It doesn't stand a chance. You cannot interpret or change Federal law at the State level. There is no case and as such would immediately get thrown out.

Whether or not it gets thrown out im glad they are doing it, this country is being taken over.

"taken over" do you mean by the Irish and Germans in the 1910's or Hispanics now?

Whether or not it gets thrown out im glad they are doing it, this country is being taken over.

No, actually, it's not. To say it isn't a problem is exaggerating, but it's not the huge issue people make it out to be - it just makes for popular news segments so it keeps getting reported on.

ahhhh, sts...our very own "constitutional scholar" and resident judge...

ROFL!!!

sparky, there are FAR more "qualified" people out there who will make that determination...not some liberal on newsvine!!!!

The 14th Amendment was ratified to address citizenship for freed American slaves. It had nothing to do with illegal immigration and we need a supreme court interpretation to fix it. Too bad it was not better spelled out better in the amendment itself, but it needs to be fixed.

Go down that slope Terry...then what other parts of the Constitution need to be "fixed"?

Pesky free speech allowance? Doggone freedom of religion allowance?

AZ, there is a valid legal question here, which has never been answered,. : to be a citizen must you be not only born on American soil, but also born of a person legally in this country ? The fourteenth amendment was only meant to cover newly freed salves, since their parent was legally in this country , even by force, before the civil war !

perhaps nows the time for native americans to get a chance to vote on getting rid of the people who stole their land from them.

anyone who pays a little attention would know that illegal immigration is down over the last ten years.

The american rabble is easily roused my manipulative polititians

This needs to be made retroactive. We need to kick out all the children of illegals who NEVER should have been granted citizenship in the first place.

I guess that would include almost all of us since our ancestors weren't citizens when our grandparents were born then our grandparents wouldn't have been citizens, which means our parents weren't citizens, which means we aren't citizens.

It doesn't matter how you got here, while you are in this country you are subject to subject to the jurisdiction of this country. To say otherwise means that the laws of this country aren't applicable to everyone within it's borders. That means that despite the fact that someone's parents are illegals in this country, the child born here is subject to the jurisdiction of this country, as are their illegal parents. This will not be upheld by the Supreme Court.

Opponents say the proposal is mean-spirited toward immigrants

No...it's mean spirited toward criminals. Legal immigrants are here legally, are subjects of US jurisdiction and therefore are fine. This is about those that are here criminally.

By the way, a note to the liberal idiot author of this article....when you are not here legally, you are an ILLEGAL ALIEN. When you come here via legal means, you are an immigrant. Stop writing everything with your spin on it and start actually being responsible.

There is a section of the 14th Amendment that also could be an approach:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunites of citizens of the United States.

These aren't citizens so technically....Arizona can make laws abridging illegal aliens privileges.

Anyone who thinks this has a chance of passing probably took zero lessons in school about citizenship. Which, of course, isn't surprising - its not like we cram it in there.

But basically, the reasons states have laws about citizenship have been around for centuries before wittle beloved America. A minimal amount of reading would show how Arizona is just being stupid about solving an honest problem. You have to wonder if they, in fact, really do want to handle illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration is the problem, and I don't care how much someone thinks it isn't. American citizens agree, vastly. Arizona isn't dealing with the problem seriously. Neither is the US government. And neither are YOU or I, the US citizens. If we did, we'd stop buying cheap ass s**T. But you won't get us to stop doing that, or blaming someone else for our need to sell out our citizen neighbors for a 60 cent apple.

You'll need to amend the constitution for this one.

Personally, I think if we lock up employers for hiring illegals that would do the trick.

WinkWink thinks it would be great if the states could finally get the US Gov. to finally do something serious about the horrendous immigration problem we're facing today. The flood of illegles must be stopped and the use of anchor babies to get them free access to this country must be stopped.

This is MADNESS!

No Amendment needed just a truen interpretation by the Supreme Court based off of the intentions of the framers of this Amendment.

It will pass and Brewer will sign it. It will be challenged and the State will again be sued by the DOJ. It will be put on hold but it will not be thrown out. The Supreme Court will have to hear this case.

Also keep in mind Congress is not the only one that can Amend the Constitution and the way the majority of voters feel about illegals, this has a very good chance of being implemented.

Sean

We wouldn't want you here. As for smaller government how would this increase it. It would actually reduce the out put of money because illegals along with their anchor babies would not be able to sign up for entitlements, meaning no extra support for them to increase the size of their families or to raise them.

Halifax....................Try living in California if you think it is not a HUGE problem.

This needs to be made retroactive. We need to kick out all the children

What a small heart, and what a profound repugnance for the ideals of our Founding Fathers you have. Maybe we should repeal EVERYONE's citizenship, and then offer it back only to those who actually uphold the Constitution and the principles this nation was founded upon. Those who want to create a permanent hereditary class system should lose their citizenship and offered a one way ticket to somewhere they'd be more happy.

Stand up, speak out

This particular thread is a great way to identify bigots and racists. Shame on you.

No it doesn't. Bigots and racist promote discrimination based on gender, race or age....not on nationality.

Shame on you for using race to defend criminals

The Citizenship clause's meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment a man born within the United States to Chinese citizens who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States—and whose parents were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power—was a citizen of the United States.

It can easily be ascertained that this only include those that are legally in the US and are legally conducting business or legally employed. You can't expect anyone to think that it would mean that it would include children of those who are in the coubtry illegally, or were conducting illegal business, would you?

As a country we are totally screwed up...if a child is born anywhere else in the world and the parents are not citizens or legally here then the baby is not as well. What the heck are people thinking here?

stspecialk. Those "free health screenings" were to check for diseases and your ancestors would have been denied entry to the country had the found anything.

This is a valid case and they do stand a chance. Part of the job of a judge in the case of determining constitutionality is to try to determine what the framers had in mind when something was put into the constitution. In this case, it is clear that the 14th Amendment was added to the constitution for the purpose of ensuring that slaves who were born here were made citizens. It is not at all a stretch to determine that they did not intend for people to sneak into this country for purposes of giving birth to "little citizens" who would then allow them to stay (i.e. anchor babies).

Kinda ironic that the same folks that believe this is

- UNCONSTITUTIONAL most likely also think that FORCING people to have health insurance BY LAW ...

- IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

Pretty much points out the hypocricy practiced daily by them.

The simple solution is to allow citizenship for all and end ALL giveaway programs. You pay FICA regardless of status. You pay taxes like everyone else. And if you can't make it here, you are free to leave.

Just have to love the range of responses to this. Yes, illegal immigration is a problem. No, this attempt to run around the 14th amendment will not work. But it might force the liberals to actually do something about the problem rather than say stupid things like, "perhaps the native Americans can take the country back."

The law needs to be changed. Perhaps even a new amendment drafted. Any liberal supporter on this vine has nothing but sh!t to stand on if they cannot agree that the economics have changed and the leakage on the southern border needs to be curtailed. A new law or amendment that requires more than illegal entry coupled with pregneancy and delivery within the borders to obtain the benefits of US citizenship is in every ones best interest unless the true agenda is continuing to encourage the influx. I for one think that is why the continuous BS from the liberals is exposed for what is actually is.

And before we go down that path, yes a restraint on the federal powers and states enforcement of those same powers needs to be enacted. This is the perfect time and place for a national ID card debate. No state or federal benefits or birthright citizenship without it. No employment and super heavy fines for employers that hire undocumented workers. Do these simple things and watch the problem correct itself within one generation.

Do it!

Do it!

Do it as of yesterday!

What the hell's been the hold up? Better late than never, but let's stop wasting time....

Do it!

Im going to add my armchair constitutional lawyer opinions in here just like everyone else is..

The key part of the 14th they are ( im assuming ) they are talking about is the AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION part..

There is already established case law that says Diplomats newborns are not US citizens. SO Its not that far of a reach to say, IF two foreign diplomats living in the US to do their job have a child and said child is NOT a US Citizen. That a Child born to two illegal immigrants is NOT a US Citizen.

Both parties do this. the Republicans are streaching this for their own causes, and the Dems are streaching the Commerce clause to further push ObamaCare.

AZ is trying to jumpstart a SCotUS discussion on that little section of the 14th.

Some illegal immigration facts from the L. A. Times newspaper:

40% of all workers in L. A. County (L.A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are for the most part illegal immigrants working without a green card. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens. Over 67% of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegals. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking. In L.A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.

When I look at the above list, it strikes me that the illegal aliens have done a pretty good job of racially profiling themselves and clearly identifying where the problem originates! Gee, I think it's Mexicans from Mexico!!

Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States' annual population growth (and over 90% of California , Arizona, Florida , and New York ) results from illegal immigration. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens. We are fools for letting this continue. Arizona is just a good first step!!

Independent, unfortunately, you're not speaking for ALL liberals. I, for one, agree that the illegal alien problem is running rampant in the United States, and it's costing regular taxpayers a fortune! But, I also believe that the Constitution is sancrosant. A state cannot just "decide" to go against it without the Supreme Court making that judgment. It would be so much easier, I agree, if we could change a lot of the amendments, but that won't happen either. As for our "Founding Fathers," they were illegal aliens also......

The simple truth is if we as a nation continue with our low birthrate we must import labor. A capitalist society cannot survive without an up and coming workforce, period. I am not happy with our current immigration policy, but I am glad we have the problem we have; where at least the majority of those imigrating have our similar values, and want, mostly, to be a part of American culture.

Would all of you prefer we have Europe's problem? Would you prefer we import labor from the Middle East or Northern Africa the way Europe must because they have a lower birth rate than us? Believe me, Europe will be Muslim in 15 years, or it will explode with Nationalistic civil war.

sts

I think you do not know the difference between founding a nation and illegally smuggling yourself into one. Competing for resources is what humans do and it often involves violence and dispossession. Furthermore there is a great deal of evidence so called "native americans" were not even the first people here. See "Kennewick Man".

Stand up, speak out This particular thread is a great way to identify bigots and racists. Shame on you.

Ah the proverbial race card, nice try sparky.

One way or the other all Illegal Aliens must be deported regardless of their country of origin.

Tod-2791955...( #1.46)....The real simple truth is we have over 8 million on Unemployment Benefits and 2 million people out of work for over 2 years and the economy has to create at least 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with the population growth we have now....Just wait till this next batch of College Graduates hits the job market in late May....

This has nothing to do with race. It has to do with preserving our country and protecting the American people and the resources here. It was a huge flaw allowing women to come here and give birth to a kid and that automatically makes them a US citizen. This also was used to give the mother and father US citizenship and rights. If you are illegals and give birth in the USA, the mother nor child should be considered a US citizen. This is nothing more than a loophole/flaw in our constitution. It needs to be changed, and should have been changed decades ago.

There is a class of people on American soil not subject to US jurisdiction. This is the diplomatic corps of countries with legations and embassies in the US. These are the people excluded under the 14th Amendment. All other people, whether US citizens or not, are subject to US law and jusidiction.

Sean makes a good point. Prior to 1908, the US did not record land border crossings. Immigration screenings at ports were primarily aimed contolling communicable disease, not nationality. And corporate recruitment efforts of labor gangs, whether from China or Mexico, received mostly a blind eye from the government. Aside from the Naturalization Act of 1790 which granted citizenship to "free white persons" (note: suffrage was limited to free white males). Many non-white citizens were added through purchase and conquest while the US achieved its "Manifest Destiny."

How many modern citizens can trace a legitimate heritage to 1790, or to a proven naturalized citizen? We assume that as 3rd, 4th, 5th or greater generations as residents, that we are citizens, Strangely, the US government also seems to make the same assumption.

Oddly, the US forcibly deported nearly 250000 Mexican-Americans in the 1930, many of them actual US citizens. This action was repeated in the early 1950's to an even greater extent. Immigration policy in the US seems to be exclusively about racism. Perhaps we need to add "Whites Only" to the Statue of Liberty.

Reality people; Lefty or righyt, we must import labor!! I agree, handouts should not be given to illegal imigrants, and public education needs some serious priority re-working, but we need to stop with the entitlements Period. It's not just an "anchor baby" issue. If government got out of the way, and stopped legislating entitlements and running education into the ground, all would balance out.

Independent,

So the fact that the "Liberal" Obama administration has deported more than Double the number of illegals per year than the Bush administration, doesn't qualify as doing something, huh. Or how about the a fact that they are actually starting to police the hiring practices of American Corporations when it comes to the hiring of illegals, no that probably doesn't count either.

The Hypocrisy of the right on this is astounding!

The 14th Amendment and subsequent rulings are extremely clear if you are here, working and have a permanent residence your children born here get citizenship. This was decided over a hundred years ago when American Corporations were importing cheap "illegal" labor to do work they couldn't get American citizens to do at "Chinese" wages. Ring a bell! The rational behind the ruling was these people had paid their children's dues by doing backbreaking work for poverty wages.

As for restraining Federal Powers, get real. The Fed has already seceded so much power to the corporate pirates the great experiment is crumbling. Corporate America has enough money to bury any individual State, weaken the Fed any more and the states will be over run.

Eric-913730 "You'll need to amend the constitution for this one."

Maybe not. All of the existing Supreme Court decisions relating to automatic citizenship have dealt with LEGAL immigrants. The issue of whether children born in this country to illegal immigrants has never been decided at the highest level.

The 14th Amendment does NOT give citizenship to children born in this country who's parents are have foreign diplomatic status, so it does raise the question of what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" actually means.

This should be interesting.

This is an idiotic waste of time. This bill has zero chance of surviving a constitutional challenge before even the most conservative judge in the country. Even the judge that just declared Obama's health care law unconstitutional would strike this law down in a heartbeat. A state legislature cannot unilaterally trump the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

The people of Arizona deserve better than this grandstanding by politicians clamoring for their 15 minutes, especially in a state with a severe budget shortfall, the last thing we need is for our politicians to piss away hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in legal fees and legislative costs on a pointless exercise in futility.

At least if a constitutional amendment was proposed, it would not be wasted effort, although I would vehemently oppose the adoption of any amendment repealing the 14th Amendment.

How about instead of complaining we find a solution? Sending 7 million+ people out of the country is not the solution. We should design an amnesty program that takes 7-10 years. All illegal immigrants sign on (with no repercussion), taxes are collected from all those working and all must work to gain ammnesty (even women/mothers can do something even if community work), children born here are Americans and we figure a way to close the borders or allow entry via this program that gives hard working people a chance. Now, as to the criminals, toss the hardcore out and deny them amnesty forever. For other lessor crimes (2 strike law and on 3rd offense out forever). If they re-enter don't put them in our jails (unless it's murder and then toss the key away - life no parole) just send them out. If we work together there are solutions but AZ's method is not the way to go. I am a liberal and this is a problem, but it needs to be handled humanely and so that those that wish to stay can earn that right and do so as legal Americans in order to pay their way forever more. Lastly, the native Americans have a legitimate beef since we stole the country. Looking forward to your comments!

There is no other country in the world that lets people come in illegally, live and receive benefits the illegal aliens do from the United States. If the law says it's illegal to be here without paperwork, then it's illegal and the law should be doing what the law requires. It's pretty black and white to me and I don't mean that racially.

Halifax, you obviously have not lived in Calif., Texas or a border town.

TOD,

So maybe we should go back to say the 1950s when we allowed the STATES free reign on public school race policies. Oh wait white America's racist tendencies didn't really allow that to work to well.

Prior to the"Feds intrusion" into the Public school system the south didn't educate anyone but the wealthy, yes that is a system we should embrace!

As for the right wing BS about entitlements, get real. The supposed "Handouts" you people rant about are less than 1% of the federal budget. They are insignificant in the big picture and hugely significant to many poor individuals including about 25% of our elderly.

If we want want to really make a difference lets start slashing the defense budget and clean up CORPORATE Welfare!

Bill Marvell

No they are not subject to the full jurisdiction of the U.S. Last time I checked the U.S. does not have the authority to draft illegal aliens in to the military. Nor do they have the authority to require them to register under the Selective Service Act.

Again this will be decided by the Supreme Court and not you or I. There are just as many arguments against illegals having citizenship as there are against. Keep in mind Supreme Courts have ruled against established cases in the past or we would never have had the 14th Amendment, Civil Rights laws or many other rights that all real citizens enjoy today.

For those claiming overturning the 14th Amendment would allow Native Americans to sue to have all the whites leave. You people really do have your heads so far up that you might not ever be able to pull them out.

Native Americans for the most part were not given citizenship in this country until the early 1930s. The Amendment that you say supposedly gave everyone born in this country legal citizenship status did not since that Amendment was not extended to the people that were here long before your ancestors even thought about looking for this place.

So now tell me how a child born to an illegal had more rights than a Native American when it came to citizenship.

Aren't these Republicans bright enough to use Google? They want a court ruling. It took me all of 30 seconds to find one with Google"

"This scope of the Amendment was formally considered in 1898 by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In a 6-2 decision, the Court rejected arguments that petitioner was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States because that phrase applied to exclude (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#United_States

Opponents say the proposal is mean-spirited toward immigrants and won't make a dent in the state's immigration woes.

Yes, we're meanies- but no more anchor babies. If you think I'm mean , then walk away. The LEGAL immigrants are fine.......

And if it won't make any differance, then why not?

Mike,

I teach those in the up and coming workforce. Trust me they will NOT do certain jobs. They feel ENTITLED to something more. 1st generation imigrants however, don't have such ingrained entitlement values. If their family needs food and shelter, they work 3 of those "certain" jobs to make it happen while their "citizen" neighbors sit around and let the govt. take care of them. Interestingly, second generation "anchor babies" do feel entitled. Where do you think they learned those values? Not from me, but then, I cannot say the same for the public education brain washing system I work for or the media they spend their days listening to.

It is really funny that if you are against illegal imigration you are racist, well I am here to tell you I am against Illegal imigration period. Just because I do not want an invasion of mexican nationals crossing our borders illegaly doe not make me a racist. Children born in this country of non- citizen/legal residents need to be sent home with their parents Also you can't be racist aganst mexicans because "Mexican" is not a race it is a nationality. so all you race baiters need to get your P's and Q's in order (try learning english).

In case you all think Im just a r@cist @ssh@ll My family includes Hispanics, blacks, American Indians, Asian and so on. and after a lifetime in the military I am just colorblind anyway's. The way I figuire it is we all bleed red no matter what we look like.

(1.64 continued) As to the second sentence in that section:

"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."

That's the equal protection clause. This "within its jurisdiction" has nothing to do with citizenship. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) - "the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter." -This ruling required children who were not citizens and whose parents were here illegally to be able to attend public school. The Supreme Court thus has CLEARLY said that the sentence after the citizen sentence, has NOTHING to do with citizenship.

There's your "court ruling." Why can't these Republicans in AZ use Google?

This needed to be done. we need to force the hands of the federal government. when the states are forced to pay for these children because there parents do not pay.(WE DO) Someone needs to stand up. Also they are automatically eligible for welfare for that child even though they do not meet the requirements that AMERICANS have to. I can say this because I am a NURSE and I see this first hand. For all you that disagree with this you are DISGUSTING AS AN AMERICAN. You would give benefits to an ILLEGAL ALIENS and there ANCHOR BABIES before taking care of our own CITIZENS, THAT IS DISGUSTING. Especially you stspecialk.

if you lock up the people who employ illegals you solve the problem.....why go after the illegals .....they will go back home if they have no job......why doesnt AZ start locking up the employers

Opponents say the proposal is mean-spirited toward immigrants

I sure hope so. And it is not immigrants, it's illegals

Spg,

Allow school choice (vouchers etc.) and get the govt. out of education. Race discrimination is the ugliest part of our history (even uglier than slavery in my opinion), and appropriate legislation was rendered, and rightfully made law. My comments have nothing to do with going back to the 50's.

If you are going to make comments on government spending, get your facts right (that will be hard to do if you only listen to MSNBC I'm afraid). 1% on entitlements? wake up!!

this is already what the clause says. jacob howard and the framers of the citizenship clause stated in the senate debates that this DID NOT give illegal aliens children citizenship. all anyone has to do is read the senate debates ! THERE is NO BIRTHRIGHT FOR CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL ALIENS!!!

@ saxon:

Since when the "freed slaves parents" choose to come legally to this country????

They've been asked if they want to come "freely" to this country????

I don't think so.....

The same criteria that you use for the 14th, we can use for the 2nd. The founding fathers didn't write the 2nd amendment thinking in M14's or AK47's.

Rather than polluting our Constitution, Arizona should just secede. Go, Arizona. Please leave and leave us out of your racist regime.

Go down that slope Terry...then what other parts of the Constitution need to be "fixed"?

Funny, the very, very pro-Constitution Conservatives are the only ones you hear about wanting to change it all the time. Funny, but true.

"About 90% of the above posters are obviously graduates of the Glenn Beck School of Deep Thinking. What a bunch of illiterate, hateful a**holes."

Willy T, if those people are hateful, what does your own statement say about you? The majority would say that is the pot calling the kettle black.

Let`s take this thing a step further. Many say that there is nothing wrong with the illegals being here, and should not be prosecuted, if that is true, then anyone who breaks ANY law should not be held accountable for their actions. Does this mean, that those who are standing up for the illegals, will now go to bat for all people who are behind bars for breaking a law? And please, don`t feed us the line that it isn`t the same thing. They are breaking a federal law by not going through the due process of immigration. The difference is, one is not behind bars yet, and the other is. Maybe those who want to allow this, should be helping those law breakers who are behind bars first, because the others are already running free.

Illegal aliens are NOT immigrants any more than serial killers are executioners. Illegal aliens are entitled to absolutely nothing but due process, a jail cell, and deportation. Further, Mexico should be held to account for all illegal crossings over land regardless of whether or not the transgressors are Mexican.

Look, here's the bottom line to all of this nonsense: these people are deliberately taking advantage of America and its people. The mind boggles at the bleeding hearts who defend these criminals - don't you understand that they're using you?! Also, stop with the race card. The majority of us in support of these state-level actions don't care about immigrants' race, color, or creed, we simply expect and demand that they come to this country legally and in good faith.

It's about damn time our lawmakers had the cajones to come up with this! It should have been a law of the land a long time ago! No more anchor babies.

If the liberals would stop rewarding illegal immigrants with "minority" benefits such as free health care, education, welfare, social security and affirmative action, we wouldn't have to worry about illegal immigration...

Let them come here with only the clothes on their back like our ancestors, give them NOTHING except the rights and freedoms in our constitution. Then I won't have a problem with illegals coming in here if they EARN the American Dream as our ancestors done.

Alright, Toasty gives up. I'm done trying to defend Arizona from all the bad press we get. It seems like every week the state government has devised another way to either make life more dangerous for their constituents, or just plain violate the civil liberties of American citizens, or there's yet another assassination attempt or child murder. I admit it now for the first time: things really are as bad as it looks in Arizona; it really is the inmates running the asylum.

Uncle:

From the 14 million illegal immigrants that are here in USA, just 6 million are Mexicans, the other aren't. What do we do with them? Send them to Mexico too?

Put the employers in jail. It illegal to hire and pay them. If these red/white/blue-blooded patriots would not pay them, they would not come. Everyone on here are bitching about the illegals when the solution is simple. Serious prison time for the employers. And I mean those at the top. Dry up the jobs and money and they quit coming here.

But the employers are white.

"Opponents say the proposal is mean-spirited toward immigrants"

Enforcing the law is "mean-spirited"??? Are they kidding?

#1. This does nothing to affect legal immigrants, only foreign criminals.

#2. How disgusting is it that some people actual feel that enforcing our laws is "mean spirited" to the criminals who break them, yet they couldn't care less for the law-abiding citizens who lose lives, jobs, and educations to them?

Go Arizona!

No, it hurts American citizens by punishing them for the crimes of their parents, PJ.

Toasty...I'd say this is good press.

FYI, any American citizen who wants to work hard for way too little money can do it illegally, too, if they wanted. I'm not for illegal immigration, but just pointing that out.

My state proposing fighting one of our most basic civil liberties... I don't see how that could be good press.

No it doesn't. Bigots and racist promote discrimination based on gender, race or age....not on nationality.

Shame on you for using race to defend criminals

BS Joe. You clearly don't understand the distinction between racism and bigotry. Read, study and understand, then comment.

I think the proposed law is a mistake - it's going to be tied up in the question of federal and states rights. The other porblem is that laws get repealed real easy.

Really the best thing would be a constitutional amendment defining citizenship approapriately. One of the means is through a convention. I'm rusty on how that would be handled, and hesitant because the last such a convention convened the US Constitution was the result. The other question is would 3/4's or 2/3's of the states vote for something like that in the first place.

This is my state as well, hence the AZ in my name. But what civil liberties? I didnt think illegal immigrants had any?

Right off the top of my head, the right to an attorney and due process under the law.

@Kevin Q - Before you start quoting 'facts', you might want to do your homework. http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp Your facts about illegal immigrants are part of a hoax email which has been circulating. They are lies, not facts.

Toasty...see my post 2.52.

You are looking at this as if the anchor babies became citizens and then got that right rescinded. This would not be retroactive. Say this becomes law, all that were born before the passing of this law would be citizens as they are now. Then yes the civil rights applies to them.

But they do not have those citizen rights if they never became citizens in the first place.

Immigrant rights advocate Sal Reza, an opponent of the bill, said many children would be left in limbo if the measure were enacted and enforced. "Do the right thing: Become human beings," Reza told lawmakers.

Sal Reza and the illegal aliens should do the right thing and deport themselves and their anchor kids for breaking the law instead of stealing from me and my fellow Americans who pay our taxes to support these illegals. They are nothing but leechs, leeching the system illegally and not contributing a thing to this country. Be gone illegal aliens and take your anchors back with you, there will be no NIGHTMARE ACT!!

better yet! i say we hand out the immigration citizenship test at polling locations for every election. if you dont pass, you dont vote!

http://www.statepress.com/2010/03/04/u-s-students-fail-citizenship-test/

by the way, being an immigrant, i got my citizenship last january, and got 70 of the 100 questions in the booklet correct without studying. second time around, 95.

when you actually took the test, the officer asks you up to 10 questions, you are required to answer at least six, i went 6 of 6.

who is with me?

ps. oh, by the way, arizona isnt the only state with a shameful result from administering those tests. a quick google search shows that oklahoma also did poor.

...two reliably red states. hmm. could this be just a coincidence, or is it a symptom of the dismal performance in education in red states?

Elaine - Just checked out the snopes article. It said that the facts were pulled from various sources and many can't be verified either way because they are estimates. Only one of the facts that were presented was straight out shot down. The number that snopes gave for that one was still pretty high. It also looked like the numbers that were thrown out were from the 1980's and 90's. I'm sure the numbers are higher now.

My wife is an immigrant. We've paid out thousands of dollars dealing with DHS and we aren't done yet. Personally, I'm insulted that there is anyone in our government looking to give away the same things that we have had to work so hard to achieve on our own to people that simply took what they wanted regardless of the law. I'm in favor of closing the loop hole. I'm also in favor of passing the costs for the support of illegal immigrants directly on to the government of their country of origin.

Appearing Spanish, my wife has more than once been counselled by some of the women from below our southern borders to simply kick back, have a baby, and get on the welfare rolls asap. She's also been called stupid, by the same folks, for doing things the right way and paying all of the fees associated with legal immigration.

If the government issues amnesty, will they refund the fees paid by all of the people that did things the right way under the law? What about all of the legal fees and other expenses for travelling to and from embassy interviews? How about the fees for background checks? Then there's the medical fees to prove innoculations and to get any that were missing.

what a GIGANTIC waste of Federal and State tax $... Budgetary control my A$$. It is all about putting up a puppet show.

This is obviously a conservative thread. Everyone who disagrees with this point of view are being collapsed.. You guys are hypocrites, you say you love the constitution and yet want to silence anyone who disagrees with you... Reminds me of NAZI Germany.... State Law will never trump the US Constitution.... You guys are not Americans in my view you are fascist.... I will be glad to join the ranks of those collapsed..

PoliticoMan

Were you ever in Nazi Germany? If not then your argument is lame. and inappropriate

Honestly you people cry about everything, America is turning into a bunch of little girls that cry because some illegal has a job that no one wanted until there were no jobs, and besides that if you lost your job to an illegal that is your fault for being an uneducated moron, people need to grow up, or lets say suck it up ... LOL LOL LOL ..... I for one believe that one parent has be be an American citizen .......

Holy crap. Welcome to the world of MSNBC sourced comments.

why waste facts and information on people who thinks they know it all? The difference between PHD, Master, Bachlor and HS degree... It always the PHD who will profess that they know the least.

Nobody should be allowed to be a state representative without a basic understanding of jurisdiction. The US has jurisdiction over anyone committing a crime within its borders, except those with diplomatic immunity. Otherwise it could not prosecute them. The 'only meant for freed slaves' argument is 'reaching for a straw'. If you pause long enough to consider the practicality of requiring one parent, etc, you will see why. My family was here before AZ was a state. What about all the people who migrated beyond the jurisdiction of the US, intentionally, to Utah, which was then part of Mexico? Are the descendants of those people to be excluded via the one parent must be a citizen rule applied retroactively? It boggles the mind.

Greg in Oceanside

#1.107- Greg, you live outside Camp Pendleton, you have seen Marines go to Iraq and Afganistan to gain freedom for those people regardless of politics. You have probably seen the aftermath of those Marines that paid the ultimate sacrifice and yet you have a cold heart for a person in this country needing assistance... Shame on you.... You should know what it means to help a fellow human being, you don't sound like a Marine or former Marine to me, Every Marine I know at Pendleton cares about those homeless people they see outside the Las Pulgas, Basilone Rd or the Maingate gate. Shame on you.... You do not exemplify the American Spirit, Semper Fi means nothing to you.... You got yours and to hell with everybody else....

polilticoman and toasty mcgrath.......poster children for ignorance. I guess the bottom line here is ...if you cant suck the life out of your own country...come to the U.S.A. and suck the life out of ours!!

personally I think Polilticoman and toasty should make a run to Mexico and see how welcome they are down there. Maybe theres some jobs down there for you to do that no mexican citizen wants to do, you would be perfect for cleaning #$it, it comes from your mouth so well it should be second nature.

I'm a citizen, my wife is japanese with green card it took almost a year to complete the process but it is a done deal That was 25 years ago! we have never had any problems,we work and pay taxes why cant the undocumented worker do the same. this would not be a problem if companys would pay fair wages for citizens to do the work and border patrol did theirs. health insurance is high because we have to pay for the birth of children of undocumented workers! hospitals dont turn away non emergencies they just pass the buck to us</P>

Jim-952823

#1.112- I am not going to drop to your level and call you names like ignorant or just plain stupid even though you are. I'm not going to do that. I'm military 31 yrs and still serving, I've earned the right to live in this country, just because you and I disagree on an issue you think I don't have the right to be here. I've been to wars for this nation have you? if you have we can have a debate, if not then maybe you are the one who should find some place else to live because you have not done squat to earn the right to live here but run your trap... There are plenty of non Americans to include Mexicans serving in our military and they have a greater right to live here than you because they have shed blood giving you the right to come on here and spout your garbage... You really don't have a clue, just your own uninformed, misguided political bias...

KevinQ wrote:

Some illegal immigration facts from the L. A. Times newspaper:

I notice there's no link to this article -- unsurprising in that it doesn't exist. Next time, check your facts before you mouth off:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp

Most of these "facts" come from the Manhattan Institute, a right-wing "think" tank.

It doesn't matter how you got here, while you are in this country you are subject to subject to the jurisdiction of this country.

I do not know where you got your law degree but you need a refresher course.

THIS IS AN INCORRECT AND UNTRUE STATEMENT.

A key concept in all legal issues is JURISDICTION - subject matter and personal. For example, the subject matter jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court are constitutional claims and claims between residents of different states provided the dollar amount is $50,000 or more.

An example of personal jurisdiction.... If you are a resident of California and you get into a car accident in Arizona. Which state has the personal jurisdicition over YOU? I don't know off-hand, you'd have to look it up. I am making a point about JURISDICTION.

In the case of immigration, it is known around the world outside the U.S. that the "subject to its jurisdiction" phrase means THAT A CHILD BORN IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY IS A CITIZEN OF THE COUNTRY WHERE THE PARENTS ARE CITIZENS.

Citizen K

You are posting SNOPES? Are you kidding that you think it is reputable?

THE LOS ANGELES TIMES HAS PRINTED NUMEROUS STATISTICS. They are quite easy to look up.

latimes.com - use the search feature with boolean operators.

Politicoman, I have read several posts where you have blasted other people for their supposed lack of military or combat experience or knowledge of what it is like to not have much. But not once did we here anything about your military experience either with or in the military or poverty that would give you such a better perspective than others. I am of mixed Hispanic/American heritage. My mother was Mexican American and my father was German. As I posted previously, I grew up and live on the right on the Arizona/Mexico border. I am Hispanic and legal, as were the four generations of my family before me. I cannot say I grew up poor, because I had a roof over my head, the love of my family, anf food to eat. Even though we lived on what was then considered the wrong side of the tracks! I am a retired U.S. Navy combat vet with 20 years service in the uniform of the country that I love. I served in Vietnam and the 1st Gulf. I flew as medical aircrew on Marine UH 1 Huey medevac choppers. The Army called them Dustoffs. I have shed my blood for this country. I would gladly do so again and would die for it. I have been to and lived in other countries in the world where there wqs extreme poverty. As a Navy Hospital Corpsman I frequently volunteered to participate in what are known as MEDCAP (Medical Civic Action Programs) to help the locals. You never realize how much one takes for granted until moments like those. Six months ago I finally retired from a second career in the Medical Laboratory field.

Now, based on the above, if you feel the need to damn me for what you think I might not know, please enlighten us to your background instead.

Ed-NavDoc

Politicoman isn't going to do that. He is still trying to figure out what rank he is going to claim to be and what units he served in. Probably even did a google of Camp Pendleton so he could see what main roads run in and out of post so he could mention them in his post.

He still hasn't answered my question when he seemingly claimed to have been in Nazi Germany.

Just another ignorant troll extolling the virtues of criminals while attempting to belittle and degrade citizens of our Country.

James McKay -

Amnesty is a problem. It is a reward to those that have broken the law. Reagan did it and it was a mistake then. Now we have 20 million just hanging on waiting to get another free pass.

Deport any illegal that is caught. No questions. If they wish to apply for citizenship, put their application all the way at the end, and then deny it because of their criminal past.

Also keep in mind Congress is not the only one that can Amend the Constitution and the way the majority of voters feel about illegals, this has a very good chance of being implemented.

Very good point. Here is Article V of the U.S. Constitution and I bold the key provision of which you speak.

CNN has been showing a map of the US with states in yellow that support AZ's anchor baby law. ALMOST ALL THE STATES ARE YELLOW. Of course, my state is not yellow but THERE ARE ENOUGH OTHER STATES that would allow us to amend the US Constitution:

"Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

Michael Lockwood - Greg in Oceanside - Ed Navy Doc

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.

PoliticoMan - With all these posts directed to you, I had to find out why.

My dearly departed father was 1 year old when Hitler was appointed German Chancellor (1933). My 75 year old mother was 10 years old when World War 2 ended in 1945.

How old were you when you served in Nazi Germany? What is your rationale for agreeing that lawbreakers should be able to live in our country when, as a military man, you were fighting to defend AMERICAN RIGHTS AND IDEALS?

Americans do not like lawbreakers. We put them in jail. In the case of illegal aliens, I want them deported because we have to pay for the upkeep of prisoners in jail.

I am trying to understand your point of view. And by the way, I AM FIRST GENERATION AMERICAN. My parents LEGALLY emmigrated to the U.S.

Greg in Oceanside

#1.115- Where were you in Iraq? You say you served 2 tours, what units were you with? Are you telling me you went into harms way for people you've never seen and are negative against people in this country striving to get a break? I've been to Iraq, Afganistan, Bosnia and Gulf War I. In serving, I've come to the conclusion everyone deserves the right to be free, not just those who I think is on the right side of the law.. Even fmr President Bush did not feel all illegals should be sent back across the boarder. We should find a way to make them legal and productive members of our society. As for me I'm more angry with Mexico than the illegals, they are escaping Mexico striving for a better life. So I still stand with the statement that I conclude you feel because you have yours " to hell with everybody else" who doesn't live up to your expectations... So what province were you located in Iraq? What unit?

To Greg, and others posting above. My thanks for your kind words. As for Politicoman, he keeps demanding to know the specifics of where and when others served without giving any himself. Personally, I find that somewhat suspicious. He may or may not have served, but I have my doubts it was in an active combat zone. He has deigned not to answer my questions to him.

My views on illegals are somewhat different than some posting here. As someone who is of Hispanic decent and living on the border, I see things a mite differently. My problem with illegals stems from the fact that I live six blocks from the border fence, hence pretty much being at ground zero. I have illegals running the alleys behind my house almost every night in all types of weather. The only thing that keeps them out of yard are 3 large dogs. They come through my neck of the woods on their way North and leave huge piles of trash behind them. For the local farmers and ranchers it is even worse. The illegals tear down their fences, slaughter their livestock and burglarize homes. Many times with the occupants being home. they are robbed for food, money, and guns. I myself have been the victim of a home invasion by armed illegals and have had to arm myself to protect my property and my family. I have no problems with residents of other countries coming here legally just like my grandparents did. My problem is with the illegals that come here from Mexico and other locales that enter the country and expect all the benefits that are the right of citizens and legal residents. And they want them for free without having worked for them in any way! I have worked hard all my adult life to get what I have and to be able to provide for my family and I am damned if I will see it given away for free to those who do not deserve them or belong here. When they come here the legal way, I will welcome them with open arms. Until then, arrest and deport them! Maybe a way for the government to ease things is to make the price of emigration more reasonable and affordable than it currently is.

You would give benefits to an ILLEGAL ALIENS and there ANCHOR BABIES before taking care of our own CITIZENS, THAT IS DISGUSTING.

I completely agree with you GulfWar.

Ed-NavDoc, you are full of it! You may know 1 incident and then using that exagerated event and generalizing it to an legal residency issue. Give me a freakin break! My Godmother and her daughter were raped, murdered and burried in a barrel on a farm by white farm hand So should I condemn all white farm workers or all farm workers?

Bigger issue? You would know what is a bigger issue even if it kick you square in the nutz. The issue is not that there are illegals, because there will always be illegals. Heck, Mexico have illegal immigrants issues of their own. Do you know their problems? Well they issues are the same as ours, except people are different.

Michael Lockwood - Greg in Oceanside - Ed Navy Doc - PoliticoMan, thank you for your service. However, I would not treat you any different just because of your service. I appreciate your service as I would of any union and non-union educators, fire fighters, paramedics... administrators are another story.

Ed-NavDoc

#1.126- First of all Ed, it was Greg who started spouting his war history to me, go back and look at all of his post. I responded to him by letting him know I am also a veteran of war and I am still serving with 31 yrs credit. Now I was wrong for asking him to identify his units, that is not public information to be spread on this form, but he can say what type of units. As for me, I am a combat medic, served in Iraq in southern and central part of the country 03-04. Afganistan, Kandahar in 08 Bosnia, Sarajevo in 97-98 and KKMC King Kalib Military City Kindom of Saudi Arabia (Gulf War) 90-91, from KKMC I was assigned to a MASH unit which moved forward into Iraq. So there is no reason for you to be suspicious, As you can see, there hasn't been a response from Greg in Oceanside yet...

Karen in Los Angeles

#1.124- My point of view is simply this: As a military man who has seen the worst we as humans can do to each other, I concluded every person on this planet deserves to right to be free and live in an environment which will allow them to at least try to reach their full potential. Even fmr President Bush did not advocate sending all illegals back across the boarder. He wanted congress to find a way to keep them here, make them legal so they can become productive members of American society. These illegals are just looking for a break in life, and maybe if you have seen some of the things I witnessed, you might feel a little different, maybe not. As far as NAZI Germany is concerned, the echos I hear on the vine spouting all the negativity on illegals reminds me of the propaganda the Nazi's spouted on the Jews. Some paint all illegals as criminials to include the children. In my view that is just plain wrong... Maybe you feel different and that is your right...

Michael Lockwood

#1.120- In answering your questions, I am a SFC Sergeant First Class E7 in the Army. I am currently assigned to a unit in Southern California and live near Camp Pendleton, don't have to do a google, it's just down the road from me. My unit conducts training on Camp Pendleton and areas in northern California, Camp Roberts and Camp Parks. Never said I've been to Nazi Germany but I have been to Germany on several occasions with the most recent being last year. While in Germany back in the 70's 80's 90's and last year I've had the privilege to speak with holocaust survivors. Their stories about Nazi atrocities against the Jewish people and what they went through is spine tingling, they still have their numbers on their wrist. So my knowledge of everything I say is first hand knowledge because of my experiences. Since you presume to think I have to go through some other avenue to support my points of view then I will presume you are one of those people who haven't experienced anything of that nature and get your knowledge from other sources.. Don't know if you've noticed but there still hasn't been a response from Greg yet. Don't get me wrong, I am no better than anyone here and I don't pretend to be, it was Greg who began spouting his war history first, not me....

Politicoman

You assume that I have not experienced anything you speak of. Lets go with that. I could match my DD214 to everything I ever claimed I did, can you. I spent over 20 years in the Active Army as a grunt and have all the been there done that badges and ribbons to go with it. So for a weekend warrior to question me about where I have been and what I have done makes me almost bust a gut laughing at you.

As for your comment about Nazis, you stated "reminds me of Nazi Germany". Again that statement makes it sound like you claimed to have been there. You claim it was by the interviews, of talking to Jews that lived through it, while you were in Germany. Thats funny, did you take out an ad in the newspaper. Im sure they were all over the place since they make up less than 0.14% of the total current German population and that doesn't even break down how many of them were there during the holocaust.

I have also been there many times and have had the opportunity to speak with civilians that were there, soldiers that were part of the German Army and soldiers from the U.S. that served there during WWII and went back to live there.

My question to you is if you really did talk to all these Jewish people in Germany, how could you even begin to compare what they went through to the illegals here. That statement alone makes you sound like you are walking around with your head up your 4th point of contact.

How many illegals have been shot on sight in your community? How many of them have been hauled off to work camps and forced to do labor until they died. How many of these illegals, whose cause you so openly support and want to compare to the Jews, are being burned each day in American Concentration Camps.

On the other hand please tell us how many of those Jews came from other countries just so they could drop a kid in Germany during the 1930s and early 40s?

How many of them used up millions of dollars in health care that they didn't pay for and or had no intentions of paying for?

How many of them raped, burgalarized and even murdered the citizens of Germany?

Do you now see how ignorant and lame your post sounds?

Theturd(?), personally I don't give a rat's behind whether tou think I'm full of it or not. I'm not going to stoop to your level of insults and name calling. As for mentioning just one incident, read again. I mentioned several relevant issues regarding illegals crossing the border. I certainly could have mentioned more, but did dot feel the need. In what way do you think I exaggerated pray tell. If your alleged Godmother and child were murdered than I am truly sorry. Sounds like you have some serious issues. Possibly with white people. I am Hispanic so I really cannot or will not go there.

As someone who lives here on the border, I'm willing to bet that I have a much greater idea of the issues here than you ever will. Where do you live. South Dakota?

As for your thanks for my service? Please save it as you have no clue of what that service means to myself and those above. I am nobody special, nor did I claim to ever be. We are just people who did our jobs to the best of our abilities and as honorably as possibly. But I seriously doubt you have ever been in the military so you would have no idea anyway!

Michael Lockwood

#1.132- When I retire next year my DD 214 will back up everything I claim. As far as talking with holocaust survivors, no I didn't have to take out an ad, regardless of the numbers you quoted of their percentage of the population there are plenty remaining if you go to the right places. Forgot to mention I also visited Dachau and walked those grounds, so many people were murdered there, when the wind shifts in the right direction, you can still smell burning flesh. How can I make that comparison, because of the scapegoating the illegals are now suffering. Don't get me wrong, they broke the law, however I find myself agreeing with President Bush. We as America, a country that strives to be a just nation, should find ways to keep them here, make them members of our society, in the long run that would be best for our nation. That is my view, Don't think my post is ignorant or lame, just think you and I have a different take on the issue. My expierences in life has left me with the conclusion all people deserve the right to be the best they can be, I believe we as a nation should find a way to welcome illegals, expedite the process to make them legal and crack down on employers which hire illegals and Mexico. I have no reason to make any false statements to anyone here about anything I've done or how I think. But it is becoming more clearer to me, those on the right do not welcome civil debate, once a person tends to disagree, out flows the insults... May you have a good day...

Ed-NavDoc, I did not call you names. I simply said you are full of it. If you can't handle what you shovel, then spin facts and give yourself outs.

Thturd, I refer you back to post #1.133 for the issues you evaded or ignored! Sounds like you are the one that cannot handle or get a grip on things. As I said, sounds like you have some issues to deal with. Get some help. You need it. As it is impossible to hold a polite or meaningfully intelligent discussion with you, this conversation is over. Have a nice day.

the issues evaded on #1.133? hmmm, what about all the other load of stuff you were shoveling? Suddenly you are specific??? Which part your #1.133 was really regarding political issues?

I got my help. I read your stuff and I feel much better about myself. Polite conversation? Please, after what you write to other viners such as the latest PoliticoMan. Hypocrite. Like I said, don't dish it if you can take it. Be a man and don't let the door hit you on the way out...

Thanks for proving my point! Goodby.

Politicoman, thank you for your polite response and clarifications. If I offended, please accept my apologies.

they need a scapegoat.

It is a problem and the 14th amend.needs a correction and NOW!

It is the good old, 'I got mine, screw you'

as in, my ancestors just showed up on our shores looking for work and were welcomed, but now . . . we don't want THEM!!!

I think there is an election coming up in 2012. :)

Play your cards right (Republicans/TPers) and you can get people to vote by blind rage, only to wake up the next morning and realize that it would take 2/3 of congress to amend the constitution and I do not see that happening any time soon. So good luck with that AZ.

Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.

To Propose Amendments

• Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or

• Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

• Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or

• Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition

It started being a problem during the Reagan era when this country started having welfare programs. I do not care how little the illegals take from government programs or how little the anchor babies draw, any dime that is forcibly taken from my pocket and given to them by this government angers me.

Justin, didn't your ancestors receive those same benefits when they came to the US?

Justin: chill...there is no way all your tax dollars are going to just that one frapping segment of this society. Also, you use the roadways, you are protected by our Arm Forces, so I am guessing the money being taken from your pocket doesn't go for anything good in this country, right? Oh my, what about Grandma and her medicare, etc. I do not know your tax bracket, but I pay my fair share of taxes and there are things that I do not like that this country funds, but I am a rational person and know that my tax dollars goes into a larger pot and from that pot things that I approve of gets funded as well as things I do not approve of. Those are the breaks. I say stomp out corruption where you can, but to say I don't want my tax dollars going to X issue, is just stupid, because there is no way you can control (in general terms) where your tax dollars go with such a large pot.

My great-grandparents came here LEGALLY from Germany and Sweden in the very early 1900's.. No they did not get those same benefits. 1) They did not have those benefits back then and 2) they worked for every dime they got. They were too proud to accept handouts from anyone.

Now when Jose and Jaunita cross the border now they are not eligible for benefits. However once anchor baby Jose Jr. is born on our soil they then are eligible for a whole host of benefits paid for by the U.S. Taxpayers.

BeS, my ancestors came from Germany at the same time. Were given free health screenings, train tickets to Montana where there was land for sale at $1 per acre and the same type of work they were used to, once they arrived they were given free temporary housing until they could get settled. They were immediately given access to all the protections of every other resident and never became citizens (mainly b/c they couldn't read). So, I guess that my grandparents were Anchor Babies.

Were your German ancestors "illegal"??

By today's standard, yes!! By the standard then, no!!

hbtx: I think stspecialk was refuidating what was stated by BeS in the above post.

*teehee play on words. Figure it out for yourself.

My ancestors came over from Germany in the early 1900s also. If they were given all you say STS, they were LEGAL immigrants. LEGAL not ILLEGAL. There is a huge difference. I think we all agree that legal immigrants should get assistance and benefits for doing it the right way. Most of us, with the exception of the American Indians, came here as immigrants. No one wants to change that.

no, you just want to change the rules halfway through the game. If they came from Germany in the early 1900's then they showed up the same way 'illegal' immigrants show up today, without invitation. . . they were just treated better.

"Legality" of immigration has changed a great deal in US history. My ancestors on my fathers side where living here before the English even showed up. And they migrated "legally" by taking the land from the native Indio peoples. My ancestors on my mother's side came here "legally" by simply showing up on a boat one day in New York. Where they were immediately drafted into the Army to go fight people who thought that the States outranked the Federal government (States rights), and who thought that workers should be giving no rights in the interest of trade and profit (slavery). So anyway yeah, I just find it really hard to look down my nose at today's immigrants legal or otherwise.

Thanks Linda I new the racism would start soon.........

Speak for yourself. My ancestors were European settlers, they came to wild untamed land that Mexico was giving away for free that became Texas. They did immigrate but that was before Ellis Island..so no not true not everyone here is an immigrant, lots of Americans are decendants of colonists and pioneers. 2nd and 3rd generations is still fob for some. fyi

Stspecialk, you can't take time-induced context to make a relevant argument.

What was legal in 1911 or 1811 or 1211, if not changed or re-organized in law or statue, pertains today. Immigration into the US in previous decades wasn't on par with the blatant breach of our borders (and via sea in the Gulf of Mexico and Straits of Florida). Since Ellis Island closed, other legitimate laws came into play and remain valid today. Thus, an immigrant coming into prior to these laws is legal, but entering serruptitiously with intent to bylaw US sovereign authority is illegal.

This has nothing to do with "invitation." The American invitation to all remains there, it's that our laws and national sovereignty define the who/what/how that invitation is accepted. You can't do whatever the **** you want. You sound like a young Hollywood star.

So who else will we decide doesn't need to be a citizen when you were born here in the US...... African Americans perhaps? Gays and Lesbians?

Yes, the reason our kids are all fat and stupid is because of illegal immigration. And what better way to stop illegal immigration than taking away one of the very few reasons people immigrate in the first place. I personally would love to see immigrants leave only to see the fat morons of Amerikkka pick their own fruit, clean their own restrooms and watch their own kids.

Eric

You are being a troll and your ignorance is showing. Please explain how what Linda posted has anything to do with race. Unless you are inferring that she must be talking about some part of those illegals or another which would in fact make you the racist, then quit pulling the race card.

It is a problem and the 14th amend.needs a correction and NOW!

I can think of a few others that need "correction" as well -- Lets get going!

My great-grandparents came here LEGALLY from Germany and Sweden in the very early 1900's

Baloney. If your great-grandparents came here in the very early 1900s, they did NOT have visas and they did NOT have government permission to be here. They just showed up and stayed like rats, but they were welcomed by people like my ancestors anyway.

The fact is, your great-grandparents did nothing more to deserve a place here than any of the people you now wish to persecute. (In fact, they did less, because they weren't born here.) And your grandparents most likely were citizens ONLY because of the 14th Amendment. That would mean that, by extension, YOU are only a citizen by virtue of having been born here, since in all probability, neither your grandparents nor parents were never naturalized.

Linda, please save your insane bigoted ranting for another forum. People are not cokroaches. You are not supporting anyone, you just like to pretend that you are.

The only thing that is as disgusting as your bigotry are your lies and your unsubstantiated (and factually insupportable) comments.

Same for Michael Lockwood, who at least uses polite language while he tells lies and spreads his message of bigotry and hate.

In the days when Ellis Island was used for an entry point to the US, many immigrants were turned away. There were requirements that had to be met befoe entry was granted, number one being as to how they would support themselves. I am more than will to allow immigration for those who can provide that information before entering the country. It had to be something more than day-labor and taxes and such were withheld the same as everyone else. It helped to make sure that the imigrants were not exploited as the illegal immigrants are. Immigration lawas server to protect both the citizen and the immigrant.

Ugh, ikr?

I'm starting to feel about Arizona like I feel about Arkansas and Florida. :-/

Besensible 2, why does it only have to be Jose and Juanita and jose jr.? Why dont you also say Chong, Wang and little Wang Jr. Or Jean-Claude, Madame Rose, and little Claude Jr.

besensible, good for your grandparents for coming the "legal" way mine did too, from MEXICO!! and im proud of that, Im so proud of that country I always listen to Mexican Music, watch Mexican movies, eat Mexican Food, date Mexican Women, read Mexican History, drink Mexican beer, drive a Mexican car (mastretta) everything Mexican! Fly the GREEN, WHITE, RED sky high, Im a proud Mexican, I dont care what you say! VIVA MEXICO!! the best country in the world!!! And I love the fact that more and more Mexican Americans are in college, soon we will also take over the business force, we already took over the manufacturing jobs, construction jobs, everything!! so deal with it!!

P.S english isnt the Official Language in the USA! haha

The nineteenth century immigrants came in legality through Ellis Island, not packed in to the back of an El Camino. Some of you need to reread your history. Just because you lack the intellect to tell the difference between 2 things does not make them the same.

2.25 Commonsense..."but they were welcomed by people like my ancestors anyway"... Well, probably not, but they let 'em stay anyway.

At the turn of the 1900s, as the Italians and Slavs came pouring in, they were classified as "colored" even, and, shudders, were Catholic baby machines. Sigh. No doubt this "Hispanic Hysteria" too shall pass.

commonsense...where does it end? Are we to just have open borders? It sounds like that is what you advocate. Its obvious since unemployment is through the roof, that we dont need any more "workers."

I don't know what polls you're reading but the WSJ poll had 65% supporting Arizona SB1070 and 70% opposed to amnesty. You don't get it, we're tired of supporting a bunch of illegal immigrants and supporting their families and anchor babies, while they drain away all of our tax dollars and force hospitals, schools, and state benefits into the red and eventually bankruptcy.

Lastly, I think you should volunteer to support a few illegal families and put them to work, where you work. I mean, if you're for amnesty, stand-up and be counted and do your civic duty to the illegal invaders and pay their way because i'm tired of it. Come on down to So. Cali sometime and let me show you what living close to the border is like. I'm 8 miles north of Tiauana, BC, but it might as well be in my backyard.

Get 'em outta here now before they completely destroy this country!!

Robin,

You talk of "lack of intellect." I suppose it was your inner genius that said "came in legality through Ellis Island," and "packed in to." I think you need to go "reread" what you should have learned in the 3rd grade.

"Is this what we voted for in November 2010? If Arizona doesn't like being part of the US, and their actions over the past two years demonstrate that, why not try leaving the Union? It's about as valid a modern-day Constitutional argument as anything else they want to bring up to those of us fortunate enough not to live in their God forsaken state." Hey Sean, maybe they should! What is the worst that could happen? It's not like they could get invaded by a foreign power, is it!

Polls polls polls. Poll after poll, and I have never been asked once in my lifetime.

The polls that show support for illegals being here and automatic citizenship must have been carried out in East LA where they surveyed La Raza members. Cant trust these polls people.

stspecialk It is the good old, 'I got mine, screw you' as in, my ancestors just showed up on our shores looking for work and were welcomed, but now . . . we don't want THEM!!!

Can you, will you support them without my tax dollars?

@Lockwood,

"these people" and "breed like cockroaches" was enough for me.

Stspecialk, you forgot the Italians!

There are a lot of posters showing their ignorance of American history or much of anything else

1) We don't need the Founding Fathers' intent because the 14th Admendment wasn't framed by the Fathers. Yes it concerned citizenship for former slaves because the Naturalization Act of 1790 did not. It also, however, applied to the millions of Germans and Irish who had arrieved in the country since 1840 and which while having made the United States their domicile, for various reasons did not meet the intent of the Naturalization Act.

2) Diplomats are not under the jurisdiction of this country because international law, which is by the US Constitution, accepted as Federal law, protects them from the jurisdiction of the country in which we serve. The same rules apply to US diplomats abroad. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the country where they serve, ALL OTHER RESIDENTS OR VISITORS, LEGAL OR ILLEGAL, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

3) The only requirement to come through Ellis Island was to undergo a health inspection. THERE WAS NO OTHER REQUIREMENT. Hundreds of thousands of other immigrants entered through other ports without going through Ellis Island and again the only requirement was that they not carry infectious diseases.

3) There was NO SUCH THING AS LEGAL or ILLEGAL immigration at the Federal level until 1882 when a law was passed restricting and preventing Chinese from immigrating. The Immigration Act of 1924 set quotas based on nationality, severely restricting oriental and sothern and eastern European immigration. All immigrant (other than Chinese) coming to this country before 1924 were neither illegal or legal as there was no law in force. Until 1952, the Naturalization Acts written by Congress still allowed only white persons to become naturalized as citizens (except for two years in the 1870s which the Supreme Court declared to be a mistake). Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment meant that, in theory, all persons born in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens regardless of race. Citizenship by birth in the United States, however, was not initially granted to Asians until 1898, when the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did apply to Asians born in the United States in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The enabling legislation for the naturalization aspects of the Fourteenth Amendment was the Naturalization Act of 1870, which allowed naturalization of "aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent", but is silent about other races. The Immigration Act of 1917, (Barred Zone Act) extended those restrictions to almost all Asians. The 1922 Cable Act specified that women marrying aliens ineligible for naturalization lose their US citizenship. At the time, all Asians were ineligible for naturalization. The Immigration Act of 1924 barred entry of all those ineligible for naturalization, which again meant non-Filipino Asians. But the 1934 Tydings–McDuffie Act, or Philippine Independence Act, reclassified Filipinos as aliens, and set a quota of 50 immigrants per year, and otherwise applying the Immigration Act of 1924 to them. The quotas did not apply to Filipinos who served in the United States Navy, which actively recruited in the Philippines at that time. Asians were first permitted naturalization by the 1943 Magnuson Act, which repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act. India and the Philippines were allowed 100 annual immigrants under the 1946 Filipino Naturalization Act. The War Brides Act of 1945 permitted soldiers to bring back their foreign wives and established precedent in naturalization through marriage. The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (better known as the McCarran–Walter Act), lifted racial restrictions, but kept the quotas in place. The Immigration Act of 1965 finally allowed Asians and all persons from all nations be given equal access to immigration and naturalization. But national ratios still apply. The INS just to hold a lottery in Eirope for the immigration visas. That still didn't prevent illegal immigration from Europe, especially Ireland. In other words, Hispanics aren't the first group to be discriminated against when applying naturalization law.

5) There are good reasons for Hispanics and American citizens of Hispanic descent not to trust the government's intentions regarding immigration. In 1932 President Roosevelt and the State Department essentially shut down immigration during the Great Depression as immigration went from 236,000 in 1929 to 23,000 in 1933. This was accompanied by voluntary repatriation to Europe and Mexico, and coerced repatriation and deportation of between 500,000 and 2 million Mexican Americans, mostly citizens, in the Mexican Repatriation.

6) There were no literacy or language tests required for immigtration or naturalization prior to 1917.

7) The US Constitution specifies in Article I, Section 8 (Congressional powers): To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article I, Section 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. You can't strip people of their citizenship through laws by applying them to the past.

Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (in other words, Arizona cannot nulify Federal law, any more than South Carolina could in 1830 or the Confederacy could in 1861.

8) A lot of you sound like Nativists from the 1830s and 1850s. Only then their targets were papist Irish, and Jews and stupid Dutchmen.

Obviously many of you have no idea what your talking about. Perhaps this debate should be continued when every one actually knows what their talking about?

Intent seems to be important here. One hundred years ago the European immigrants with or without visas intended to stay here for the rest of their lives, work and raise families here and assimilate into society. They also earned enough to sponsor and bring family members over legally. Today many of the illegals just want to come here and work for cash, defraud our welfare, and run back over the border to live high on the hog on their cash only to come back when they are broke. They have no intent to become part of our society or country. The border is a revolving door for them to come to the U.S., take what they want and run back across the border.

For all you people who are for ILLEGALS. My ancestors DID NOT COST THE TAXPAYERS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. THEYDID NOT GET OFF THE BOAT AND RECEIVE BENEFITS THEY DID NOT EARN. Your argument is so false. you people disgust me. You would take from a CITIZEN and give to someone who does not belong here legally to begin with. Especially you stspecialk, I think you are a disgusting person, and UN-AMERICAN.

Exit -- thank you for the MOST reasonable and accurate post up here. The problem is -- the people who NEED to listen and NEED to be educated won't. They are set in their path and no truth or history or governmental lesson will do a bit of good.

Yes, I agree illegal immigration is a problem. No, I do not agree with what Arizona is doing. The fact is, we HAVE the laws in place we need. We have plenty of them. What we need is ENFORCEMENT.

Beth

Yes, I agree illegal immigration is a problem. No, I do not agree with what Arizona is doing. The fact is, we HAVE the laws in place we need. We have plenty of them. What we need is ENFORCEMENT.

So then you dont support SB1070, which was simply Arizona's attempt to ENFORCE the federal law, which the fed's were not doing? Federal laws and SB1070 were almost exactly mirror images of each other.

Jesus, are there any civil liberties Arizona doesn't want to get rid of besides the Second Amendment? These are the same people who accuse liberals of shredding the constitution, yet somehow they get away scott-free when they openly advocate taking away Americans' Bill of Rights.

Toasty, my man. I didnt think illegal immigrants had any rights.

Well, first off they do regardless. But second this amendment doesn't affect illegal immigrants, it affects American Citizens.

common sense

I see it didn't take long for a person with a Master's Degree in BS and "False Facts" like you to show up and begin your ignorant and troll like posts. Did you come up with some new material or are you going to try to spread the same old lame tired BS you have become known for and been called on time after time?

For all of those that don't know Commonsense, who really should change his name because he is seriously lacking in that department, is a left wing, open borders, we should support everyone in the world, hug an illegal, ignorant troll. He has no offer of ways to fix the problem except to give Amnesty and thinks it would be fine for our taxes to increase as much as possible to help support this illegal infestation.

So commonsense I see you are being lame as usual and throwing out the race card as soon as you get on. Nice. It just proves you have no real argument.

By the way I think Eric beat you to it. Both of you need to get a new deck of cards since you toss that race card out there in almost every other post.You have to be running low by now.

Sometimes I think you and he are one and the same or could it possibly be that one has the others head semi attached in such a way that would cause the other person's neck to break if you turned the corner too fast?

Eric

As I said are you assuming she meant one race or another? You must be since you called her a racist. I didn't know there was a race called "these people" and where was I when you discovered a new race and called them "breed like cockroaches".

Go ahead Eric tell us which race you feel her statement fits. Are you assuming or are you profiling a race that fits her comments? Again that makes you the racist Eric because you already had a race picked out that you think those comments fit.

Toasty....why? I dont see how it has anything to do with US citizens. If the parents are not legal or citizens, then the child wont be. How is that affecting an American citizen?

In fact, they are being generous by allowing the child to be a citizen if just one parent is.

commonsense

Please don't tell me you are all of a sudden claiming that you are Native American. After all the posts in the past where you were called for your BS posts and now all of a sudden you are going to claim you are Native.

Under the United States Constitution, that child IS an American citizen. You want to take away that American's right. THAT is how it has everything to do with US citizens.

Thats incorrect. This wouldnt be retroactive. The ones already born are grandfathered in. This would interpret the citizen issue from here on out. So you cant say this would then be affecting citizens if they never became one in the first place.

So you're proposing our Constitution to deny infants rights...

Thats the parents fault, not this country's. Why it that our problem? If this law takes hold, the parents should then know better and not come here to give birth. The illegal immigrants use the 14th amendment as it is currently interpretted to hitch a ride on the gravy train by having a citizen child. Most illegals have no interest in becoming citizens. They do not want to assimilate into our society. They still hold allegiance to the Mexican flag (as evidenced by their rallies right here in Phoenix).

You changed your post on me. The answer to that is yes, to illegal immigrants.

Didn't like how it was worded.

The point is, if the anchor babies are outlawed, the illegal immigrants will not have any reason to pull this stunt of coming here to have a kid. Your concern would take of itself. The child would not be born here in the first place. At least thats the whole idea.

If the illegal parents decide to do it anyways, then its on them, not this country.

That still sounds like a dangerous precedent to set.

AZChzhd

You are absolutely right and its too bad that most people that come on here don't actually read a few other posts other than their own.

The fact is there would not be the loss of citizenship to anyone that already has it. The law would only affect those born after the date the law takes effect.

I also am amazed at the number of people bashing our state when the story clearly listed other states that are doing their own version of the same law. I guess the writer for MSNBC knew he would not get much coverage if he had said Kansas or Oklahoma was mulling over this law.

I wonder how many of the open borders left wing hug an illegal types know that California is looking at their own version of SB1070 and passed a much more restrictive law in the past? I wonder how many of them know that several of the large cities in California have taken actions to curb illegals coming to infest their cities.

Most of the people on here are all about the one line comments and have nothing else to offer. I wish I could round them all up and let them all road march up through Pinal County on a little nature walk so they could commune with the illegals. Or take them down to Arivaca Canyon so they can drink the water that has been polluted with the waste and garbage from the hundreds of illegals that have come through there.

Michael...I hear ya. Alot of people that post their opinions on here dont really do any homework and just blurt out an emotional response. I am guilty of that too on occasion.

The trash left behind through Organ Pipe National Park is well documented. We even go out of our way to put water stations in the desert. Liberals and the ACLU were blaming US for being inhumane for THEIR choice to cross the hot desert in July.

I love visiting California and taking my kids 5 times a year to the San Diego beaches and it saddens me to see what that state has become. I would hate for that to happen here. If it has taken a huge $20 billion budget deficit crisis to get the state to realize the sanctuary city policy is draining their resources and money, then so be it. Better late than never!

It is not being inhumane to deny illegals citizenship. After all, they made the choice to come here, unlike the slaves in the 1800s, for whom the law was intended for.

Toasty...I know this isnt easy. But it should be done for the good of this country. Not only do we not need any more "workers" with 9% unemployment, we cannot afford to pay for them being here. The anchor baby is their ticket on the gravy train. It has to stop.

You seem to misinterpret how the "anchor baby" system works. A parent is not entitled to stay in the US even if they have a child here. What's more, their child cannot file for their parents' visas until the age of 21, and even then they need to be at least 25% above the poverty threshold to do it. And even after all of that, the parent can STILL be denied a visa for years, sometimes permanently if they face an immigration ban. That's hardly a gravy train.

Toasty...It sure is a gravy train. Tthe birth of an anchor baby is only the beginning. As the child grows he or she is entitled to a multitude of other taxpayer-funded programs. Since most anchor babies are classified as "minorities", they can expect to enjoy legal preference over "non-Hispanic white males" under today's "civil rights" regime. Upon reaching adulthood, the citizen anchor baby is eligible to import relatives from the home country through America's nepotistic chain migration system , in which the principal qualification for a prespective legal immigrant is having relatives already in the U.S. When you look at the vast cornucopia of benefits, you have to conclude that the U.S.A. offers powerful incentives for illegal immigration. For those who disobey U.S. law and their children, America is certainly the land of opportunity!

The clear, original intent of the 14th Amendment was spelled out in 1866 by Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of its citizenship clause, who wrote "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Clearly the original intent of the 14th Amendment was not to encourage foreigners to defy U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Sadly the amendment is now being employed to do just that.

So then you dont support SB1070, which was simply Arizona's attempt to ENFORCE the federal law, which the fed's were not doing? Federal laws and SB1070 were almost exactly mirror images of each other.

No I do not support it. For one, it uses racial profiling (whether you believe it or not). However, more importantly, it is not the state's job, it's federal law and the FEDS need to be the ones enforcing the laws ... and the biggest place to begin is with the employers.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons

That's because of their diplomatic status -- just as babies born abroad of US citizens with diplomatic status are not citizens of THOSE countries.

The point is the ONLY way to change it is to make changes to the 14th Amendment -- not by states making unconstitutional laws. Once you do that because of a political viewpoint you open a big can of worms I suspect you DON'T want to open.

Beth...what if the Fed's refuse to enforce their own law? Shouldn't the state step in and fill that vacuum? I mean how many times are you supposed to ask the Fed for help? Then Gov Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, repeatedly asked Bush for help. Now Brewer, a Republican, is repeatedly asking for help. Seems both parties in the White House just sat on their hands and twittled their thumbs at us. Arizona didnt change the federal law when they made it state law. Even Judge Bolton asked the DOJ why Arizona cant defend itself if they fail to?

I agree with you about the employers.

The state isnt looking to create a new law, its merely challenging the verbiage of a few key phrases in the 14th Amendment. It WANTS this law to be heard in a court. Thats the plan.

.what if the Fed's refuse to enforce their own law? Shouldn't the state step in and fill that vacuum?

As much as you don't like the answer -- the answer is no. It's a slippery slope that you cannot go down; and I'm sure don't want to go down.

And yes, the state IS trying to create a new law ... racial profiling on the grounds that someone LOOKS like they MIGHT be an illegal alien is a new law .. and it's also not the answer.

And yes, the state IS trying to create a new law ... racial profiling on the grounds that someone LOOKS like they MIGHT be an illegal alien is a new law .. and it's also not the answer.

How is trying to pass a law denying birthright citizenship racial profiling? You arent getting mixed up with SB1070 were you? This current bill regarding the anchor babies is where the state is challenging the 14th Amendments verbiage.

SB1070 you could make the case for racial profiling. Although you still would have to be committing some type of offense for the police to even consider pulling you over. They couldnt just look at you and do so. It comes with caveats.

Actually, I was arguing BOTH issues ... because they BOTH related and both unconstitutional.

1. You cannot pass a law denying "birthright citizenship" as it's a Constitutional guarantee. The Constitution can be amended, but not by a state law. And, you know darn well that this "law" is aimed specifically at Hispanics.

2. You can definitely make a case for racial profiling here -- just ask anyone who has been pulled over for "driving while black".

it hasn't been a problem for 98 years , why now

I don't know about other states but in 1995 - 16 years ago - CA passed a law denying public benefits to illegal aliens and our courts overturned it.

NOW CALIFORNIANS HAVE TO VOTE OUT ALL STATE JUDGES.

Beth and everyone else who has a challenge, please explain to me how you prefer that lawbreakers be ignored.

Why is it that you think that lawbreakers should remain in our country?

They're no more law breakers than most our ancestors, and honestly more ethical than most. The immigration laws of the US were created mostly for racist reasons not practical. Not saying that its wrong to have immigration laws but lets at least be honest about this stuff. Further all the arguments being made here have been time and time again about each wave of immigrants into the US. These arguments are not suddenly and magically full of merit.

Finally, the "Nativist" protesting here would be just as quick to whine about the rise in prices if these illegals were deported. The Nativist would also whine about the increase to government in order to actually detain and then remove these immigrants. Or the massive loss of revenue. Nativist seem to live in a parallel reality where removing immigrants will be free of charge and not impact the nation economically at all. Which is not surprising since in general this mentality tends to follow a "something for nothing" attitude.

Beth

I have read your posts and partially agree with some of your points, however I can tell you don't live in our state. If you do then you either have your head buried in the sand or you are really for open borders and just playing lip service.

The fact is the Supreme Court has already found that states have the right to control illegals within their borders. That doesn't have anything to do with creating immigration laws. By the way 287(g) agreements already allow local law enforcement agencies to enforce Federal Immigration laws. Also the Secure Communities Program, another federal program, encourages law enforcement agencies to run the fingerprints and IDs of all people booked into their jails through ICE's data base.

As for the current law that Arizona was mulling but not brought up for vote; it was designed to force the Supreme Court to actually rule on whether a child of an illegal is given birthright citizenship. This has never been decided by the Supreme Court. You can pull up U.S. v Wong Kim Ark but that does not apply to anchor babies born to illegals. The Ark case was totally different.

This action by the state of Arizona was also designed to make the Federal Government as well as the people of the United States to pull their heads out and take notice of the situation that has been going on for years and has finally come to a head.

We as a state have to foot the bill for most of the illegals as they pass through our state and into others. We have the destruction, garbage and waste they drop when they make their connections to other states. We have the drop houses where 30 40 50 even 60 illegals will be housed at a time. We have the home invasions where illegals break into houses of other illegals and legal citizens in attempts to extort money for the release of their illegal family members. Some times innocent people's houses are broken in by mistake.

While living in Tucson I had one occasion where it almost happened to me. My neighbor was a legal American citizen but had a relative that had paid to cross the border illegally. His coyote decided that he could afford to pay more and decided he would force the man's relatives to pay or else. The problem was they picked the wrong house. Two came over my back fence, huge mistake as I have 4 very large, the smallest being 94 lbs, very protective dogs that immediately "took a bite out of crime". The other knucklehead thought he would come through the front door. I fully believe in my 2nd Amendment rights and have my handguns where I can get to them. Hindsight being 20-20 I should have let him break my door down then I could have employed this state's "Castle Law" and ventilated his sorry ass. Instead I opened my door and gave him an eye to barrel view of my two, Glock 21c, pistols. I told him he came to the wrong place and he backed himself out of my doorway and left. The other two got out of my back yard faster than they came in.

The next day my neighbor's SUV was stolen. A few days later while he was at work someone vandalized his house. A couple weeks later he moved. He was a nice person and his kids and mine played together a lot.

This isn't a one time occurance. It happens all the time. In Phoenix there is approx. one drug related kidnapping a day. In Arizona the Border Patrol catches approx 900 illegals every day trying to cross the border. JUST IN ARIZONA!!!. In Arizona Federal Agents seize an average of 1.5 tons of marijuana each and every day.

The federal government has failed in every way to deal with the illegals. They have let it get to such a point that states and individual citizens are going to deal with the problem that the feds have turned the other cheek to.

You are clearly out of touch with America!

roger, not according to EVERY major poll.

losing at what? your comment has no value.

boy, you guys sure descended into bigotry and hatred quickly.

ps. rights are not determined by vote

BeS, can you provide such proof?

You cant be serious... Arizona is the voice of most Americans. If the American people, and I mean Legal Citizens here, were to vote on this it would pass with flying colors. Please educate yourself before talking.
As far as the Constitution is concerned you are not realizing the origional intent of the 14th amendment. The US did not limit immigration in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistant. Granting the automatic citizenship to children of the illegal alian mothers is a recent and totally inadvertant and unforseen result of the reconstructionist period in which it was ratified. Hell the amendment reads "all persons born or naturalized in the US, and SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEROF, are citizens of the US"

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Polls have nothing to do with the Constitution. Neither do votes on Newsvine. It's unconstitutional, and it's going to get shot down, no matter how much bold type and exclamation points you use.

You first as you were the first to make a claim and after you provide the links I will do the same.

In this, the era of questioning the intent of the writers, I think there could be a reasonable case made for the 14th amendment not including children born to illegal parents. After all, the Constitution and Bill of Rights is written to define the rights and responsibilities of the citizens of this nation- should the same rights be afforded to those who are not legal citizens?
Frankly, if we took every step possible to remove the attractions for coming here illegally, this question wouldn't need to be asked let alone answered. Enforce the laws on the books, do everything in our power to close the borders, stop providing free health care, free education, etc, to illegals. We are making progress- I'll even give credit to the Obama administration for FINALLY stepping up border security and increasing deportations. Laws like the AZ immigration crack down are helping, too, by causing self-deportation in many cases. These are all positive steps. if we keep going we wouldn't need to give the 14th Amendment a 2nd glance.

51% oppose changing the 14th amendment with 49% in support.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/114005-poll-americans-divided-on-changing-14th-amendment

@American Voice

Yes, just like the majority of Americans in the 1840's would have voted for slavery to be legal in all the U.S. states at the time. And in 1960 they probably would have executed MLK if you allowed them to vote on it. Just because your backward ideas of spitting on the constitution may have the following of the majority it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

In the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that a Chinese man born in the US was indeed a US citizen, even though at the time the Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited Chinese people from becoming US citizens, and the man's parents were not citizens. The court ruled that the principle of jus soli (birth in the US) and the Fourteenth Amendment could not be nullified by just an act of Congress.

So there is clearly precedent that people born in the US are entitled to the fourteenth amendment, and it does not apply just to ex-slaves.

In the case Afroyim v. Rusk in 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that US citizens, whether born or naturalized, could not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily.

Since disenfranchising children born in the US to parents who are not US citizens would deprive said US citizens of their citizenship involuntarily (and mind you, this would presumably apply as far back as you care to go through the generations), this too would be unconstitutional.

This Arizona law is clearly unconstitutional and a huge waste of taxpayer's money. I'm glad I don't live there.

Arizona is engaged in this activity because they believe that illegal immigrants are coming to the US with the motivation of having babies who are then US citizens. They are by default working towards amending the US Constitution, and changing one of its basic principles - a change that would make it more restrictive. This would represent the first time that the country has moved to restrict rather than build on the ideals expressed in the Constitution.

Considering this and also the fact that we are a nation of immigrants, whether or not there is actual data supporting these assertions deserves a much closer look than it is getting from Senators Kyl, McCain, Graham and the always-bizarrely-inflammatory Glenn Beck.

Data about the numbers of people who come here illegally from Mexico correlates directly to the availability of jobs. As employment improves and the number of jobs increases, the numbers of illegal immigrants increases accordingly. As the number of jobs decline, illegal immigration declines.

All of the ancillary data concerning the reasons that Mexicans enter this country illegally unvaryingly support this correlative data, and the conclusion that illegal immigrants are coming here to work.

Besides the fact that there is an abundance of evidence (please try to understand that the plural of "story" is not "data" or "evidence") that people come to the US to work, there is no data to support that they are coming here to have babies to realize some benefit from their citizenship and stay in the country illegally.

For one thing, women of child - bearing age who enter the country illegally from Mexico are a much, much smaller group than men who enter illegally. These small numbers of female immigrants increase and decrease in proportion to the number of men coming in and to the work available. If they were coming to have babies, the number would be much higher than it is and it would also be constant.

Further, they would have to wait 21 years for their child to be old enough to help them gain citizenship. Other than that, there is little to no benefit to them. If they are caught then yes, there is a possibility that deportation may be deferred, but that does not apply to criminal prosecution for breaking the law.

There is simply no evidence that having babies here is a tactic being used to get a foot in the door and stay in this country. There is also not a shred of evidence that changing what was obviously the specific intent of the Founding Fathers would have any impact whatsoever on the very real problem of illegal immigration.

I am really tired of this hysteria from the far right and the knee jerk reactions to ridiculous fantasies and made up stories that have little to no basis in fact. Could we at least once agree to look at the actual data and the actual facts surrounding serious problems so that we have a chance of actually effectively addressing them?

We spend so much time and effort swinging swords at delusions created by the far right media to whip their partisan base into a frenzy of allegiance that we completely miss what could be real solutions to very dangerous problems.

One small, but important aspect of the illegal immigration problem that few have considered. In my opinion, the vast majority of illegals do not wish to be American citizens. As citizens, they would have to pay their way in this country. They and their employers would have to pay into social security, medicare and pay taxes. Most important, they would be accountable and more traceable for their crimes.

Why go to the trouble of becoming an American when you can get all the benefits and pay none of the costs by slithering back and forth across the border between criminal acts. We are, after all, talking about people who take pride only in how much they can get and not working for it, and how many criminal acts they can get away with before they get caught. Nothing else matters to them.

Dem in TX - Note: By 1840, most people would NOT have voted to keep slavery.

@justathought

Good verbiage indeed. But there is evidence of anchor babies. In fact there is a travel industry off shoot just to support it. Agreed that it is not the same as the southern border problem, but one cannot say there is "no evidence." Clearly more than one entrepreneur has figured out how to monetize the transaction.

Since your other words are well reasoned and factually correct, what say you about resolving the "illegal imigration problem?" Or are you saying there is no illegal immigration problem?

Guest workers? National ID? I would really like to know what you think the solution may be assuming you agree it's a problem in the first place.

DRK...In the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that a Chinese man born in the US was indeed a US citizen, even though at the time the Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited Chinese people from becoming US citizens, and the man's parents were not citizens. The court ruled that the principle of jus soli (birth in the US) and the Fourteenth Amendment could not be nullified by just an act of Congress.

What you fail to mention here is that under the Chinese exclusion Act, all Chinese currently in America were allowed to stay, thus making his parents, legal, non-citizens residing withing the United States.

In a 6–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had indeed acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."^[14]

The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law,^[15] which had included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.^[16][17] The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically incorporated these exceptions (plus a fourth — namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction^[18][19])—and that since none of these exceptions applied to Wong's situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). The opinion emphasized the fact that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China".^[20]

Since Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth, the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, the majority held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions."^[3][21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

He was granted citizenship because, while his parents were not citizens, they were legal domiciled residents within the United States at the time he was born. The fact that the SCOTUS emphasized that his parents were DOMICILED residents shows that had they entered the country to have him only to get citizenship for him, he would not have been granted citizenship.

Please tell me how someone jumping the boarder to give birth in the U.S. is a domiciled resident whos child deserves U.S. Citizenship?

Eric - "51% oppose changing the 14th amendment with 49% in support."

Do you actually believe this means that the 51% support illegal immigrants? or that the 49% don't?

Changing the wording doesn't matter to most as long the misappropriation and misinterpretation of it stops, and it ceases being allowed as an excuse for allowing the offspring of foreign criminals to bestow privileges paid for by citizens tax dollars.

People who care about their country and it's future overwhelmingly support Arizona, those like you who are selfish and need to make themselves feel special don't.

STLMIke - He was granted citizenship because, while his parents were not citizens, they were legal domiciled residents within the United States at the time he was born.

Completely wrong. He was a found to be a citizen because his parents weren't diplomats. Whether his parents were here legally was irrelevant.

Earle St Petersburg FL Comment collapsed by the community

stspecialk - Your losing on MSNBC a major Lib website aka Obamas mouth piece..... Better get your buddies to register, login and vote you up or your gonna be embarrassed.. I take that back you already are embarrassed. ~(:>)

Not for nuthin' Earl, but you're barely literate and the bold doesn't do anything to make you more cerdible.

Actually if you read into the 14th Amedment and the Citizenship clause concerning Wong Kim Ark, you will realize that Wong Kim Ark was not an illegal alien that had to sneak into the US. Wong Kim Ark and his parents entered the US legally through a port of entry when they would enter and leave the country. His parents had domicile in the US and were engaged in busness. They had established legal residence, and were engaged in a legal business.

This is in opposition of those who sneak into the country illegally without entering through customs. It is also in opposition to those who obtain employment illegally without paying taxes or making contribution to social security or FICA. It is in opposition to those who are ingaged in illegal business such as drug trade, sex trade, or theft.

I have no beef with anyone who enters this country legally, obtains a home, and works for fair living wages. I have no beef with migrant workers who work and pay their share of taxes, etc and work for a fair living wage.

The facts are that these workers are being paid much less than minumum wage and are being exploited by their employers as well as the "coyotes" that bring them here, hide them, and house them. They are forced to work for substandard wages, they are forced into the drug and sex trades, and some are made to steal to support themselves and pay for their passage to the US. Their silence is coerced through intimidation and threats to their lives and the lives of their families.

Reform to our immigration laws will benefit the immigrant as much as it will the American citizen.

QuirkyJerky - His parents had domicile in the US and were engaged in busness. They had established legal residence, and were engaged in a legal business.

Too bad that's not the basis for the ruling, eh? The court simply ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen because he was born on US soil and his parents were not diplomats, which was a straightforward reading of the 14th Amendment.

The business activities of his parents was raised at trial to counter the accusation that they were agents of the Chinese emperor, but are otherwise irrelevant to the issue.

legally, as in they showed up uninvited, were treated with respect, were given opportunities to move (possibly even paid for by the govt) to areas with homes and work.

All citizenship tests are still given only in English.

dingdong

so your parents came over here and took jobs away from Americans?

btw - once they figure out a way to get all the Mexicans out....then they'll start working on not letting in anymore Ukranians or Germans!

Last I checked, I didn't see Europeans or Africans walking across the ocean to immigrate on their own schedules and premises.

It comes as no surprise to me that such stupidity can be conjured up in some peoples minds. If we go back in history you will learn that the European immigrants were not welcomed by the larger society. Years later back lash against Asians, oh, lets don't leave out African Americans. There is a large element of bigotry in this country that will not pass away in our life time. But the most frightening thing is the world is changing around us, and our blind hatered under the guise of violation of social net work programs, will eventually come back to haunt us all. I knew that our intelligence levels had dropped, but I am truly amazed at how low we have sank as a people.

The problem is the path to citizenship is extremely biased (racist) based on where your from. I hear the argument to "do it the legal way" all the time. Yet there isn't a "legal" way for many already herewho have proven themselves through hard work over many years living here. Some cases require that an individual actually work illegally to obtain legal residency. Other cases there is simply no way legality can be established. Even cases where an individual marries a U.S. citizen do not guarantee residency. The system is broke, laws need to be changed and we need to really ask ourselves if we are ready to kick out all the people who pick our food, clean our bathrooms and watch our children.

Agree with your position

Problems with illegal immigration from Mexico:

1.They didn't earn it or help build it, but they expect a right to benefit from it.
2.Driving down wages and taking jobs (that Americans won't pick fruit is baloney!)
3.Using up valuable and costly resources without paying into the system
4.Provides an easy out to avoid cleaning up their own country.
5.Creates human catastrophes with gangs and corrupt officials preying on the migrants.
6.Lack of adherence to US law allows a mindset to commit crimes.
7.Demanding the rights of citizens without being citizens.

And of course, I restate how local to where I live, an illegal immigrant impregnated two women, and was abusive to the second one, who was pregnant with his second child. She got a restraining order, and he was subsequently arrested and deported to Mexico. Within one week, he recrossed the border, returned to Washington state, and killed the woman.

I cannot count the number of times I pick up the paper and read about some gang shootout that left three people dead and they can only find two of the perps because the other three fled to Mexico. One guy is in the midst of legal wrangling, again, using up public funds fighting tooth and nail to keep from being tried for 5 murders that happened back in the 80's. Lawyers are wrangling and maneuvering, looking for every loophole, and the guy is a freakin' illegal!!! They only got him because he got stopped in California and there was a warrant for his arrest. He and two of his cronies (allegedly) gunned down five men in an auto shop over an unpaid debt. We have the long state of California and the state of Oregon between us and Mexico, and we still are dealing with illegals committing crimes up to and including murder. Maybe we should take some lessons from Arizona.

And what do illegal immigrants look like? Police officers, aid workers, and other public servants that are around illegals all the time can tell you and I can too.

Are you a professional moron, or do you just dabble in idiocy as a hobby?

Yes your parents did it the right way but they didn't exactly have the option to cross the border did they? What do you think the chances of them doing it the exact same way if they were just across the way and not across a large body of water?

You people point your fingers so easily and none of you have experienced TRUE poverty. Even people living off welfare have it better here than the people in Mexico do. Until you walk in their shoes you really have no idea. I don't care how righteous you think you are. Funny how some Americans ILLEGALLY get health-care/services in Canada and nobody looks down on them. Look it up. There are even people foolish enough to seek dental and cosmetic surgery in Mexico (although legal). Point is if you're in a hard place you do what you have to.

These are good hard-working people. They did come here illegally but they help more than they hinder. How you ask? When most Americans are tightening their belts they are out spending money as they always have and putting it back into the economy. Just look at how many products are in Spanish now. Must be a reason for that huh? For those of you saying they are "milking" the State/Government what I can say to that is they wouldn't if they had another choice. They can't get health care, insurance etc like any of us can. On that same note if most Americans can't afford health care how the heck can they off of $8 an hour?

The one thing I've learned in life is never to say NEVER because you NEVER know until it happens to you. This is a fact and not an opinion.

For the record I am an American, born and raised. The difference is my life has changed for the better due to Mexican immigration. I'm now fluent in Spanish and wouldn't have been otherwise. I've experienced a culture I never would have known. My life has only been enriched and I have the experience to back up my claims. How many of you actually know them personally? You don't. That explains the ignorant comments about crimes and murder. 10+ years working, living and speaking with Mexican people and I haven't met one bad seed that would even be capable of murder or a serious crime.

You people really have no clue. The ignorance will diminish when America truly becomes a melting pot and there is no dominate race. Look inside not out.

Oh I am sure-this law is meant solely towards 2nd generation Mexican Americans in the states of Texas-Arizona-California-New Mexico-Colorado. It is a racist law made by racist people who actually believe that you can travel thousands of miles across an ocean and inhabit a land that was home to the MestizoAmeridians and bring European ways here and shout for others to leave?

Europeans decimated their own countries agriculture-fishing-farming and wildlife--were starving and dying of famine before meeting the land of plenty called America where natives had lived from time immortal. They came and destroyed the agriculture here as well in under 150 years places like Oklahoma experienced the dust bowl and teh East Coast was tripped of its ecosystem. Europeans are parasites -everywhere they go they invade like the plague and then claim the original landowners are the visitors.

If anyone should leave it is the Irish who left Europe due to teh potatoe famine and the Europeans who fled religious intolerance only to bring it here-as well as the Pollacks hunted by the Germans and the jews hunted by everyone......what a race of parasites.

Imagine landing on a land with fish a plenty-seas of forests-swaths of farmland-rivers of natural gas-oil-coal-salt-gold and not becoming teh mightest superpower.

European Americans stole their riches-and now claim title to a land tehyve inhabitated for under 250 years, Aztecs Incas Navajo Apache Lakota all lived on these lands for tens of thousands of years .....Who is the illegal?

You forgot two things.

I bet your parents

1) Paid Taxes

and

2) Didn't leach off of the system.

Now I'm glad I don't live in Arizona. All four of my grandparents came to this county before WWI, however, they did not become naturilized citizens until the early 1940's. That makes both my parents, plus all my aunts and uncles "illegal" under Arizona's proposed law. Irrespective of the fact that all my uncles and my father enlisted during WWII. Since my parents were not born of citizens, I and my siblings, would be excluded from automatic citizenship under Arizona's proposed law. Since I would be "illegal" so would my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Do we really want to go down that slippery slope. How many of us will have to figure out what country we are "citizens" of?

Act like human beings!!! I agree, how about taking care of you're fellow patriot citizens of the U.S. Instead the pro illegal immigrant people who are American citizens want to throw their citizen brothers and sisters under the bus and give all our high paying blue colar jobs to illegal mexicans who's devotion is solely to Mexico and Mexican patriots. I am a mason and concrete worker and Mexicans will lie lie lie lie to you're usually white supervisors saying, you don't work well and you dont know what you are doing. Then the mexicans will slow way down their productivity on the job and will tell the supervisor or foreman that it's because of the gringo or black guy is not being fired! So the supervisor or foreman will fire the one white guy out of a crew of 20 mexicans and 1 gringo so he does not get fired by his superior for slow productivity. This s#$% is inhumane-not human. Thank you LA RAZA!

Toasty McGrath That still sounds like a dangerous precedent to set.

Its only dangerous to Illegals and their anchor babies. Its not dangerous to US Citizens.

They are here Illegally, that is the single fact that our government conveniently ignores for policical gain.

The constitution is not being followed by allowing them to stay in US and suck US Tax payers dry. We have our own poor people to take care of. Is that so hard to understand?

To RIVERDOG:

You would be correct: They paid taxes, never "leached" from the government, worked their a$$es off (both came from extreme poverty), and raised my brother and myself as solidly middle-class. I had no clue until I was a teenager that they were anything other than American. They had no accents (both worked hard to "sound" American), English was spoken at home, and I got a butt-kicking from my dad when, as an idiotic, rebellious teen in the late '70s, I refused to stand for the National Anthem (to this day I have no idea why I refused to stand up. That was a mistake I never repeated!) He worked in management at Philco Ford. He died at age 59, so all the taxes he paid into the system never got used by him. He never got the chance to retire and enjoy this great country he requested of our government to allow him to call "home".

Even people living off welfare have it better here than the people in Mexico do. Until you walk in their shoes you really have no idea. I don't care how righteous you think you are. Funny how some Americans ILLEGALLY get health-care/services in Canada and nobody looks down on them. Look it up. There are even people foolish enough to seek dental and cosmetic surgery in Mexico (although legal). Point is if you're in a hard place you do what you have to.

These are good hard-working people. They did come here illegally but they help more than they hinder. How you ask? When most Americans are tightening their belts they are out spending money as they always have and putting it back into the economy. Just look at how many products are in Spanish now. Must be a reason for that huh? For those of you saying they are "milking" the State/Government what I can say to that is they wouldn't if they had another choice. They can't get health care, insurance etc like any of us can. On that same note if most Americans can't afford health care how the heck can they off of $8 an hour?

Do you live in Never Never Land? Do you still believe in the Easter Bunny?

Where do you live? It is definitely NOT Los Angeles.

so? are you that conceded to think it wont go on without YOU? Good.

it will go on, just without my, and many others, $$$

"many others"???

sure thing, sts....(wink, wink)

"c'mon, are you all with me???"

chirp, chirp....

done done = troll!!!

stspecialk = troll!!!

c'mon, sts...ARGUE the points, sparky!

it's time for the "anchor baby" issue to be resolved...

BY THE SUPREME COURT, sparky...not by YOU....

arizona is simply "kickstarting" the debate since the obama admin WON'T...

HEs no more a troll then you are..

If you think your money will be in any way missed, you are sadly mistaken. Because for everyone who doesnt go there because of political reasons there are thoes of us who will go because we enjoy the game.

why didn't the Bush admin. start it?

Let's take a look at one simple issue, only one: the issue of farm labor. Now some of it's legal, but most of it isn't. Think to yourselves what would happen if all those farm workers went back to Mexico. What would happen is to fill the void of labor the price for farm workers would go up. It would go up so high that we would end up purchasing our food from Mexico anyway. Since sales would go up in Mexico it would require a heavier labor force, which would force legal farm workers back accross the border. Ok, "do it the legal way" many of you say... well there isn't a "legal way" for many people already in this country. The system is broke, the laws need to be changed. And the answer isn't deporting 12 million people.

AZ has been a notorious speed trap for like 30 years at least.

We avoid it too, not just because of the current problems, but because, frankly, it's little more than a bar-b-q grill with a few cacti setting about. And we wish they'd stay home in the summer, tired of them all coming to SoCal.

Dem in Texas....I reckon if the farm labor went away they would be forced to pay real wages to citizens who are here to do the jobs, which would probably drive up the cost of food.

But thats what you Democrats are all about arent you? Paying someone real wages to do the work, not slave labor, correct? Or are you actually an advocate of this slave labor and harsh conditions for cheaper goods? Sounds to me like waffling on your core issues there.

Cassandra...been here in Phoenix for 17 years and we all speed worse than you Californians. I dont know what you are talking about?

And yes I am a "zonie". I take my family to San Diego 5-6 times a year and drop over $1000 in 4 days every time into your economy. Is that a bad thing?

Sean, I have cousins who live in AZ. One cousin married a Mexican descendant (she is an American citizen). Their kids look a lot like her - i.e., Mexican. They too have been stopped repeatedly for minor "offensives" and only after offering their driver's license and other 'papers' they are let go. In other words, once they've proven they're American - the cops are no longer interested in them.

Yeah - nice.

Disgusted...isnt that the way it works? That should be a good thing. As a white guy, I was stopped for minor crap like broken headlights or cracked windshield. I, too, had to show my ID. Whats your point?

once they've proven they're American - the cops are no longer interested in them.

Excellent. Thats the whole idea!

So AZChzhd, you supported the same tactics when the Nazis applied them to the Jews? Any one that looked LIKE a Jew was harrased and forced to show ID by cops. Just like any one that looks Hispanic gets stopped in Arizona for no real reason (you just looked right over the minor "offenses part didn't you?) It's just like they used to do down here in the South. Any black person that looked to sharp dressed or had money or a car was subject to being stopped for any and no reason to prove they didn't steal something.

exltcusa...did you bother to read my post? I specifically stated I got stopped for those same "minor offenses". When stopped I showed my ID and registration and he did a background check or whatever they do in their car and I was on my way. Or do you selectively read people's posts?

Do you think we should have open borders or something?? Let anyone in? Come and go as they please? Drain on our resources be damned?

Out of all of the places I have lived (29 moves, 6 states), AZ is my favorite. We are the state that has the ability to acknowledge when something is wrong, and has the backbone to do something about it.

For all of you who support giving amnesty to those in this country illegally, I propose this. Why dont you set up a program, a lot like the foreign exhange program and sponsor an illegal and or its family? You will solely be responsible for all of their food, housing, education, medical, etc. and eliminate the burden that the taxpayers must carry for all of the stuff that you are now going to be responsible for.

What were the first 5?

California, Oregon, New Jersey, Nevada and Indiana.

It is only unconstitutional if the Supreme Court says it is. Obama care is unconstitutional, but since the Supreme Court hasnt ruled on it yet, it remains law

It is only unconstitutional if the Supreme Court says it is.

States DO NOT have the right to override the US Constitution.

and newsvine bloggers simply AREN'T QUALIFIED to make these judgements..

stay tuned, folks!

Well, Jackie D, they just might have to do it anyway when the federal government refuses to enforce it's own existing laws, and that negligence threatens the well-being of the states' citizens.

I have a problem with what donedone is saying. He/she is perpetuating the myth we are all too stupid to read and interpret the constitution and that we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it and let the adults sort it out. I may not agree with everyone on this thread about the issue, but I certainly believe in the American people enough to trust they can read and critically think about the constitution.

You see, donedone knows he isn't qualified so he assumes that no one else is qualified either.

JimiMadison

It is only unconstitutional if the Supreme Court says it is. Obama care is unconstitutional, but since the Supreme Court hasnt ruled on it yet, it remains law

Thats not 100 percent true.. The Federal Judge deemed it unconstitutional. Since the Mandate. And stated in his long ruling, that it cannot contiune to be implemented. Since it was a Federal Judge, as of that ruling, ObamaCare is Unconsitutional and no longer law. The only thing that can be done now is appeal the ruling to a higher court, which im not sure if that has been done or not.

Actually JimiM, if you read the judge's decision, Obama care is no longer the law of the land. The judge dismissed the law, and dismissed the states request for an injunction to stop the law stating that it was unnecessary due to his ruling that it was unconstitutional. More people should be celebrating this but most media wont report it.

For those who do not know Arizona is populated by nearly 50 to 60 Native Americans and Mexican Americans. I don't know how the Governor was elected but you can be sure, the next time around, it will be a different story.

Chicago... "but I certainly believe in the American people enough to trust they can read and critically think about the constitution."...

No, really they cannot, not critically. Maybe some of us with a broader education, and a tendency to avoid bias, but mostly, no.

That so-called federal judge was a Republican appointed judge. Why am I not surprised?

It was politically motivated. Period.

The Federal government wont do anything on immigration so they leave it up to the states.

BS. The Federal government won't do WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO.

Disgusted -

It's no different than liberal judges (Clinton appointees) dismissing the suits in two other places. Perhaps they should have bothered to actually hear the case rather than dismiss out of hand because they 'believe' in the democrat cause.

Then perhaps you'd have some factual data rather than talking points.

not according to EVERY major poll.

You know, your comment may have a little more weight if you learned how to spell.

The beauty of this country is that the Constitution is not subject to the whims of the people at any given time. The same guarantees will be in place when Hispanics become the majority in this country. The Constitution is design to protect everyone.

If the people of this country could actually vote on this issue,I could just about guaranty

it would be against the illegals,and thats why we won't be able to vote on it!

Rights are NOT controlled by popular vote.

sts:

You keep referring to some nebulous "EVERY" major poll. How about I name a couple that were released this very date, namely the Washington Times and Rsamussen. Both validate previous polls finding s that a huge majority of citizens want the borders secured and the existing laws enforced.

stspecialk

not according to EVERY major poll.

You keep saying this, but in your typical fashion haven't provide any proof backing up that statement.

correct, they want the borders closed and the existing laws enforced. . . they do not support a change in the 14th amendment.

No, Roger, the people of this country will not vote on the issue because the Constitution is not amended by popular vote.

Actual Rasmussen poll results:

What polls, sts?

Or are you just listening to the little voices in your head?

Sadly your inability to spell would keep your inbred butt from the polls.

They have one going right now. I think the drug dealers are winning, with guns they get buy in Arizona.

And why not? We were more than happy to use them when they were immigrant farmers. Yipper - we paid them dirt wages and kept them in sub-standard housing.Then, those uppity Mexicans had the nerve to learn lawn care, masonry and drywall so that we ALL appreciated how they kept the cost of new housing down.

Then, we made a lot of them rich because they were willing to work harder than most Americans (and even showed up when they were supposed to!).

And this is what you want to get rid of?

Use your head. Make them all citizens so we can tax them, integrate their incomes into Social Security and Medicare, and learn from an unparalled work ethic.

Many get and buy weapons here in Arizona, as seen on undercover video, But, not all the weapons start off in Arizona...Sometimes, lots of times, they come from other states to be sold here. ....I am not saying it's not a problem here in Arizona, just that it's weapons coming from all over the country. ...Just sayin..in response to comment above.

Dimjob- once you integrate all of the ILLEGAL criminals you can no longer pay them "dirt cheap wages" and will have to pay them FAIR wages AND benefits, which will drive UP the cost of EVERYTHING ... housing, food, services, etc.

Stick your head in the sand and go back to sleep.

"I got mine, screw you"

You know that there is no such thing as an "Anchor Baby", right?

Wow, way to sound like an einstein with that rehashed sentiment.

What is an "anchor baby"? Is it a baby that, by reason of it being a U.S. citizen, can keep its parent(s) in the U.S.? If that is what is believed, then the belief is wrong. Under current U.S. immigration law the fact that a baby is a U.S. citizen has no bearing on whether its illegal parent(s) can be deported, at least for many years. A person cannot sponsor a family member until he or she is 21 years old. (An example of the myth of anchor babies is seen in the raids on the meat packing plant in the midwest a short time ago. These raids rounded up several hundred illegals, including many couples who had children born in the U.S. Those couples were deported and the state had to find homes for the babies in social services. So much for being "anchors".)

I wonder if people on here realize that illegal immigrants having so called "anchor babies" is the slowest way to citizenship in this country, and that all this is is political grandstanding

Why would the illegals with their anchor babies care about citizenship? Simple answer....they don't.

All they have to do is drop a kid or two and the US government will PAY them to take care of their brat, PAY them to feed their brat, make sure they have medical care, make sure they have enough to eat and the one who dropped the kid will never have to work a day in their life.

By the time that kid is 5, they would have nothing to do but lounge around all day in the apartment that MY tax money pays for, eating the food that MY tax money bought, but guess what...they could always just pump out another paycheck! So that's what they do.

They have no interest in contributing, they just keep pumping out paychecks every 9 months that almost always grow up to be drug dealers and criminals...but that's not the PARENTS fault...oh no...that's SOCIETY'S fault...the fault of everyone who let the lazy baby-maker get away with everything she did.

And yes, TECHNICALLY the mother could be deported...but all you bleeding-heart morons fight every deportation and would rather keep that waste of space here to "raise" her spawn instead of deporting her and either sending the screaming brats with her, or having them be raised by someone who'll turn them into useful members of society instead of another street punk with a gun.

As for the raids at the meat-packing plant...you're probably referring to Swift trucking.

Guess what, yes, some of the men were deported, but the women WERE NOT. It was all over the news that these poor, poor ILLEGAL women were left in the country all alone to take care of their anchor baby because their illegal boyfriends were SENT HOME WHERE SHE DESERVED TO BE SENT, TOO!

Because they are not how you are portraying them to be? Your perceptions do not match with reality, and you are trying to provide justification for a law that is currently unconstitutional, and is nothing more the republican prostrating. And no Marty is not referring to the Swift Trucking raids, more like the Postville, IA meat packing plant raid.(It helps to live near the area being referred to, I remember watching the news reel on the 10 o'clock news after that one happened). The pretty much rounded up anyone who was perceived to be a potential illegal immigrant, and held them in custody. The only delays were those with citizen children, wanting to ensure their safety during the deportation process, and to ensure a minimal impact on the youth shelters in the state. Those who were without children, were deported as soon as legally possible, and after provided proper verification of idententity to ensure that legal employees were not wrongfully sent out of the country.

Eric

I wonder if people on here realize that illegal immigrants having so called "anchor babies" is the slowest way to citizenship in this country, and that all this is is political grandstanding

Citizenship is not the goals of most of them. Having that anchor baby enables the gravy train. Alot of them dont care about citizenship. They here are for the money...the food stamps, subsidized housing, welfare, medical...our taxpayer money! The anchor baby is just the ticket. They arent stupid.

What we cannot afford is to continue to support conservative America's wet dream of world domination. If we cut our military budget in half, our fiscal problems would evaporate in 5 years. You believe illegal aliens are costing you money? You would be sick if you knew how much a CIA contractor gets paid to torture someone to death. And then you wonder why people in foreign countries hate us? It is not because some of you wackos believe in baby jesus, it is because we point guns at them.

This would be a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is pretty clear that "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." The "subject to the jurisdiciton thereof" clause obviously refers to diplomats. Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of State and federal laws. If we try to say that their children are not citizens if they are born here because of that clause then we have to say that they are not able to be prosecuted for any crimes that they commit while the are here. So if you don't want to give illegal aliens a pass on crimes, like we to diplomats, then their children born here are citizens.

Also, Eric, illegal aliens are not eligible to receive welfare, food stamps, or any other type of government assistance. I realize that you probably heard Glenn Beck say they were bankrupting America by coming here and taxing the social welfare system, but the vast majority come here to work. They do the menial jobs that so many Americans consider to be beneath them. In the grand scheme of things illegal aliens don't cost the government that much money in comparision to other things. If you are worried about cutting government spending stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; slash military spending, which makes up the largest percentage of our national budget. Illegal aliens aren't costing the United States more money than it can afford. Idiotic wars started by idiotic former Presidents are.

Never thougt I'd see a wing nut calling the Constitution a scam.

Vince....you're absolutely WRONG.

According to the US Government Accountability Office (http://www.gao.gov/products/HEHS-98-30), in 1995 households headed by illegal immigrants were awarded about $1.1 BILLION in AFDC and Food Stamps benefits.

For two consecutive years Los Angeles County has doled out more than $550 million just to cover the welfare and food-stamp costs for illegal aliens, many of whom collect the U.S. taxpayer benefits on behalf of their anchor babies. In 2010 the tab exceeded $600 million compared to an already exorbitant $570 million in 2009.

http://antonovich.co.la.ca.us/Pages/Press%20Releases/11/January/Illegal%20Immigration%20011911.html

Nationwide, the increasing cost of supporting illegal immigrants has taken a huge toll though border states naturally have suffered the brunt of it. Americans annually spend about $113 billion to educate, incarcerate, medically treat and otherwise support illegal aliens around the country. The bulk of the cost—about $84.2 billion—is absorbed by state and local governments, according to figures released over the summer by a group that studies the impact of illegal immigration.

Educating the children of illegal immigrants constitutes the single largest cost to American taxpayers, about $52 billion a year, according to a lengthy report published by the group. Nearly all of the costs are absorbed by state and local governments as the feds fail miserably to seal the increasingly porous southern border.

http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf?docID=4921

that is the rule.

Oh, that pesky Fourteenth Amendment....

The Conservative reading of the Constitution and the Constitution itself are two completely different things. When they talk about protecting the constitution, they mean protecting the "Conservative version" of the constitution.

Things like Hebeas Corpus & civil rights do not concern them.

You DO understand that AZ isnt attempting to rewrite the constitution... right? I mean, there is no way you are ignorant enough to think that writing and trying to pass a state bill constitutes changing the US constitution...right?

The point is to draw attention to unclear verbage and have a higher court consider the original intent of the law. Your portrayal of that as "rewriting the constitution" is so ridiculously far fetched as to be in the best case shockingly uninformed or in the worst case abhorrently malicious.

Ventsy, you do your unsupported so called "points" no favors by throwing out legal jargon you obviously do not understand; you only highlight your ignorance. The principal (you probably heard mentioned on Law & Order) is "habeas corpus."

The Supreme Court has several times considered the various aspects of the Fourteenth Amendment, see my post at 3.17. So there is no need to make them look at it again.

And what is very clear is that no state can abrogate the US Constitution, which is what this law is trying to do. It is a total waste of time. If people really want to change the Fourteenth amendment, then go through the amendment process.

DRK -

They haven't ever addressed this issue.

DRK: You, I, and a handful of other posters on here know that, but your stating FACTS, which you should know have no place on an on-line political discussion. It's all about half-truths, questionable references, opinions, invective, and make believe.

Please expound on the qualifier "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

The courts have already ruled that if foreign diplomatic staff staying in the US have a child, that child is not a US citizen, as the parents owe allegiance to their home country.

Unless and until a person enters the country legally with full intention of and qualification for applying for citizenship, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

ALL people in the United States and it's territories, except those attached to diplomatic missions, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Jurisdiction refers to the geographical area of the United States' authority. They are subject to our laws, and liable when breaking them.

TnDan.... LAWS and CITIZENSHIP are NOT one in the same. So you're saying that because I go to a foreign country and am subject to their laws while I am there, that my children should be entitled to have automatic citizenship if I am (1) not a citizen, (2) am not there as a permanent resident alien, (3) AM there as someone who entered the country ILLEGALLY ?

Do you people see how ASININE you all sound and how FLAWED your reasoning is ? I have read the ORIGINAL draft of the 14th Amendment. It CLEARLY states in no uncertain terms that the offspring of NON-CITIZENS and DIPLOMATS are NOT eligible for birthright citizenship.

Dream Act= Anchor baby? Isn't an anchor baby a U.S. citizen? Why would they need the dream act?

Anchor Vet

Because all foreign born kids of illegals between the ages of 12 to 17 would have become anchor babies for their illegal parents. Or did you think they were going to send the parents of those "needy students" back to their home countries and place the kids in foster homes or leave them without any adult supervision.

drunk, stoned, trolling, or just stupid.? i mean really, what an asinine statement.

scooter ... jim is the most obvious of trolls. please forgive him. when evolution started his family was in the control group!

bye bye, I am sure wherever you currently live won't miss you.

What makes you think Arizona wants you?

what makes you think they don't, b dune???

and you are "sure" of that, sts, exactly...how? because he doesn't agree with YOUR "cause"? or is it a result of "EVERY major poll"?

are you just "relying" on your vast and unquestionable "knowledge" of all things america?

liberal arrogance is simply astounding in it's ABSENCE of justification!!!

donedone, I would put my knowledge, education, and basic IQ against yours any day!!!

and you would lose, sparky...

doneittooften

"result of every major poll"...

did they do polls on "Keep Fighting Arizona" moving to Arizona?

and don't give me to much credit.....I or no one on the left could ever match your arrogance, lack of intelligence, and absence of anything that is relevant!....hard as you may try ...there is no justification for you!

btw - learn how to read before lecturing others....did I say Arizona didn't want him?

guess you just can't get away from your conservative/bagger mentality of making a statement into what you want it to be so it can fit the response you want....it works well when you are hagnging out with repubs/baggers or 5th graders.... a little more difficult when you are talking to those who don't buy into your bully pulpit!

So some earlier asked "why now"? Why not during Bushs years or Clinton's years...why?...because it is a seriously difficult issue to solve without embarrassing ourselves since WE, Americans have let this "slide" due to (in some cases im sure), big business and its need for cheap labor... Or maybe its because the PIE is getting smaller, cornered into the top 2% of this country and the Middle Class working folks are realizing they arent so middle class anymore so how to recoup what has been taken...find someone "smaller" than you to take from too, not to make light of the issue, its real, but why now is more the question I'm interested in aswering.

But we want our cheap food and labor. After all we can't really be expected to mow our own lawns . . .

I would love to see that law passed!

As a Florida resident, I appreciate Arizona taking the spotlight off our crazy state. This is more political grandstanding at taxpayer expense. This sentence from the 14th Amendment is the clearest and least open to interpretation of any part of the document, for goodness' sake:

"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."

Agree or disagree with it, anyone who believes in strict adherence to the Constitution agrees this is beyond debate.

Exactly! If they really want to get rid of Illegals that's all they need to do. Anybody who owns the company should be thrown in jail for hiring illegals. 1 yr in federal prison per Illegal and 10,000 smackers per Illegal. We know that will never happen.

Well, passing laws doesn't cost anything (it costs the taxpayer but who cares), it's politically popular, gives you free airtime and most importantly, it doesn't take away cheap labor from Big Business.

Why don't you just admit it, sts, you want illegals to be around because you want cheap labor, like the rest of the democrats.

Besides, you evidently have an inferiority complex and need to feel that you're better than others.

You must be proud to know that you're at least better than an illegal alien, because you certainly aren't any better than anyone else. Not any worse, but no better either.

Tammy

"you want cheap labor like the rest of the dems"....

guess you don't understand how you conservatives/baggers do it.......you are the ones doing the hiring of the illegals...

don't you remember the conservative/bagger mantra?.....no dems work, thus no dems can hire....

why not use your post as a "self therapy" tool.....all you did was address yourself and those who hold your principles near and dear to them!

i'm in the grassroots of that one!

Not to mention making our students test scores against other countries appear to be much lower since many can barely read or write in English. I know there's many who can but there's many more who can't. Lots of schools are now predominately Spanish and are taught in Spanish instead of English which is just wrong, it's bringing our country down to third world status...

Magn1, no public school in the US is taught predominently in Spanish. And as an ex-teacher I can tell you that it is just as many native US citizens that can't read and write as immigrants.