AZ Republicans, think of the childrens!!Follow

I don't agree. I think that it's not about changing the law themselves, but as Xsarus correctly states, is about applying pressure and getting the issue out in front of the people. The goal isn't about eliminating automatic citizenship, but ultimately about changing the 14th amendment such that you only get citizenship if at least one of your parents is a citizen. It was always been a silly rule that anyone born in the US becomes a US citizen, the reason it was written is long past us, and it's well past time that we changed that amendment and removed a massive loophole in our immigration law.

I don't know what specific language will be in the proposed law, so I don't know to what degree they're going to deliberately violate the constitution, or just skirt it a bit. But I do think the main point is to bring up the issue. The current law actually creates a harmful condition for children which ultimately forces our government to take actions which effectively reward illegal behavior (either grant the parents living here illegally citizenship, or separate them from their child). If we can change the amendment, we remove that problem. The child isn't a citizen, and thus can be deported with the parents.


Why assume a silly goal when the obvious goal is much more sensible? I suspect that changing that amendment would not be all that hard. It's just a matter of bringing the matter up in a way that gets people motivated. I also suspect that a good percentage of people in the US already assume that your parents have to be citizens for you to be a citizen and would think that it's strange that the law doesn't already work that way. Of course, the pro-illegal groups would oppose such a thing, but what's the argument? That citizens of another country have a right to become US citizens without following our laws? I doubt that will fly so well.

Omega,

Democrats rewrite and re-interpret the constitution all the time. They're the ones always telling us that it's a living breathing document.

Elinda,





And yet the liberals are the ones supporting a loophole in the system that allows this to happen.


Here's a thought tell our president and congress to PROTECT OUR F*CKING BORDERS! You know he did swear an oath to do just that. How's that?

The parents get deported. The children, who are U. S. citizens, are allowed to stay with relatives if those relatives are here legally and, of course, if they're willing to take the kids.

What's my point? What's your point, Pointy? The Constitution is on my side, and I am pointing out that it's pointless to amend the Constitution to prevent the use of "anchor babies" when there is already a legal remedy.

Point.

Samy,

Glad to hear you're in favor of the new AZ law to deport illegals.

Won't happen. Certainly won't happen because of this. Waste of time and taxpayer money to even bother with it in this fashion. If you're cool with throwing taxpayer money away though, this bill is an excellent one to support.


There's cheaper and less asinine ways to "bring up the issue" than to bring us a stupid bill that further makes Arizona look like a bunch of racist jacktards and will result in wasting money trying to defend it against an inevitable loss (and maybe the governor can throw another quarter-million at trying to spin the PR on this one as well).

Doesn't Arizona come equipped with two senators and eight House reps? Because these are the people you want to talk to about changing the Constitution if you're so inclined.

And what if they don't have legal relatives willing to take the child. What do we do then?




It's a bad legal remedy, which splits children from their parents. What part of that do think is just peachy?

Er? No. The "if" statement only says what happens if said condition is met. It says nothing about what to do if said condition is not met. We do have terms like "else" and "elif" for a reason you know...

I'm honestly curious. I haven't researched it personally, but I want to know what the liberals think happens in that case and if they're ok with it.

EDIT: And to be more fair, I shouldn't say "liberals", but "those who think there's no problem with the issue of children of illegal immigrants who are born in the US, and no need to make any changes to the law". Since that's what we're talking about here, right?

Edited, Jun 14th 2010 5:35pm by gbaji

A single stance? No, of course not. I'm sure some people do but I tend to have opinions on all sorts of things.

How unique, an incoherent new poster.

Is there an "everything" any of those groups stand for?

Anyway, my understanding is that the kids can go back to Erehwon with their parents, with the option to assert their U.S. citizenship when they reach majority; or if it works out that the kids can stay here with legal guardians, the parents may opt to have them do that. Case by case basis, I'm sure.