Have a foreskin? AZ thinks your foreign!

[SirNitram]

Link

They don't call Arizona the "meth lab of Democracy" for nothing -- where else could a lack of foreskin prove citizenship?

The Arizona Senate formally passed the "Birther Bill" today, but not in its original version.

Apparently, requiring presidential candidates to provide a long-form birth certificate before allowing their names on the ballot in Arizona -- despite it already being a federal requirement to run for president -- was a bit too much for a few GOP lawmakers. So they made some amendments: if you can't find your birth certificate, and you have a penis, a document describing your lack of foreskin will suffice.

A circumcision certificate -- a document given to the parents of a male Jewish child after his foreskin is snipped off during a circumcision ceremony -- is not a legal document (see an example of one here) but if you have one, under the amended bill, it's apparently enough to prove you're a U.S. citizen and your name can be permitted on the ballot in Arizona.

Pulling out your penis in front of election officials, however, will not prove citizenship -- and, in the worst case scenario, could get labeled a sex offender.

Some other ways to prove that you're not a Kenyan version of the Manchurian Candidate, as spelled out in the ridiculous bill, could be to provide a hospital birth record, a postpartum medical record, or an early census record.

See the amended version of the bill here.

While the bill, even in its original form, is comical/tragic in itself (Arizona legislators spent their time and your tax money coming up with a potential law that already exists at the federal level. Not to mention, it's in response to a repeatedly debunked conspiracy theory), the most comical aspect of the amended bill is that it seems to have been designed to make the legislation look less nuts -- many GOP lawmakers wouldn't sign on unless the far-right-wingers would lighten up about what types of documents would satisfy proof of citizenship requirements.

What they ended up with is a bill that requires a presidential candidate -- if all else fails -- to basically provide documentation describing what his penis looks like in order to get on the ballot in Arizona.

Again: "meth lab of Democracy."

The bill now heads to the Arizona House of Representatives, where it has passed in the past, and likely will again.

[Alyeska]

Thats rather discriminatory against those who haven't been cut. Which happens to be a lot of African Americans. This law is so blatantly biased and racist I bet the courts destroy it.

[ArmorPierce]

I don't get what's the problem. It's an alternaive document to providing a birt certificate. It's not a requremen of providing it.

[Tribun]

And I thought I'd seen everything. Btw., did they even consider that in a strange twist, this addendum actually favors muslims, who generally are circumcised?

[Simon_Jester]

Hmmm. I'm a little unsure about this one. I don't think the law is interpreting the absence of a foreskin as a priori evidence that you were born in the US. I think it's interpreting the presence of a document signed by some people who could plausibly be checked with, stating that you were circumcised in infancy in the US as evidence that you were born in the US.

It's still batshit insane, and the mere fact that this got in is a sign that people are not taking this law seriously. But the interesting bit is that I think these certificates are a Jewish thing. They're not government legal documents. So it's religious discrimination more than racial.

[Mr. Coffee]

Funny thing is, I've got an unclipped wang and I lived in AZ for four years and one of my brohers lives in Phoenix. I should got get a T-shirt made that says "Ask me about my uncircumcised member!" and go visit Jay...

[Broomstick]

I don't know which I find more disturbing - that Arizona's government wastes its time on such things, or that I now know something about Mr. Coffee's penis.

I think I have brain bleach left in that bottle under the sink....

Um... what about female presidential candidates? They don't have a penis, is there an equivalent document for them? I wonder what they would make of a transwoman presidental candidate producing such a document certifying a mohel circumcised her penis as an infant prior to her sexual reassignment surgery and subsequent conversion to Christianity? (Baptismal certificate enclosed as additional evidence of something or other, I'm sure)

[Shroom Man 777]

Would they count vaccination records? Or would that be bad because people would think the candidate is autistic?

[SpacedTeddyBear]

I know I'm not the only one who double checked the link to verify that it wasn't from the Onion.

They should call this Balbricker's Law. Anyone unable to provide a medical document proving your penis is of the Abrahamic persuasion, must visit your local government office for physical examination by USCIS officials. Upon the conclusion of the examination the person will be given a circumcised identity card with frontal and profile views of both heads. This identity card will supersede all proofs of citizenship in the state of Arizona should you be randomly stopped by any law officer.

[Serafina]

I don't get what's the problem. It's an alternaive document to providing a birt certificate. It's not a requremen of providing it.

The problem is, at least according to the article, that a circumcision certificate is NOT a legal document. Providing it is therefore meaningless from a legal POV.
Now the question is: Why would they count a non-legal document when they are concerned with the candidates legal status?
Circumcision being seen as being "proper american" could be one answer, racism is another, but let's not rule out simply idiocy.

[Zed]

The title of this thread engages in the logical fallacy called denying the antecedent.

[Simon_Jester]

I think it's sheer idiocy, Serafina. The original pushers of the law are conspiracy theorists who won't accept even legal documents as proof Obama was born in the US. To get it through, they kept expanding the list of documents until it got silly- possibly because a number of legislators realised that they couldn't provide acceptable documentation under the law, I wouldn't be surprised by that.

So they probably just copy-pasted together lists of documents from other laws, and someone threw this in. There are probably other non-legal documents mixed in too; the unifying theme is that the law really only requires circumstantial, fakeable evidence that you were born in the US. It's not about documentation, it's about birthers being hysterical idiots who don't care about the Constitution.

[PeZook]

This is hilarious because the effect of this would be the exact opposite of what birthers want if it was ever instituted on the federal level ; By expanding the list of documents that prove your citizenship in a circumstantial way, and including the most inane ones possible, they make it easier to fake citizenship, not harder.

Since there is no real standard for the circumcision certificate, it would be dirt-easy to fake one.

[wautd]

So the average european is foreign than the average Afgan? The latter is more likely to have his foreskin removed after all. (Hurrah for religiously inspired infant genital mutilation).

[PeZook]

So the average european is foreign than the average Afgan? The latter is more likely to have his foreskin removed after all. (Hurrah for religiously inspired infant genital mutilation).

People, really.

The bill doesn't say the lack of foreskin itself would mean you're a citizen absent a birth certificate ; It says you need a certifica of circumcision, presumably one issued in the US.

The actual problem, rather than made-up issues some people have raised, is that there's no legal standard for those documents, they can be issued by anyone, and thus are easy to fake and prove nothing of substance anyway: if the child was brought into the US from abroad and was circumcised there, it doesn't mean he is a citizen. This means AZ could theoretically allow a non-citizen to run, in direct violation of the constitution.

Which is awesome, because the birthers wanted something completely opposite

[wautd]

OK, misunderstood

[Alerik the Fortunate]

One interesting quirk concerning possible racist connotations, is that Arizona seems to be most concerned about infiltration by non-citizens of the Latin American variety, and Latino men are generally not circumcised, I believe. That said, it does seem like they really just included circumcision documentation as one random item in a grab bag of potential documents intended to make them look less restrictive. Of course they gave no thought to actual implications, but that should be assumed to be typical.

[Count Chocula]

Nitram, some commentary with your quote would be nice; what's your opinion?

That said, on the surface this looks absurd. My son was circumcised after his birth in Florida, but guess what? It wasn't noted on his birth certificate, but was a line on the medical billing document which is protected by HIPPA (oops, I let it slip - there goes confidentiality!).

If anything, it shows that Arizona's legislature and Attorney General are lazy. They passed a "show US citizenship to cops if we're called out to investigate criminal suspicion" law, which was overturned by the 9th Circuit. Fine. Appeal the fucker to the Supremes and forget about this ridiculous, ineffecive end-around that will just make you a laughingstock.

Let's hope Jan Brewer has a little bit of sense and vetoes this if it passes the House.

[Terralthra]

This law is not really related to the immigration law, except that both are relatively insane, as far as laws go. This law is rather specifically aimed at Barack Obama and the Birther lunacy.

[SirNitram]

The title of this thread engages in the logical fallacy called denying the antecedent.

The title of this thread engages in mockery. There's a difference.

Chocula: My commentary was supposed to be clear from the mocking title: It's stupid and the entire thing is based on a retarded grasp of things involved(Re: Not all Americans are circumsized, circumcision documents have no legal standing, etc), all stemming from a farcical derangement that's infected the AZ legislature called Birtherism.

[Elheru Aran]

The bit that I honestly don't get is that they won't just let you whip out your wang? Sure, don't do it in public, but nominate some kind of doctor, have the candidate go to him and submit to an examination, sign a note that goes "Yup, he's cut", and turn it in?

I mean, jesus. What about women? Are they going to be disqualified because they don't have a dick in the first place? Or are they going to let a black Muslim who can trace his ancestors back 200 years, every one born in the US, run for office on the American Taliban platform, just because he's got a few grams of skin lopped off his prick? Did they honestly not think this fucking thing through?

...probably not...

[ArmorPierce]

Some of the responses in this thread is pretty stupid.

[UnderAGreySky]

Some of the responses in this thread is pretty stupid.

People in glass houses, etc. etc....

The bit that I honestly don't get is that they won't just let you whip out your wang?

No, they want proof of where it was done, if at all. Which isn't smart either, what's to prevent a woman who wants her next son (lets face it, no woman can be president when the valiant efforts of the Arizonians spread to the entire county) to be commander-in-chief from having her baby in Islamofacistic Atheistic Communist Kenya and then having him circumsised by the evil doctors in Chicago?

[PeZook]

The bit that I honestly don't get is that they won't just let you whip out your wang? Sure, don't do it in public, but nominate some kind of doctor, have the candidate go to him and submit to an examination, sign a note that goes "Yup, he's cut", and turn it in?

Iswear to God, the next retard who comments without reading the damn article will get sent to the barrel.

[xerex]

I think Elheru Aran's point is if this law was aimed at "Kenyan" Obama they did a piss poor job since they leave a loophole that 'secret Muslim" Obama is sure to be able to pass.

ie "secret muslim kenyan" obama can just NOT provide his Birth certificate and instead provide his circumsicion record. and still be eleible under this legislation.