Arizona bill would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants
 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/ari...ildren/?hpt=C1

Proof?

Anchors away for anchor babies

course, plenty of southeast asians have them as well...

I can't agree with this law. But if someone comes across the U.S. illegally and downloads a kid then the kid can either become the state's kid and the mother/father go home or they can take their kid back to Mexico/Canada/Mordor/etc if they denounce their child's citizenship.

That would make things interesting.

constitutionality aside, if this passes hospitals will now be responsible for verifying the citizenship of all new parents before birth certificates can be issued.

Sounds like a win to me.

Those of us who live here knew this was coming. Just not this fast.

John Kavanagh is an asshole and a idiot.

So what Kavanagh is saying is that we should ignore Constitutional amendments as they are not what the Framers intended. Since the 14th amendment establishes that the bill of rights applies to citizens of the state (prior to the 14th amendment the states could bitch slap you all they wanted and it was only Federal law that had to respect the bill of rights...not state law) what Kavanagh proposes is that states now have the right to ignore th ebill of rights since the Framers only intended the Federal government to acknowledge them....

Damn...idiots suck

Therefore, Blacks should lose full citizenship and return to the status the framers originally intended as the compromise made with the southern states established that Blacks should not be treated as equals and should get full representation.

The guy is just trying to make the point that illegals are a problem. I dont think they expect it to actually become a law, just to make headlines and get folks like us to talk about it.

I can't stand behind this law because it is way out there. And yes it is exactly what the original framer intended, that all their kids who were born in the US automatically became citizens.

Now, I can also stand behind what smittie said about kids becoming wards of the state

Yea, because kids raised by the Government turn out fine right?

This. I don't think it's necessary to deny the kid citizenship, but I do think that kid is absolutely NOT an excuse for the parents to stay. The kid is a citizen, so he/she can stay here, but the parents need to GTFO and come in the legal way. If the parents don't want to be separated from the baby, that's cool- they can take it with them.

Of course, I also think it's high time the US starts billing the Mexican government for all the hospital bills racked up by its citizens.

Nope, i expect the US to royally screw up every kid it gets,

Maybe that should be something the parents should consider before putting their child in that situation.:shrug:

I don't think they "consider" much of anything, including birth control.

While Kavanagh is absolutely wrong about the intent of The Framers, where the concept of being born to citizenship is concerned, I think that it would be a reasonable accommodation to state that the parents must actually be in the country legally for the 14th Amendment to apply.

This.

To the framers issue, I'm not sure their intent should be the overriding factor in this anyway. I'll be kind and say their track record was a bit "poor" on citizenship and rights when it came to non-whites and non-males.:lol:

Between government schools, government hand outs, and more we pretty much are already raised by the government. And yes we turn out fucked up dumbasses.

If the parents know that just becuase their kid is born in the US and becomes a citizen it doesn't mean they get to stay, I bet you'll see a lot less women coming across the border the minute they feel labor pains.

Absolutely, and then turn them loose in society with whatever problems they've developed.

Its probably something they considered when they decided to leave behind everything they've ever known and risk life, limb and freedom to make it to a country that, even with menial work, they have a much higher chance to have a decent quality of life in. I mean, Detroit is a shithole but I'd rather live there than Juarez.

I understand where you guys are coming from, but I can't be angry or wish ill against people who are simply trying to make it. I'm not anointing them as saints or even excuse any of the bad behavior that may be displayed when they come here (Hey Spic, our sewers here actually work in all 50 states. Flush your fucking toilet paper before I make you eat it.) But, I can see it from their point of view.

If you want to be America the great and free and all the other bullshit every politician from here to NYC spouts on a daily basis then you have to fight against discriminatory immigration policies. And if you don't want to do that you can still rally against American government policies that put other countries in dire situations, such as the war on drugs which is currently decimating northern Mexico.

You speak as if loving parents in a stable environment count for nothing. Can you give specific examples of women crossing the border when they're about to bust or account for what percentage they make up of total illegal immigrants?

Family enters US on work (or education) visa.
Family works in Utah(for example) for X amount of time. Establishes residency. Wife gets knocked up and they have child.
They decide to relocate to (for better paying job) Las Vegas.
Visa expires as HR at new company is working on sponsorship.
Neither parent has commited a crime under Federal law, Utah or Nevada law.
They have established residency in Utah and are therefore citizens of Utah entitled to all applicable rights and laws. As residents of Utah they are entitled to all rights and protections afforded by the Bill of Rights (" 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. ")

They take a wrong turn and end up in Arizona on there way to Las Vegas
The parents are imprisoned. The child, who has violated nothing and is a United States citizen as defined by the United States constitution and a resident\citizen of Utah is taken from the parents, placed in the Arizona foster care system (or just put into whatever orphanage, holding tank they have down there). The parents, who never commited a crime and were legal residents of another state are deported by Arizona.

Arizona is gangsta....

This is going to be awesome to watch from a safe distance.

I can see it from their point of view as well, but that doesn't mean they should get a free pass either. They get caught breaking our immigration laws they should be sent home. If any of their kids are legal they can either stay and be wards of the state, like any child with American citizenship without family available to take care of them, or they can go with their parents and be welcome back anytime they decide.

Our federal immigration policies aren't really designed to intentionally discriminate against brown or black. They are primarily designed to discriminate against a lack of green. With no money and little chance of significantly contributing to the taxpayer base it is going to be pretty damn difficult to enter the country legally no matter what a person's skin color is.

Mexico had plenty to do with putting themselves in their dire situation. The war on drugs may not be helping but the Mexican government has a lot more to do with their current situation.

Nice try.

Staying on an expired visa is illegal, therefore they have committed a crime. They are no longer legal residents of whichever state they came from.

It may not be intentional, it may not have been their fault but it happened.

If your visa is about to expire, you apply for an extension.

Yeah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_ZnX9JRo5M

Yep. I don't know about Nevada or Utah law but simply staying past your visa is a violation of federal immigration law.

OK fancy boy.

1. List the appropriate item from U.S. criminal code.

You do realise that I'm going to use the civil law card.
The only way I could use the criminal law card is if we were talking about folks busted for crossig the border.

You do know that you can break a law and not be a criminal?


Criminal
The body of law dealing with crimes and their punishment

Civil
The body of laws established by a state or nation for its own regulation

Around here, if I park illegally a cajillion times. I have commited no crime.
I have violated civil code.

If the period of time they are permitted to be within the US at the time they are permitted entry is up, which isn't necessarily the length of time stated for the visa validity, then they are in the US illegally.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/info/info_1298.html

Yes it is illegal \ that is unlawful.
Illegal unlawful whatever you'd like to call it.

Unlawful \ illegal means that a law has been violated.
It simply means that someone said fuck off to a law on the books.

It does NOT mean a crime has been commited.
In order for something to be a crime it must violate penal\criminal law.

To jack off round the country with an expired Visa does not touch balls with Federal criminal law. It violates civil law.
Its not a crime to park in Handicapped parking spot but it is illegal.

I disagree with your semantic discussion. Breaking a law, in this case a FEDERAL law, means that a crime has been committed.

You are right.

Entering = criminal

Staying = civil

I didn't realize you were going to go all law professor on us, Obama.

I'd consider your parking BS a crime too but I didn't realize that you were going to pick my vernacular apart to suit your argument.

Its not semantics
Its law.

Its pretty straightforward.

Criminal law and Civil law.
In one...they have to prove your guilty.
In the other...we sue the shit out of each other.

OJ is aquitted in one.
OJ has to sell give up his cash in the other.

Visa violations violate US civil law but they do not violate any criminal laws.

So they are here legally?

Both are crimes, simply of different degrees and with different penalties. They don't sue you for overstaying your admission; they either toss you out, or jail you and THEN toss you out.

You can blow off parking tickets, but after awhile you will get a knock on the door.

Just like you can blow off your visa exipration date, but if you do, your visa is automatically void, and good luck with what happens after that.

Yup. A friend of mine, a Canadian working in the US, was told that if she didn't leave the country while her access period had lapsed and re-enter when her new visa came through, then good luck ever working there again.

As I understand it for deportation hearing purposes it is also pretty straightforward.

In one... they get proven guilty, go to jail, then get deported.
In the other...they are determined to have violated immigration law, then get deported.

Either way they are gone, or would be if the federal government decided to actually enforce the immigration laws.:shrug:

Which they never will.

Which gives these illegals an "entitlement complex" (particularly the Mexican ones, for whatever reason) where they start pulling the race card and talk about how gringos stole their land and how our culture would be plain & boring without them :rolleyes:

Too true.

When I Googled "How to stay on an expired visa" Wiki answers gives this:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_yo...sa_has_expired

:lol:

snort

Awesome.

Pretty much.

I'll have to dig up that jpeg of the protesters with "This is OUR land" and "Go home, Gringo Invaders!" signs.

No they are here illegally (in my example).

Illegal act does not = Criminal Act

Criminal Act = Act which falls under Criminal law.
We have a
However, the US government has decided that this is not criminal act and is instead a procedural issue.

No Papa, no.
Crime is an act or omission which is prohibited by criminal law. If the US penal system does not expressely state something then it is not a crime.
Maybe thats the way it works in your Faggy snowball of a country called Canada but we things called paper and on that paper are words and those words contain all sort of rules and regulations that define who things operate.
Just cause they seem the same doesn't mean they are the same.




The crime isn't the parking violation. The crime is failure to pay the ticket.
As far as criminal law is concerned....we don't give a fizzuck about where you parked. We only care about you paying the state the money...bizznitch.

In the United States, as clearly stated in the 14th amendment all are gauranteed due process. In you post you say "proven guilty".

Therefore every individual in your example (based on the assumption that being in the country without proper status is a criminal act) would be entitled to a jury trial and legal representation.

Can you please give an example specifically citing a case (since it would be public record...federal court cases are pretty easy to look up and find shit) where a state resident was charged with the crime of "Being in the United States with an Expired Visa\ or invalid paperwork" and cite the penal code violated?
There must be tons of em. Figure a lot of people in the federal penetentiary system, lots of court cases.

They can't fast track em since to do so would raise contitutional issues.

Would seem to be a big pain in the ass since it would be a lot easier to just leave it a code violation.
I wonder how many people are locked up for EPA violations?

enough with you petty BS

The part in my post that has tickled your jackass-bone

Let's break this down:

Crime or "civil infraction", the fact is, they are not legally allowed to be in this country.

People that are not allowed here get deported.

Oh snap...I quoted you.

You said "Crime"
I said No Crime.

Now you say BAH BAH BAH BEH BAH BAH
Wwhatever sissy boy!!! They get deported.

All I say is that they have not committed a crime. Lots of of other stuff but my point is that they have not committed a crime.

Yes they are here illegally
Yes they can be deported.
No that does not mean they are guilty of a crime.
The US has decided that a violated code related to Visa will result in fine or deportation.

You missed the lulz.

I already conceded that no crime was committed.

AZ is still gangsta.

You didn't understand my post.

It was laid out the same as your post that I quoted. The first example (guilty, jail, deportation) was for someone being deported over a crime, not an immigration infraction. My second example (ruling, deportation) deals with those who have only violated immigration law. My post was meant to demonstrate that, unlike your OJ example, with immigration ultimately criminal and civil = GTFO.

No sir. You are the true gangsta. I need to check myself befo I wreck myself.

I was too busy caught up in my own post. I was dazzling myself with goolgle and I may have missed a few points here and there.

Pauldun170, I stick with my original statement. I think that it would be a reasonable accommodation to state that the parents must actually be in the country legally for the 14th Amendment to apply. This has nothing to do with 'criminal' vs. 'civil' (which is nothing of the sort anyway).

"Any person"
That's the key phrase and whether you take the literal definition or massage it with context (intent and purpose of the 14th) it is clear that someone here illegally has right to due process.

Lets say we were to get a sympathetic supreme court to say that Bill of Rights are not extended to unlawful residents. We eliminate all due process to those found in the country illegally.

A state is no longer under constitutional obligation to apply the rule of law to those found to be unlawfully residing within the state.
Are you supportive of a state being able to do whatever it sees fit with those people?

Lets say that they weaken the 14th amendment and one state (State A) declares all illegals guilty of a state felony while another state (state B) declares that it is under no obligation to honor federal immigration code and extends state citizenship to all who establish residency. In effect, all residents of a state are automatic citizens of the United states simply by establishing residency in that state.
An individual is charged in one state as an illegal and therefore guilty of a felony. The person escapes to the state offering residency and citizenship.

Is state B obligated to extradite that person to state A? does the state the follows the amendment to the letter and has a responsibility to honor the individuals due process send the person to a state that says it will not extend due process?

The sticky point is that the child IS in the US legally and as a citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law.
Putting the law to the side, what is the benefit to society to make this child a ward of the state?

Actually that's the question, which you're assuming an answer to. Again, as I said, I believe that it would be a reasonable accommodation to state that the parents must be in the country legally, for the child to obtain citizenship. Due to the many and sundry rights and privileges attendant to citizenship, I also believe that this should be a reverse onus situation (the parents must demonstrate that they were, in fact, in the country legally).

If this would require a Constitutional Amendment, then so be it. If it could be managed by Supreme Court judgment, as to intent of the 14th Amendment, then all the better.

I do believe that Constitutional protections regarding due process should apply to foreign nationals while within the United States, but that doesn't mean that the results of such exercises of due process should automatically be favourable to them.

I personally do not think the Constitution should be changed and that there should not be a test for those born here to attain citizenship.

I see no reason not to criminalize unlawful status but I prefer that it remain a procedural issue.
I'm fine with machine gun armed, alligator filled moats on the border and trained killer sharks patrolling our waters.
"Anchor babies" appears to be a bullshit term based on a misconception that having a child ensures illeagals can stay inthe country when it according to the info I found, during hearings a child is not given as much weight as people think during evaluation for deportation.

I believe that anyone born here should be auto citizened. that does not mean that i believe the child should be seperated from it parents. I think it is both reasonable and constitutional to deport the child with the parents NOT because it is a "dirty Mexican Anchor baby" but because the child belongs with its parents. Post deportation, that child, as an American citizen is welcome back to enjoy their birth right at anytime.

I can get behind that logic.

The flip side to that coin though is that if it happened, you'd have certain people screaming that a "legal citizen has been deported!" or "What right does the government have to decide if the child must stay with his parents" and then you get back to the GTFO vs ward of the state argument. :idk:

There is always someone screaming about something.

There are reasons why an illegal immigrant should be able to remain in the US. Things like war in the home country or the value of the individual is judged to be desirable (professional of some sort with wicked ninja math skills).

Here is the blanket statement for those who would scream.

"A child should not be seperated from its mother and the mother is welcome to follow the normal process to enter the country legally."


Since the actual process to enter the country, get the green card and all the require paperwork is normally an onerous PIA I'm ok with the parents of american citizens getting a fast track process. (for anyone who likes to pull the "My great great grandpappy came here legally back in 1856!! I bet you if he had to follow the same process as they do today he would probably sneak in too)

You give illegals too much credit. :lol:

I basically believe the same thing. The only difference is I don't believe the way the child is handled should be automatic. The parents should be able to decide if their child gets deported with them or remains here as a ward of the state.

The State doesn't decide. The parents are given the option of letting their child, who is a US citizen, stay. If they would rather keep their child with them, then so be it.

And Paul, the fact that an anchor baby is given SOME weight is, to many, too much weight.

As to reasons why some illegals should be permitted to stay, that has a name; refugee plea. Recently Mexican illegals have taken to stating that the drug war in their country puts them in fear for their lives. Should that be a valid reason?

I agree 1000% with all the above.

My inferring that the state decides was based on Paul's example that the "child would be deported because they should be with their parents."

I'm a simple man and have simple opinions. If I invite you to my house for dinner, you may stay until I'm ready for you to leave. If you don't leave when it's time, I will make you leave. If you fremember at 2 AM that you forgot your lighter, you cannot come back and get it, you get it when it's convenient to me. It's not my fault you forgot your lighter. If you attempt to enter my house when not invited, I will hurt you unitl you no longer desire or are unable to enter my house.

Let me translate: If you come into our country legally and your visa expire, you should be made to leave. If you got pregnant while you are here then you can take your baby with you, give it up for adoption or let it become a ward of the state. Birth control comes with directions in Spanish and it's not my fault you couldn't stop fucking. If you try to cross our border it is more than appropriate that we do everything we can think of to prevent you from doing so. If you left your kid here, we will determine when you get the child back.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but just because your life would be better here doesn't automatically mean you can up and come here. I understand the desire to do so, but that's not the way it works. Criminal, civil, all of this is obfuscatory bullshit - if you shouldn't be here, you need to leave. If this impacts your baby's life then you should have thought of that first. Millions of couples are on adoption lists and I'm sure Angelina will adopt your baby.

And as for the reconquistadores or however you spell it, sure, we took your land. Until such time as you have the means to reclaim it by the same means and subsequently hold said land, we make the rules. Tough breaks. I don't care if it's legal or right and wrong, my concern is hospitals going bankrupt because of uninsured illegal immigrants abusing emergency services. I would think in a time of unprecedented national debt and expenditures an ever numerically increasing group who use our public services while putting no resource to continue them back into the system would be an easy decision. I also think that in a post 911 world the question of whether or not we allow a border to be porous to anyone who wishes to cross it without any sort of hindrance, regardless of their intentions or affiliations, is a stupid one. Sorry for the kids but maybe if their parents were better at their jobs this wouldn't come up.

And is the legal immigration process shitty? Sure it is. But so is the process for me to pay off my mortgage, and yet I still keep paying it. Stop justifying such obvious bullshit and take a stand.

My biggest pet peeve is, if you are going to come here and reap the advantages of living in the US, including higher salaries, more freedom, less crime, more educational opportunites, healthier living condiitons.........Then you should at least show some respect and common courtesy......And yes, maybe even some gratitude.

Instead, so many of them adopt an entitlement complex, where they yap on and on about how Whitey stole their land, or how our economy couldn't survive without them, etc. etc. Granted I'm a little biased since I used to live in San Diego and Denver, two heavily-Hispanic cities where I observed a lot of that behavior, but there it is. How about keeping your head down and focused on taking advantage of the opportunites thsi country offers. Like most Asian immigrants do.

The impression I got was that a lot of them make little effort to work towards a long-term future in America. I'd like to know the exact statistics, but a substantial portion of them go back home after a few years of making some money. Compare that with most Asian immigrants, the majority of whom plan on staying here for good. Coupled with the much higher emphasis they put on education, instead of letting their kids fuck around and hang out in the parking lot all the time.

Great post!

Fixed it

We don't have the immigrant culture in the North East that you west coast assholes have.
We have a much more diverse immigrant population (I can't for the life of me recall meeting an actual Mexican). In my area we have a big Salvadoran population. We also get the a few Venezuelans, Columbians etc etc.
They work their ass off and they do not have an entitlement complex. They are the least likely to use public services for two reasons
1. Communication issues between the local communitties and public services
2. Distrust of government (of any government due to the experience they faced in there home country)



As for sending money back home. Any immigrant who comes from a poor country and still has family there is going to do that. For those who return home after working here, from what I have seen...from what I know is because of economic reality. Thats a trait of first generation folks who realize they cannot afford to spend there retirement years in the United States. You work decades doing shit jobs on a shit wage and you get to the point where you just can't do it anymore.
Do you live out your waning years in poverty or do you set your self up to live confortably among family and friends (and most important for the old...health care) in whatever country you came from? When the time comes, some carry through while other just stay with their kids.
Every migrant culture does that when it makes economic sense.
Whats important is what their children do.

From what I gather, the main issue isn't immigration or their legal status.
Its Mexicans.

If every Mexican crossing the border did so legit and were completely legal, I have a feeling that instead of calling for better border controls folks would be calling for strict quotas on Mexican immigrants. I guess its some thing that happens when you mix Mexican culture with the culture of you southern states that creates a big bowl of turd.

I don't know. I don't have the experience you guys have. My shitlist of immigrant groups is much much different then yours.
Mainland China - I don't know where to begin
India - Old Indian women can eat a horse cock... that and a bunch of other reasons
Dominican Republic - (you fuckers talk to goddamn fast)
Korea - Racist motherfuckers

/thread

Good post Amorok.

So in other words, people don't like them because they have (semi)brown skin. Millions of, say, French people could enter illegally and pop out millions of kids, occupy emergency rooms, drive without insurance, earn money under the table, send billions of it outside the US, wave the French flag everywhere including on July 4th, and claim that they hold original rights to this land, and nobody would have any problem with it, because they're white.

Millions of citizens pop out bunches of retards, drive without insurance, occupy emergency rooms, send billions outside of the US, wave foreign flags on their their self appointed holidays, claim all sorts of nonsense about who the country belongs to.

You go on the street and you see a brown person in work clothes.
First thought is "illegal"

You see a French person on the street...oh wait. You can't really identify a French...or German...or Irish guy on the street. Oh...and chances are they speak english.

Throughout our history, it is those who looked different that generated the most butthurting among the majority.

There were no laws against Irish or Italian immigrants but there damn sure laws against asian and african countries.

Its natural. If they look different then they are bad.
It is subliminal.


In other words you little example against the french is not applicable.
There wouldn't be as much deep seated hate running around if their wasn't brown involved.

As Americans, we love our boogeymen. It keeps us occupied and allows us to produce simplistic explanations for all our problems.
We prefer our boogeyman to not look anything like us.

Paul, around the turn of the last century it was Irish who were looked down upon. Then it was Italians. These people you imply aren't readily recognizable in a public setting were, in fact, readily recognizable.

Name an instance where disgust towards Irish or Italians generate laws,significant quota changes or changes in immigration policy.

Its all nice to post photos but without any context what value are they again?

Privately made signs against the Irish holds what value? (Side note: I love it how almost every damn group in this country try to play some sort of oppressed card. Not one group can say. "Yeah we always had it pretty good here.")

Do I need to school you on 19th century United States?

Actually scratch that.
I better go re-school myself on 19th century US before schooling anyone else.

I'm all about dealing with illegals.

Its just that all the rhetoric being generated by it has lots of holes in it.
I simply don't like relying on assumptions.

Fair enough, and true.

Glad that you said it first ;)

*EDIT* Don't stop looking until you get to the early 1920s.

Why, you found some legislation?
Share bitch SHARE!!!!!
I don't mind being proven wrong.

(I figured 1939 was the safe cutoff year since there was the chance that they might want to control influx during the depression)

All of a sudden Hillary is a voice on Justice Dept issues.......


Clinton comment on immigration law riles Ariz. gov
By AMANDA LEE MYERS, Associated Press Writer Amanda Lee Myers, Associated Press Writer Fri Jun 18, 2:45 am ET

PHOENIX – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said Thursday she's angry over comments by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that the Obama administration will sue the state over its new immigration law.

In a June 8 media interview in Ecuador that began circulating Thursday in the U.S., Clinton said President Barack Obama thinks the federal government should determine immigration policy and that the Justice Department "will be bringing a lawsuit against the act."

Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler on Thursday declined to say whether the department would sue and that "the department continues to review the law."

The department has been looking at the law for weeks for possible civil rights violations, with an eye toward a possible court challenge.

It's unclear why Clinton made the comment since it's not her area. She couldn't be reached Thursday for comment.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Obama and Clinton have both made it clear that the administration opposes the law.

"I will defer to the Justice Department on the legal steps that are available and where they stand on the review of the law," Crowley said. "The secretary believes that comprehensive immigration reform is a better course of action."

Brewer, a Republican, said in a statement that "this is no way to treat the people of Arizona."

"To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the secretary of state is just outrageous," she said. "If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation."

Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said the governor was "outraged" and that Clinton's comments make it appear that the Justice Department has decided to file suit.

"But she's confident that in the end, the state of Arizona, the citizens, will prevail," he said.

On April 23, Brewer signed what is considered the toughest legislation in the nation targeting illegal immigrants. It is set to go into effect July 29 pending multiple legal challenges and the Justice Department's review.

The law requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally. It also makes being in Arizona illegally a misdemeanor, and it prohibits seeking day-labor work along the state's streets.

The law's stated intention is to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona and discourage them from coming in the first place. It has outraged civil rights groups, drawn criticism from Obama and led to marches and protests organized by people on both sides of the issue.

The law's backers say Congress isn't doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it's the state's duty to address the issue. Critics say it will lead to racial profiling and discrimination against Hispanics, and damage ties between police and minority communities.

Brewer met with Obama in the Oval Office about the law on June 3, telling him: "We want our border secured." Obama reiterated his objections to the law. Neither side appeared to give ground although both talked about seeking a bipartisan solution.

Other Arizona politicians, political candidates and activist groups were quick to weigh in on Clinton's remarks. U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth, who is challenging Sen. John McCain, called them appalling; attorney general candidates Tom Horne and Andrew Thomas also denounced them.

Joanne Lin, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, urged the administration to take swift action against the law.

___

Associated Press writers Jonathan J. Cooper and Jacques Billeaud in Phoenix and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.

As citizens that is their right. For the anchor babies of illegals, as citizens, it will be their right too. That doesn't make it the right of the illegals themselves.

Concerning the looking different thing, I'm sure that is why some people have a problem with it. That doesn't mean that is why all people have a problem with it. According to DHS estimates 57% of illegals in country came from Mexico. The next largest countries of origin are El Salvador and Guatemala at 4% each. The fact is if you are looking at an illegal immigrant odds are they are from Mexico. I think we should go after illegal immigrants regardless of their country of origin. Don't be surprised though when the majority of those captured are from the country that sends us the majority of our illegal immigrants.

Show me where any of the laws currently being discussed explicitly single out 1) anyone, regardless of immigration status or 2) illegal Mexicans. I'd really like to see the law, quota, or immigration policy that so onerously discriminates against legal immigration from Mexico, non white person countries, or even developing countries in general.

In 2008 the largest single group of naturalized US citizens came from Mexico (22.2% of total), followed by India (6.3%), and the Philippines (5.6%) while China, Cuba, and Vietnam each made up 3.8% of the total. Do those really sound like the places where we are getting all the white people who look like Americans we supposedly so desperately want? Somebody at INS must have fucked up.:lol:

Its not a right to not pay insurance or abuse emergency rooms.
asshole

I think most people want to go after illegals. Especially legal immigrants.
the fact that they are clearly different than the majority makes it all the more fun.

Listen...I called BS on the Irish\Italian "Weez just like them other oppressed people" card. Nothing more.

You telling me that I'm not allowed to nitpick?
Go f'n f yerself.
Well actually don't because thats kinda nasty and I don't need that imagery in my head.

Well there's The Johnson Act, of 1921, but that's just off the top of my head.

They aren't legal rights but they may as well be at this point.

Sure you can nitpick, but then so can I. You want to compare Irish/Italian immigrants to Mexican immigrants. That is fine, but asking for documentation that explicitly singles out one of those two groups would require documentation explicitly singling out Mexican immigrants in order for the comparison to be valid. The fact that in 2008 the US naturalized more people from Mexico than any other country (3.5 times more Mexicans than those from the second country on the list) invalidates that argument to a large degree.

You can erase that mental imagery. I'm not nearly flexible enough to go f'n f myself.

No I didn't. I was supporting the assertion that it is the nature of people to flip the bird to people who look different.

You sure about that one?
Wasn't that a reaction to the aftermath (up swell of immigrants) of WWI and whose intent was to limit dirty Eastern Europeans?

I could see how one could assume that people were tired of Italians but (from memory) looking at the act and going through some of the preceding laws the immigration policies sought to limit others.

The fact that it was % based on current population levels the Irish and Italians had nothing to worry about as their #'s in the US at the time resulted in favorable quotas compared to other countries.

"limited the annual number of immigrants to 3% of the number of foreign-born persons of most nationalities living in the USA in 1910."

you gonna make me research census #'s from 1910?
Jerk

My bad. It doesn't change anything about the rest of my post though. The top 15 countries of origin for those who became naturalized US citizens in 2008 is below.

Mexico
India
Philippines
People’s Republic of China
Cuba
Vietnam
El Salvador
Dominican Republic
Colombia
Korea (North and South)
Jamaica
Haiti
Nicaragua
Guatemala
Peru

For these countries the majority of their populations look "different", if my guess is right about what you mean by the word. Somebody at INS must have screwed up and forgot to flip them the bird.

Yup. You betcha. Start researching.

It WAS aimed largely at limiting the influx of Eastern Europeans, but it set far reaching limits and you can't tell an Eastern European from a Western European, just by looking at one.

Keep in mind when I say flip the bird I mean general opinion. Not official policy

The original question concerned policies concerning the Irish and Italians.
Driven by the pic you posted.


I aint researching SHIT until you claim something specific to Irish and Italian.
Its the weekend dammit. I'm not chasing everything under the sun when its the weekend. Gotta have some boundaries you know

So: Internet - serious (9-5, Monday to Friday) business?

You were talking about immigrants who look different being treated worse than those who don't. It simply isn't the case.

Hahaha.

Internet Seriousness
Real Talk

OK, but you also asked about disgust for Irish/Italians causing changes in laws, quotas or immigration policy. My contention is those things don't appear to exist today, at least with respect to quotas and immigration policy. It invalidates much of the comparison with the Irish/Italian situation from the past.

My point is that attitudes are more fiery which historically has been the case

you are reading to deep into it. I am stating that some groups are overstating historical discrimination.

I think Mexicans are overstating current discrimination.:shrug:

I don't think it matters where illegal immigrants come from, what they look lie or why they hopped the border. The issue is simple:

The priviledges and benefits of living in this country are a finite resource that are only renewed by the contributions of those who participate in the system which provides those services. If we continue to allow large numbers of people to enjoy the benefits of our system without contributing anything back to replenish it then evetually there WON'T BE ENOUGH OF IT FOR EVERYONE. If we continue to allow illegals to enjoy government services at the current rate without doing anything about it we're going to run out of everything, and those of us who pay in won't have anything to show for it. I can keep repeating myself but it won't matter, nodoys getting the point.

So the many recorded cases of "No Irish Need Apply", enough that a song was written about it at the time, doesn't show that there were fiery attitudes?

Methinks that someone is only considering the most current issues to be "serious."

From what I have read, the attitudes towards the Irish were driven by specific religious groups and not wide spread. More sectarian in nature and not widespread. In other words the "signs" and trash talk were sourced from pockets of ethnic groups.

Like future black man digging up some Neo Nazi paraphernalia (Records and news clippings) from Wisconsin to support the claim that there was wide spread racism in the early 21st century.

I certainly don't see discrimination against Mexicans. What groups are claiming that Mexicans are being discriminated against?

Papa...
Please indicate where the song and the sign in the picture are from.
United states
or Great Britain.

It would be rather silly to build this whole case about Irish discrimination when all your evidence is from the UK.

Papa (not Goof2...that jackass is still stuck on the Mexican immigration topic)
I found this to be an interesting read
http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/no-irish.htm

So far, searches for actual evidence of discrimination has turned up very little besides the same old anecdotes.

I don't think it's Mexicans per say moreso than the quantity of Mexicans. You may have Koreans, Salvadorians, Haitians etc, but they are not flooding in by the thousands every month.

However, even the child regardless of their race picks the white doll. I'm just sayin.