Joe, despite being on the state-level of enforcement, regularly conducts sweeps through Maricopa County (which includes the city of Phoenix) to check the immigration status of anybody who looks like they could be an illegal immigrant. Of course, how you can tell if somebody has an expired visa from looking at them is beyond me.

[Stark]

America is a great welfare state ?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Wait a second. Deny Birth Certificates? What The Fuck? You need to fucking record these things. And hospitals don't fucking ask for immigration status in the first place. This is a fucking feel good law that is going down in flames and is completely unenforceable.

There's nothing in the constitution which forces a state to issue birth certificates, but this is a huge problem as birth certificates are fundamental to how the USA keeps data on citizens. The Federal ID Card may become necessary if states start refusing to issue birth certificates.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Yeah... I'm wondering if they'll change certificates to indicate 'noncitizen birth', or come up with a different way of keeping track.

[Thanas]

Screw AZ. This is not only going to mess with illegals, I am willing to bet that this also includes some nice furhter hurdles for legal immigrants.

[Gil Hamilton]

This is pure political theatre. I'm willing to bet that asshat from Mesa sees his local and rural popularity over SB1070 and is padding his "tough on illegals" resume because he's looking to move up from the State Senate (John McCain isn't going to last forever). He knows that his bill is unconstitutional and virtually admits that it is, but there is nothing stopping him from trying to push it through. After all, when this gets shot down, he looks like a hero and can point his finger at the Federal Government for this not working out (again, which boosts his cred amongst his target constituents).

If he was serious, he'd be pushing for a Federal Constitutional Amendment to the 14th, not putting forth a doomed bill in the AZ State Senate.

[Night_stalker]

Ehh, he probably knows it will fail, but he probably intends on using the publicity this gets him to be reelected.

Plus, even if it passes, what are the odds that anyone will actually try and enforce it anyway?

[Elfdart]

Screw AZ. This is not only going to mess with illegals, I am willing to bet that this also includes some nice furhter hurdles for legal immigrants.

That's the idea. The Republitards want to do to Hispanic voters in the Southwest what they've been doing to black voters in the Southeast for decades: groping for any chickenshit excuse to keep them from voting. For black voters it's the felon purge (convicted felons can't vote in most southern states) where not only are felons not allowed to vote, but if you have a similar name, description, date of birth etc as a felon, your name can and will end up on the list. It's a long article, so I'll just post the first part:

Friday, Nov 1, 2002 09:27 ET
Jeb Bush's secret weapon
94,000 people on a voter "purge" list -- half of them African-American -- continue to be banned from voting in Florida, even though the state knows the list is wildly inaccurate.

In December 2000, we reported that Florida's use of a faulty and politically questionable list of felons and dead people "scrubbed" from voter rolls -- half of them African-Americans -- may have cost Al Gore the 537-vote margin of victory claimed by George W. Bush in Florida.

Fast-forward two years. There's another close race in Florida. This time, younger brother Jeb is fighting to fend off a challenge from Bill McBride for the governor's race. The Nov. 5 face-off could again come down to thousands, if not hundreds, of votes.

And even though the list has been widely condemned -- the company that created it admits probable errors -- the same voter scrub list, with more than 94,000 names on it, is still in operation in Florida. Moreover, DBT Online, which generated the disastrously flawed list, reports that if it followed strict criteria to eliminate those errors, roughly 3,000 names would remain -- and a whopping 91,000 people would have their voting rights restored.

Eventually the list will be fixed, state officials have promised, in accordance with a settlement with the NAACP in its civil rights suit against Florida following the 2000 election. But not until the beginning of next year -- and after Jeb Bush's reelection bid is long over.

Florida is the only state to have paid a private company to "cleanse" voter rolls. The state signed a $4 million contract with DBT in 1998 (since 1999 a division of ChoicePoint of Atlanta) to create the scrub list, called the central voter file, which was mandated by a 1998 state voter-fraud law. That followed a tumultuous year that saw Miami's mayor removed after an election in which ballots were cast in the names of dead people. The voter-fraud law required all 67 counties to purge duplicate registrations and deceased voters from voter registries, in addition to removing felons, many of whom, but not all, are barred from voting in Florida.

DBT was instructed to list all voters whose names, birth dates, genders and races closely (but not exactly) matched those of ex-felons throughout the United States. But those matches were purposefully broad -- and imprecise.

During congressional hearings in April 2001, ChoicePoint vice president James Lee testified that the company had warned Florida election officials that the results would not be completely accurate. "DBT told state officials that the rules for creating this list would mean a significant number of people who weren't dead, who weren't registered in [in a Florida county], and who were not convicted felons would be included on the list," Lee said, adding that while "DBT made a lot of suggestions to the state on ways to reduce the number of eligible voters on that list," he quoted a Florida official who told them that they "want[ed] to capture more names that possibly aren't matches" and let the county supervisors determine if they were the right person or not.

Since that experience, ChoicePoint has gone out of the business of scrubbing lists. Lee said that "although we had been approached by other states to perform similar work, ChoicePoint has declined to perform voter registration for other states" because "when comes to performing work which may impact a person's right to vote, we are not confident that any of the methods that are used today will guarantee that the legal voters will not be wrongfully denied the right to vote."

Florida, however, seems to have decided to keep using those methods. Even when they're laughably inaccurate.

The state's list, most of which has been obtained and reviewed by Salon, contains such alleged criminals as Thomas Cooper, whose inclusion on the list represents either the dawning of a "Minority Report"-era of predicting criminal behavior -- or a glaring error. According to the list, Cooper is listed as a felon convicted on Jan. 30, 2007. In all, the list includes more than 400 people whose crimes were apparently committed in the future. More than 8,000 on the list have no conviction date at all. And eight, remarkably, appear to have been convicted before they were even born.

In 1998, elections officials with the secretary of state's office secretly directed DBT to use "fuzzy" matches of first names such as John, Johnny and Joan. As a result, voter Johnny Little of Leon County was not allowed to vote in 2000, because of a crime committed by one Johnnie Little of "locale unknown." In this case, the legal names did not match, but the two Littles' birth date and race (both are black) did. Johnny Little was tagged for removal from voter rolls. Also, the state, over the objections of DBT, also ordered the company to ignore suffixes such as "Jr." and "II," and mismatches of middle initials.

As part of the NAACP's suit against Florida, ChoicePoint agreed to review all the scrub lists. The company's report, dated Aug. 19, 2002, indicates that of the 94,000 names on the lists, only 3,000 match the nine key criteria (including social security number) that experts -- including DBT's senior vice president, George Bruder -- have stated is necessary to avoid misidentification.

Now they want to disenfranchise Hispanics, too. The purpose of all these laws (aside from pandering to racist morons) is to make it so legal residents -including especially citizens- have reason to fear any dealings with the government and will act accordingly by not registering to vote. If that fails, they'll probably have an illegal immigrant purge list:

"Sorry Mr. Ramirez, but you have the same last name as an illegal immigrant who got deported so even though you're an American citizen and a registered voter, we can't let you vote. If you contact the registrar's office you can apply to have your name removed from the list in a few weeks. Yes, it's short notice what with it being election day and all, but maybe you can vote in the next election two years from now."

Fuck Arizona.

[ZGundam]

So what do you prepose we do? you disagree with anything AZ tries to do to keep illegals out, but offer no alternate.

And before you say legalize the ones already here, I beleive Regan tried that in the mid 80s but they still keep coming.

Or would you rather just open the gates and say, "Come on in! You illegal and want to come to the US? Come on in! You never want to leave and get free everyting? Stay! You want to vote yourselves into office? Be President? Come on in!"**

At this rate, we will see 1/2 on Mexico living in the US.


**sarcasm

[Atlan]

So what do you prepose we do? you disagree with anything AZ tries to do to keep illegals out, but offer no alternate.

And before you say legalize the ones already here, I beleive Regan tried that in the mid 80s but they still keep coming.

Or would you rather just open the gates and say, "Come on in! You illegal and want to come to the US? Come on in! You never want to leave and get free everyting? Stay! You want to vote yourselves into office? Be President? Come on in!"**

At this rate, we will see 1/2 on Mexico living in the US.


**sarcasm

If you want EFFECTIVE measures, start by tackling the real problem: Companies that hire illegals.

But that jackass Pearce just wants to disenfranchise a lot of folk, and bolster his ratings.

[ZGundam]

So what do you prepose we do? you disagree with anything AZ tries to do to keep illegals out, but offer no alternate.

And before you say legalize the ones already here, I beleive Regan tried that in the mid 80s but they still keep coming.

Or would you rather just open the gates and say, "Come on in! You illegal and want to come to the US? Come on in! You never want to leave and get free everyting? Stay! You want to vote yourselves into office? Be President? Come on in!"**

At this rate, we will see 1/2 on Mexico living in the US.


**sarcasm

If you want EFFECTIVE measures, start by tackling the real problem: Companies that hire illegals.

But that jackass Pearce just wants to disenfranchise a lot of folk, and bolster his ratings.

I do not see any Democrats trying to place up a bill to do just that. That would be an effective measure, but they wont do it cause it would take away a large voting block for them. The more they rally against the AZ law, the more the votes they get from Hispanics.

[Akhlut]

So what do you prepose we do? you disagree with anything AZ tries to do to keep illegals out, but offer no alternate.

Legalize marijuana and vociferously go after any company that hires illegal immigrants. The first measure would eliminate some 40-80% of cartel drug money, thus defanging them to a significant extent, thus eliminating a lot of the drug trafficking illegal immigrants to come here.

The second measure would eliminate most of the rest coming here.

As to why that doesn't occur: neither side wants to legalize marijuana for fear of looking 'soft on drugs' while neither side wants to go after companies hiring illegals because both love fellating big business. Until their corporate overlrods decide that hiring illegals is too much trouble, neither side of the aisle is actually going to do anything to actually get rid of them. All these measures put out by the Republicans is just a lot of hot air and work toward making a de facto serf/peasant class in the United States, as opposed to actually getting rid of any significant number of illegal immigrants.

[Temujin]

The Republicans always want to treat the symptoms and not the cause, mainly because the methods are easier for the public to understand, easier and quicker to implement, and often appeal to peoples baser more instinctive natures.

Crime: Hire more cops, pass stricter laws, and build more prisons.
Immigration: Build a fence, get more people to guard it, pass stricter laws, export or jail the illegals.

The Dems at least try to pass some social reform legislation, but it often gets watered down by Republicans, and then automatically lauded as a failure when it doesn't automatically produce results that are 100% successful.

[Atlan]

So what do you prepose we do? you disagree with anything AZ tries to do to keep illegals out, but offer no alternate.

And before you say legalize the ones already here, I beleive Regan tried that in the mid 80s but they still keep coming.

Or would you rather just open the gates and say, "Come on in! You illegal and want to come to the US? Come on in! You never want to leave and get free everyting? Stay! You want to vote yourselves into office? Be President? Come on in!"**

At this rate, we will see 1/2 on Mexico living in the US.


**sarcasm

If you want EFFECTIVE measures, start by tackling the real problem: Companies that hire illegals.

But that jackass Pearce just wants to disenfranchise a lot of folk, and bolster his ratings.

I do not see any Democrats trying to place up a bill to do just that. That would be an effective measure, but they wont do it cause it would take away a large voting block for them. The more they rally against the AZ law, the more the votes they get from Hispanics.

Pearce is a republican, and this piece of horrid drek is his, and Arizona is a republican state, unless I'm sorely mistaken. How do you suddenly go from "Shithead Republican proposes horrid piece of legislation which won't do what it promises" to "Democrats aren't doing what republicans want!"

Seriously, were you dropped on the head as a child?

[ZGundam]

If you want EFFECTIVE measures, start by tackling the real problem: Companies that hire illegals.

But that jackass Pearce just wants to disenfranchise a lot of folk, and bolster his ratings.

I do not see any Democrats trying to place up a bill to do just that. That would be an effective measure, but they wont do it cause it would take away a large voting block for them. The more they rally against the AZ law, the more the votes they get from Hispanics.[/quote]
Pearce is a republican, and this piece of horrid drek is his, and Arizona is a republican state, unless I'm sorely mistaken. How do you suddenly go from "Shithead Republican proposes horrid piece of legislation which won't do what it promises" to "Democrats aren't doing what republicans want!"

Seriously, were you dropped on the head as a child?[/quote]


No, I was not.

I'm just fucking sick and tired of one side or the other yelling at each other, calling each other names, and accomplishing absolutley nothing.

There has to be a middle ground that would accomplish both sides' agenda with going overboard. but the fact of the matter is, no matter WHAT solution is offered by either side, whether they are in power or not, the other side will yell and use names like racist or whatever because the other isde came up with the idea.

In the meantime nothing changes and more people will die on both sides.

[Molyneux]

This is pure political theatre. I'm willing to bet that asshat from Mesa sees his local and rural popularity over SB1070 and is padding his "tough on illegals" resume because he's looking to move up from the State Senate (John McCain isn't going to last forever). He knows that his bill is unconstitutional and virtually admits that it is, but there is nothing stopping him from trying to push it through. After all, when this gets shot down, he looks like a hero and can point his finger at the Federal Government for this not working out (again, which boosts his cred amongst his target constituents).

If he was serious, he'd be pushing for a Federal Constitutional Amendment to the 14th, not putting forth a doomed bill in the AZ State Senate.

I certainly hope that that is correct. I seem to recall hearing about a principle, though, where ludicrous positions are put forth again and again, until the climate shifts in their direction by sheer force of fatigue...

[Instant Sunrise]

So what do you prepose we do? you disagree with anything AZ tries to do to keep illegals out, but offer no alternate.

And before you say legalize the ones already here, I beleive Regan tried that in the mid 80s but they still keep coming.

They still keep coming? Really.

Or would you rather just open the gates and say, "Come on in! You illegal and want to come to the US? Come on in![1] You never want to leave and get free everyting?[2] Stay! You want to vote yourselves into office? Be President?[3] Come on in!"**

At this rate, we will see 1/2 on Mexico living in the US.


**sarcasm

Cite your sources. For everything.

1: If somebody has not yet emigrated to the US, how can they be an "illegal?"

2: They don't pay taxes eh?. Of course, immigrants still pay sales taxes, and are ineligable for ANY kind of government assistance. So the idea that these people are somehow a drain on social safety nets is not only laughable but completely out of phase with reality.

3: Seriously? This Birth Certificate horseshit? I do not care if you were 'trying' to be sarcastic, it makes you look like an immature child.

By the way, your number, 50% of the population of Mexico, is 55,605,895 people, compared to the US population of over 300 million.

[Gil Hamilton]

So what do you prepose we do? you disagree with anything AZ tries to do to keep illegals out, but offer no alternate.

And before you say legalize the ones already here, I beleive Regan tried that in the mid 80s but they still keep coming.

Or would you rather just open the gates and say, "Come on in! You illegal and want to come to the US? Come on in! You never want to leave and get free everyting? Stay! You want to vote yourselves into office? Be President? Come on in!"**

At this rate, we will see 1/2 on Mexico living in the US.


**sarcasm

This isn't about AZ trying to keep illegal immigrants out. The guy pushing for this KNOWS that this law isn't going to fly, because it's openly unconstitutional. Not in a "if you interpret the law this way, Supreme Court talks it over" kind of unconstitutional, either, but rather "violates the text AND spirit of the Amendment" sort of unconstitutional. Pearce has said as much.

This is about political theatre. Pearce knows that the law will never survive a constitutional challege even if it makes it into law. What this is is that Pearce is riding high right now from SB1070 and he's pushing a bill to draw attention to what he feels is a problem, that is the one of "anchor babies". This will pad his resume with the conservatives in the state and when the bill inevitably dies due to its nature, he can point a finger at the Federal Government saying that HE wanted to do something, but the Federal Government wouldn't let him.

No, the only way to actually deal with "anchor babies" is that there needs to be a FEDERAL constitutional amendment. Naturally, that's never going to happen, but the 14th Amendment does allow him a soapbox.

[Elfdart]

So what do you prepose we do? you disagree with anything AZ tries to do to keep illegals out, but offer no alternate.

First, Arizona has no business whatsoever doing anything about immigration, just as they have no business printing money, signing treaties with foreign countries or anything else that is the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Second, unless an immigrant is making a complete nuisance of himself or herself, I give less than half a shit if someone wants to move to this country whether they filled out the proper forms or not.

And before you say legalize the ones already here, I beleive Regan tried that in the mid 80s but they still keep coming.

I'm old enough to remember what it was like before Reagan's "reform" of immigration: Workers would come to Texas, California and elsewhere, work for a few weeks or months, then go back to Mexico because a few weeks or months worth of labor in the US paid better than one or two YEARS of labor south of the border. This system worked well enough until the double-deep recession of the early 1980s and racist fucktards (the kind who are always looking to scapegoat those people) started squealing "OH NOES! TEH MESKINS ARE COMING!"

So there were more border patrols and more harassment and so on. This didn't stop people from sneaking into the country, but it did make it much less likely that they would go back. So instead of working a short period and going home, they stayed and when possible got their families and friends to move north of the border, too.

Or would you rather just open the gates and say, "Come on in! You illegal and want to come to the US? Come on in! You never want to leave and get free everyting? Stay! You want to vote yourselves into office? Be President? Come on in!"**

Why not? None of my ancestors asked permission from Pocahontas to move to this country, and if it's good enough for my family it's good enough for everyone else.

At this rate, we will see 1/2 on Mexico living in the US.

"OH NOES! TEH MESKINS ARE COMING!" Another Golden Oldie.

**sarcasm

[The Yosemite Bear]

can we please now use the law enforcement provisions of the 14rh Amendment to send them bigots in AZ to Colorado or Levenworth for violating civil rights?

[Flagg]

No, I was not.

I'm just fucking sick and tired of one side or the other yelling at each other, calling each other names, and accomplishing absolutley nothing.

There has to be a middle ground that would accomplish both sides' agenda with going overboard. but the fact of the matter is, no matter WHAT solution is offered by either side, whether they are in power or not, the other side will yell and use names like racist or whatever because the other isde came up with the idea.

In the meantime nothing changes and more people will die on both sides.

That's called a golden mean fallacy, fucko. And the fact is that Arizona's little experiment in Nazi Germany is racist. And so are you, and everyone else that uses dehumanizing terms like "illegals" and "anchor babies".

I'd like to stick you in a tanning booth for 3 days and drop you naked in the middle of Phoenix once 1070 goes into effect and see how you like getting hauled in for not having your birth certificate hidden up your asshole where you're currently storing your head.

[Atlan]

Seriously, were you dropped on the head as a child?

No, I was not.

I'm just fucking sick and tired of one side or the other yelling at each other, calling each other names, and accomplishing absolutley nothing.

There has to be a middle ground that would accomplish both sides' agenda with going overboard. but the fact of the matter is, no matter WHAT solution is offered by either side, whether they are in power or not, the other side will yell and use names like racist or whatever because the other isde came up with the idea.

In the meantime nothing changes and more people will die on both sides.

The Arizona Bill IS racist, you goddamn tool! We don't call it racist because a Republican came up with it, we call it racist because it targets a specific demographic, and that demographic happens to be Mexicans! Not just that, it targets their US born children, a move which is blatantly unconstitutional! It's not a solution, it's a fucking abortion!

And I can fucking well guarantee you that disenfranchising US born children and discriminating against Mexicans will kill more people than taking REAL measures, namely fucking well admitting that the kids are Americans, and targeting the employers who employ illegals. Start handing out megafines and/or jail sentences to the enablers, and soon a lot less jobs will be available for illegals, eventually causing the influx to lessen (it's a pipe dream to think it will stop).

But no, lets play on people's fears, and strengthen their prejudice! I mean, it's not like there's already a lot of stupid racist redneck tools around who hate darkies!

Jackass.