Arizona requires you to carry your papers

[kapkomet]

It's pretty easy to see how that law is unconstitutional, on its face, without even thinking for very long about it. So easy that it probably wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court because it wouldn't be necessary. If you're born here, you're a citizen, that's what the Constitution says (this is one of the main Birther arguments btw since a lot of them decided to claim it was never about whether Obama was born here but because only his mother was a U.S. citizen and not both parents that he is not a natural born citizen - basically making up laws). If you don't like it you have to amend the Constitution.

 

 

Okay, there's two different things going on here. Anchor baby law, vs. the law that's already passed. The law that's already passed is constitutional and that is what I am talking about.

[Texsox]

Okay, there's two different things going on here. Anchor baby law, vs. the law that's already passed. The law that's already passed is constitutional and that is what I am talking about.

 

 

Are you still giving Arizona a Duh for trying to make their own laws about US citizenship?

[Balta1701]

Okay, there's two different things going on here. Anchor baby law, vs. the law that's already passed. The law that's already passed is constitutional and that is what I am talking about.

There's a different constitutional arguement to be made on that one, and it's going to be decided by the courts at some point; the whole "states can't make a law that supercedes federal law" issue. Enforcing immigration regulations can be argued to not be a state issue. Furthermore, you could probably also challenge any deportation done under that law as violating itself, because of the whole racial thing.

 

That one's for the courts to decide. The Birthright citizenship law though, that's as open and shut as they come.

[kapkomet]

There's a different constitutional arguement to be made on that one, and it's going to be decided by the courts at some point; the whole "states can't make a law that supercedes federal law" issue. Enforcing immigration regulations can be argued to not be a state issue. Furthermore, you could probably also challenge any deportation done under that law as violating itself, because of the whole racial thing.

 

That one's for the courts to decide. The Birthright citizenship law though, that's as open and shut as they come.

 

The state is enforcing federal law. That's SO unconstitutional.

[Texsox]

The state is enforcing federal law. That's SO unconstitutional.

 

 

So what do you think of Arizona rewriting US citizenship laws? And I believe we wil agree on this. Something needs to be done, the walk over and give birth situation is out of control. But the way Arizona is going about it is wrong. We need to change the Constitution, which needs to be done nationally.

 

I'd even go so far as to say it makes Arizona look even crazier, if that was possible.

[kapkomet]

So what do you think of Arizona rewriting US citizenship laws? And I believe we wil agree on this. Something needs to be done, the walk over and give birth situation is out of control. But the way Arizona is going about it is wrong. We need to change the Constitution, which needs to be done nationally.

 

I'd even go so far as to say it makes Arizona look even crazier, if that was possible.

 

 

Let's see if they pass this first.

[Balta1701]

The state is enforcing federal law. That's SO unconstitutional.

Is it really a state's job to do that though? Can a state prosecute someone based on federal law?

[kapkomet]

Is it really a state's job to do that though? Can a state prosecute someone based on federal law?

 

 

First, how about the federal government doing their job? Oh, wait, we need those democrat voters.

 

Second, they are getting turned over if there's anything found re: citizenship.

[Balta1701]

First, how about the federal government doing their job? Oh, wait, we need those democrat voters

Oh, so that's why you're trying to get rid of Latinos, so that they don't vote Democrat. At least you're honest.

[kapkomet]

Oh, so that's why you're trying to get rid of Latinos, so that they don't vote Democrat. At least you're honest.

 

 

Rght. I'm a racist, bigoted, money grubbing, oil drilling piece of s*** because I'm a conservative. Keep the stereotypes going once again.

[Balta1701]

Rght. I'm a racist, bigoted, money grubbing, oil drilling piece of s*** because I'm a conservative. Keep the stereotypes going once again.

Oh, so you can dish it out but you can't take it. Yeah. Democrats want illegal immigrants in the country for the votes, but those pure hearted conservatives don't sully themselves with such trifles.

[kapkomet]

Oh, so you can dish it out but you can't take it. Yeah. Democrats want illegal immigrants in the country for the votes, but those pure hearted conservatives don't sully themselves with such trifles.

 

 

 

I don't want them here because they are ILLEGAL. But I just don't want them here for votes. Got it.

[jasonxctf]

So what do you think of Arizona rewriting US citizenship laws? And I believe we wil agree on this. Something needs to be done, the walk over and give birth situation is out of control. But the way Arizona is going about it is wrong. We need to change the Constitution, which needs to be done nationally.

 

I'd even go so far as to say it makes Arizona look even crazier, if that was possible.

 

 

It's actually quite simple.

 

What is a tourist visa allow you in for? 6 months, max?

 

So just like we don't let people into the country with SARS, if you are pregnant, you aren't allowed in the country on a Visitor Visa.

 

Or, they cut down on the Visa length for those who are pregnant, based upon trimester level.

 

Tourist Visa Length of Stay: Persons admitted to the United States on a B-2 Tourist Visa are usually issued a 6-month stay. The maximum length of stay for visitor visa holders is 6 months. The immigration officer at the port of entry determines how long each visitor is allowed to stay in the country. Most visitors have their I-94 cards stamped with a 6-month stay; however the immigration officer has the right to issue a shorter stay on a case by case basis. Upon entry into the United States, the foreign visitor has the right to request an extension of stay.

[jasonxctf]

 

I don't want them here because they are ILLEGAL. But I just don't want them here for votes. Got it.

 

 

I'm going to play devils advocate.

 

What did they do, that's illegal?

[kapkomet]

I'm going to play devils advocate.

 

What did they do, that's illegal?

 

 

What the hell are you talking about?

[jasonxctf]

i just wonder about the actual crime that's being committed by these people.

 

Is it trespassing

Is it loitering

 

Basically, unless they are doing other "bad" things, their crime is cutting the line. Rather than waiting their turn with INS, they took things into their own hands and came across the border without permission.

 

The other thing I wonder about is, for those people to whom this is a gigantic issue, what do you want to do about it?

 

Assume that there are 10 million people who cut the line, do you want the Federal Government to hire 1,000,000 bounty hunters to track them down to deport them?

[Jenksismyhero]

i just wonder about the actual crime that's being committed by these people.

 

Is it trespassing

Is it loitering

 

Basically, unless they are doing other "bad" things, their crime is cutting the line. Rather than waiting their turn with INS, they took things into their own hands and came across the border without permission.

 

The other thing I wonder about is, for those people to whom this is a gigantic issue, what do you want to do about it?

 

Assume that there are 10 million people who cut the line, do you want the Federal Government to hire 1,000,000 bounty hunters to track them down to deport them?

 

It's a seperate offense:

 

Title 8 Section 1325

 

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who

(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or

(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or

(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

 

I'd like them to pay their share or go back home. It being difficult to do isn't a justification for illegal activity. I agree that in the grand scheme of things, cutting in line as you put it isn't THAT big of a deal. The problem is what they do when they get here, which is accept the benefits of being a US citizen without paying their share of the cost.

[jasonxctf]

It's a seperate offense:

 

Title 8 Section 1325

 

 

 

I'd like them to pay their share or go back home. It being difficult to do isn't a justification for illegal activity. I agree that in the grand scheme of things, cutting in line as you put it isn't THAT big of a deal. The problem is what they do when they get here, which is accept the benefits of being a US citizen without paying their share of the cost.

 

 

and i think your idea of paying a fine is a fair and good one.

 

But many feel that this is still some level of amnesty.

 

As for not paying their share of the cost three issues come to mind..

 

1) Many US Citizens dont pay their share of the cost either. (huge tax breaks, poor people, elderly, etc)

 

2) If these "illegal" people are working legitimate jobs (restaurants, hotels, packing plants etc) that means that they are getting a paycheck and not being paid in cash. To have their employer cut them a check, they've provided them with fake social security numbers. So in fact, they are paying income tax as its being deducted from them automatically. They buy goods/services at the stores so they are paying sales taxes too. And if they are renting apartments, their rental contributes to property taxes that the landlord is paying.

 

3) If they in jobs in which they are paid in cash, thus no income taxes are deducted, then I can also think of plenty of US citizens and jobs where a large portion of income is coming in in cash too. I'm sure much of that income (and we're not talking about $5/hr) is not having taxes accounted for too.

 

Here's a quick comment from a recent Newsweek Article...

 

Clinton didn't mention it, but it's not just legal immigrants who contribute to the plus side of the Treasury's balance sheet. In fact, undocumented immigrants are even more lucrative for the government, particularly Social Security. Many undocumented workers have payroll taxes automatically withheld from their wages, but because they use fake numbers, never collect the benefits.

Edited June 15, 2010 by jasonxctf

[Jenksismyhero]

and i think your idea of paying a fine is a fair and good one.

 

But many feel that this is still some level of amnesty.

 

As for not paying their share of the cost three issues come to mind..

 

1) Many US Citizens dont pay their share of the cost either. (huge tax breaks, poor people, elderly, etc)

 

2) If these "illegal" people are working legitimate jobs (restaurants, hotels, packing plants etc) that means that they are getting a paycheck and not being paid in cash. To have their employer cut them a check, they've provided them with fake social security numbers. So in fact, they are paying income tax as its being deducted from them automatically. They buy goods/services at the stores so they are paying sales taxes too. And if they are renting apartments, their rental contributes to property taxes that the landlord is paying.

 

3) If they in jobs in which they are paid in cash, thus no income taxes are deducted, then I can also think of plenty of US citizens and jobs where a large portion of income is coming in in cash too. I'm sure much of that income (and we're not talking about $5/hr) is not having taxes accounted for too.

 

Here's a quick comment from a recent Newsweek Article...

 

Clinton didn't mention it, but it's not just legal immigrants who contribute to the plus side of the Treasury's balance sheet. In fact, undocumented immigrants are even more lucrative for the government, particularly Social Security. Many undocumented workers have payroll taxes automatically withheld from their wages, but because they use fake numbers, never collect the benefits.

 

Yeah, I mean we all know that in reality illegals are no worse (and are sometimes better) than our own worthless citizens, but that doesn't justify them coming into the country illegally.

[StrangeSox]

Eh, quite a number of economic studies show a net positive impact on our economy. So there's a financial justification for it.

[lostfan]

It's a seperate offense:

 

Title 8 Section 1325

 

 

 

I'd like them to pay their share or go back home. It being difficult to do isn't a justification for illegal activity. I agree that in the grand scheme of things, cutting in line as you put it isn't THAT big of a deal. The problem is what they do when they get here, which is accept the benefits of being a US citizen without paying their share of the cost.

Without looking at polls I would assume most people are actually ok with this line of thinking. Paying a fine is acknowledgement that you broke the law and it's a punishment. But when that actually gets put into a bill it gets called "amnesty" by the screaming morons who make it to TV.

Edited June 15, 2010 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

Because it *IS* "AMNESTY". They came here knowingly breaking the law and CHOSE to do it anyway. Now, they get off like they didn't ever break our laws.

 

Here's a suggestion. They all need to have crimanal documentation on their records when they get granted their citizenship by Barackus the Great. But you know that won't happen.

 

Then, when they get their background checks, employers can decide if they want to "overlook" the little issue on their record

[mr_genius]

Without looking at polls I would assume most people are actually ok with this line of thinking.

 

the majority of people in the country support the much maligned AZ law (according to this CBS News/New York Times poll). the poll also shows most people support 'make them leave' or 'only can stay as guest workers'.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004030-503544.html

Edited June 16, 2010 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

the majority of people in the country support the much maligned AZ law (according to this CBS News/New York Times poll). the poll also shows most people support 'make them leave' or 'only can stay as guest workers'.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004030-503544.html

That's why I highlighted "or go back home"

 

Sending them all back is impossible (not impractical) but voters aren't really that bright and generally don't understand anything that takes more than about 2 sentences to explain and can't be bothered with it (I'm serious).

[lostfan]

Because it *IS* "AMNESTY". They came here knowingly breaking the law and CHOSE to do it anyway. Now, they get off like they didn't ever break our laws.

 

Here's a suggestion. They all need to have crimanal documentation on their records when they get granted their citizenship by Barackus the Great. But you know that won't happen.

 

Then, when they get their background checks, employers can decide if they want to "overlook" the little issue on their record

That's not the same thing as amnesty. You want to get rid of them all and make them start over if they want to come back? Ok, fine. Valid point. Now how in the f*** are you going to do that?