Arizona passes strict illegal immigration act (Congress: too hot, boundaries, church)

[Kele]

Originally Posted by gtbguy

You actually think the bill is going to discuss race? Come on, get real. The authors of the bill aren't that stupid.

This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer.

Ooh...there's that word! http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

[Roger Guiles]

I live about 100 miles from Phoenix in a small town that has been cleared of illegals, One ran to Colorado, the other is back in Mexico. It did nothing for employment here though, one was a drug dealer and the other was living off some gals welfare check. I think the law is great!

[cjester]

Originally Posted by Zathras

Why would you make a post like this?? Are you lying? or merely misinformed?

Neither; lots of (Legal) Hispanics speak the English language with an accent and look Mexican; it will be very difficult for most officers to distinguish whether he or she is legal or not. So the officers will have to ask the Mexican looking individual to produce some Immigration documentation. Failure to do so the Mexican looking individual is hauled to the slammer.

[Grannysroost]

Enough with the bickering back and forth that adds absolutely nothing to the topic. A lot of these posts in this thread could be trashed IMO, but everyone is entitled to an opinion whether anyone else agrees with them or not.

[revelated]

Originally Posted by cjester

Since you look like a Mexican you definitely will have to carry your passport in AZ also; or you may have to take a short trip to jail. Make sure you have family and friends who will be able to bring you passport or legal papers to get you out (just in case if you misplaced your legal papers while in public).

YouTube - Arizona Sing-A-Long: Read Immigration Law!

[mauiwowie]

Originally Posted by Arizona Annie

I disagree. On both counts.

The Arizona law doesn't conflict at all with Federal Immigration Law. The police can only ask about citizenship if a law has been broken and they cannot profile, but that isn't conflicting, it's just making our law softer to protect our citizens. It is very likely it will stand.

No amendment to the constitution would be needed for the latest Pearce bill. According to the primary author of the 14th amendment himself (John Bingham), it was never intended to be used for illegal offspring. The link I posted should help you with this understanding. By the way, I never said I was for this proposed law, I only posted it because I feel it is relevant to this discussion.

You seem like a reasonable person so I'll give more background. I've stated repeatedly that SB1070 runs afoul of Federal law. The test is from De Canas v Bica:

Constitutional Preemption: Is AZ attempting to regulate immigration? I don't think so

Field Preemption: Did Congress intend to occupy the field ousting local power? Debatable here, IMO

Conflict Preemption: Is it in conflict with Federal law making compliance to state and Federal impossible? Here 1070 fails.

SB 1070 makes it a state crime to be unlawfully present akin to a class 1 misdemeanor. It is a federal civil offense. Here we have conflict and Federal law supersedes local or state law.

Could 1070 be upheld as it now stands? Certainly. We have a Court willing to set aside precedent and make activist decisions.

There have been amendments proposed to the Immigration and Naturalization act to end birthright citizenship in Congress. It would still be in conflict with the 14th Amendment.

Case law about birthright citizenship predates even the 14th. Murray v The Charming Betsey in 1804 implied that in the opinion 'Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character..." persons born here are citizens.

There was much debate about the 14th Amendment and the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" wasn't included in the original House version. Jacob Howard is credited for including "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to exclude children of ambassadors and diplomats as was customary in English common law. It also excluded American Indians who weren't granted birthright citizenship until later because they weren’t completely under US jurisdiction.

Clearly, the language could have been stated to include born of citizens only. They knew this meant the inclusion of children born to non-citizens Mr. HOWARD.

“… This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.”

The meaning of the amendment wasn’t really debated. It was understood to include all born within the physical US boundaries with the exception of those outside the jurisdiction of US law. Debate centered on whether or not this was wise, but not it’s meaning. One opposed, and voting against the entire 14th Amendment was Sen. Cowan who said, in part,

“is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are over*run by a flood of immigration of the Mon*gol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese?”

Of course these questions predate the Chinese Exclusion Act, but show the seeds of discontent. A response was given by CA Senator John Conness,

“The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”

This followed the Civil Rights act of 1866 that guaranteed birthright citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” Some arguing on these boards confuse jurisdiction with allegiance. All within our borders, excepting those with diplomatic immunity are subject to US laws. It matters not if we like it or if we like the laws of some other country better, we are subject to US laws. Senator Cowan, who opposed the Citizenship clause, said it would extend birthright citizenship to “people who … owe no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognize no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own …; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen, and perform none of the duties which devolve upon him.”

It is clear that the Senate understood the ramifications of the language. Again, they could have included language granting birthright citizenship to those born to citizens and chose not to do so.

I’ll briefly touch on some case law. We’re all pretty familiar with US v Wong Kim Ark that established citizenship to those born of aliens. It was long considered to mean all born within the US were citizens, but challenges came because although Kim Ark’s parents couldn’t be naturalized, they were here lawfully. That question was answered in Plyler v Doe a landmark case about providing education to children of those here unlawfully. The 5-4 decision holds that the 14th Amendments Equal Protection applies to “any person within its jurisdiction”. Although four Justices dissented on the question of public education, they ALL agreed that the 14th Amendment applies equally to all, even those that enter illegally, and come under jurisdiction of the state. Writing for the majority Justice Brennan wrote, “[N]o plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

That’s the state of case law now and a consistent precedent. Are there legal scholars that feel birthright citizenship rules could be changed by statute amending the INA? Yes, but they are very much in the minority. Further, any state law would run counter to Federal law and be struck down quickly. Bills like this have been proposed in Congress and go nowhere.

[KarmaPhx]

Originally Posted by cjester

Neither; lots of (Legal) Hispanics speak the English language with an accent and look Mexican; it will be very difficult for most officers to distinguish whether he or she is legal or not. So the officers will have to ask the Mexican looking individual to produce some Immigration documentation. Failure to do so the Mexican looking individual is hauled to the slammer.

If they're legal, why wouldn't they have a drivers license? And if they immigrated here legally federal law requires them to ALWAYS carry proof of citizenship.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by KarmaPhx

If they're legal, why wouldn't they have a drivers license?

Believe it or not - not everyone drives.

It is one of the reasons Arizona (and other states) issue other forms of State issued ID - that have NOTHING to do with driving.

[KarmaPhx]

Originally Posted by Greatday

Believe it or not - not everyone drives.

It is one of the reasons Arizona (and other states) issue other forms of State issued ID - that have NOTHING to do with driving.

Then they should be carrying this ID on them instead, why would anyone walk around without ID? What happens when you get hit by a bus, and no one has any idea who you are?

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by KarmaPhx

Then they should be carrying this ID on them instead, why would anyone walk around without ID? What happens when you get hit by a bus, and no one has any idea who you are?

Again, not everyone acts in a manner as you believe they should.

I know some who go jogging and don't carry ID. They don't concern themselves with getting hit by a bus.