Well that was an interesting article Suz! I never heard of the Pigford whatchamadoodle. Howz about this one, the Supreme Court is going to go through some hearings on the Arizona imigration thing-a-ma-giggy (like they need to find out if empowering the state to do it's job is actually a legal thing to do) Here's the article

Suz

Suz, you have found some great videos there. I'm waiting to see what the USSC rules on AZ's immigration law.

I've thought some about these immigration laws like AZ and others have passed. Imagine that something happened in Europe that caused many thousands of Europeans to try to enter the US illegally. These same laws would apply, right? So, being of Irish/German/Scott decent, there is a chance that I could be stopped for, say, speeding and have to provide proof that I belonged here. (By the way, I've had to do that anyway to get a job.) Knowing the reason behind the request I'd have NO problem with it. So someone will have to explain to my why others want to prevent this obviously reasonable action.

Pumpkinslinger wrote:

Suz, you have found some great videos there. I'm waiting to see what the USSC rules on AZ's immigration law. I've thought some about these immigration laws like AZ and others have passed. Imagine that something happened in Europe that caused many thousands of Europeans to try to enter the US illegally. These same laws would apply, right? So, being of Irish/German/Scott decent, there is a chance that I could be stopped for, say, speeding and have to provide proof that I belonged here. (By the way, I've had to do that anyway to get a job.) Knowing the reason behind the request I'd have NO problem with it. So someone will have to explain to my why others want to prevent this obviously reasonable action.

This is a thinly veiled excuse for Arizona law enforcement to check your papers any time they feel like it. This really is nothing more than an excuse to harass people who certain megalomaniacal sheriffs deem undesirable.

While I agree that the influx of illegals needs to be stemmed, I feel it has been proven that dealing with the people who hire illegal immigrants has a greater effect on the issue.

Eremius what do you feel about police road blocks, stopping people (like they do in Arizona) on the freeway and other roads for intoxication while driving? Everyone gets stopped and it's usually a very casual chat with the drivers. The only people I ever heard complain about it are people that would likely be intoxicated. The bars in Az. are also held liable for allowing their patrons to exceed the legal limit. In 2007, Arizona ranked sixth in the nation for alcohol-related traffic fatalities. This led to the “super extreme” laws, named so because they are among the toughest in the nation. These laws were enacted for first-time offenders for alcohol-related crimes. In early 2011, Arizona state lawmakers approved a measure to repeal the ban on cities enacting laws against public intoxication. Not only is displaying disorderly behavior illegal, but also simply being drunk in public is illegal.

There are an estimated 6.8 million Mexican nationals currently residing in the US without legal authorization. In addition, at least 6 million more Mexicans are legal permanent residents who have not become US citizens.

Last year, Mexicans in the US – both illegal and legal – sent $22.7 billion in family remittances home to Mexico. It is Mexico’s second largest source of foreign revenue after tourism. El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico and Honduras account for 73 percent of all illegal immigrants currently in the US, according to federal estimates. (That is 8.36 million of an estimated total 11.5 million undocumented immigrants.)

The Obama administration took issue with the state-led crackdown, noting that it clashed with President Obama’s priority of seeking to direct federal immigration enforcement at undocumented immigrants who were convicted criminals, while leaving others alone.

If the same were true for intoxicated folks driving their cars, in Arizona, the administration might only want to prosecute drunk drivers who caused accidents on the roadway, leaving the others to go on their merry way.

Suz

Suzanne wrote:

Eremius what do you feel about police road blocks, stopping people (like they do in Arizona) on the freeway and other roads for intoxication while driving?

Sobriety check lanes and traffic cameras were ruled to be entrapment by the Michigan Supreme Court and I agree with their decision.

Quote::

There are an estimated 6.8 million Mexican nationals currently residing in the US without legal authorization. In addition, at least 6 million more Mexicans are legal permanent residents who have not become US citizens. Last year, Mexicans in the US – both illegal and legal – sent $22.7 billion in family remittances home to Mexico. It is Mexico’s second largest source of foreign revenue after tourism. El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico and Honduras account for 73 percent of all illegal immigrants currently in the US, according to federal estimates. (That is 8.36 million of an estimated total 11.5 million undocumented immigrants.)

And our recession showed us the way to solve this issue. During the height of the recession droves of illegal Central/South Americans (because, let's face it, they aren't only Mexicans, they just all come through Mexico) left the United States because there was no work and therefore no money. If we ever want this problem to end we need to come down HARD on those who hire illegal immigrants. Once there are no (or not enough) jobs to support these people, they will return on their own. It seems to me that if a few businesses are very publicly hit with massive fines or even fined into bankruptcy, there would be a lot less incentive to hire "cheap" workers.

It would also allow us to open our borders more for the people who choose to immigrate the proper and legal way.

The AZ law does NOT allow law enforcement to just stop people to "check their papers". It says that, when LE has contact with someone for a traffic stop, or similar, they can then check to make sure that person is here legally.

www.azleg.gov/legtext/...hs.doc.htm

They're not stopping people, they have road blocks. They call them DUI check points and they also advertise them, as illustrated here. And also HERE. That's probably how they get around the entrapment issue, they actually advertise where and when there will be road blocks. This is what they currently do, it has nothing to do with the 1070 immigration stuff.

Eremius yes immigration numbers from Mexico are down; In addition to a fortified border, US economic conditions and other factors are shown to have contributed to the steady decline, says Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization that studies the US Hispanic population.

“Right now we know that it’s hard for people to find a job here, so if it’s expensive and dangerous and difficult and you can’t get a job, it’s not surprising that the numbers have gone down,” Mr. Passel says. “That’s one of the things that’s fallen off with the economy or with the enforcement, and more and more of the unauthorized immigrants, once they’re here, they tend to stay here,” Passel says.

While arrests have decreased significantly along the US-Mexico border, the numbers show an increase in drug seizures. Authorities last year confiscated 3 million pounds of narcotics, mostly marijuana, up from 2.9 million pounds. Nationally, nearly 5 million pounds of narcotics were seized, a 20 percent increase from fiscal 2010.

Now if we could just do something about the undocumented resident aliens and the illegal aliens (in the 11 million range) Oh no wait! Obama wants to only prosecute the ones with a criminal background....let the others go and let their children born here become US citizens automatically....but...aren't they criminals by being here illegally? HHhhmmm semantics again, maybe they changed the definition of illegal...I dunno anymore...


Suz

Suzanne wrote:

....let the others go and let their children born here become US citizens automatically

To be fair, this has nothing to do with Obama. This has been the law since long before he was even a gleam in his father's eye.

Quote::

....but...aren't they criminals by being here illegally? HHhhmmm semantics again, maybe they changed the definition of illegal...I dunno anymore... Suz

I don't disagree. I will say that the issue does get thorny when you factor in that the illegal's kids are citizens. I don't really have a good answer for this. Especially as the line gets more blurred when the kids get older (say, middle school aged). At that point it's a tough choice if their parents get deported. Do you send them with their parents to a completely foreign place? Do you leave them here and ????? with them?

This issue gets very grey very fast.

So if you were born in the US you are automatically a citizen of the US?

"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. 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."

Just because an illegal has a child (or children) here and those children are citizens, it does not grant the illegal person with citizenship as well. They are still illegal in this country and will be deported if caught. The child will not be deported because they were born here. If the parent is caught and it is not due to a criminal arrest, they may chose to take their child back to their country. If it is for a criminal arrest, however, the child will be placed in foster care or in the care of a legal family member.

Anchor babies create an interesting tax payer burden, we seem to keep the law around in spite of the troubles it causes. Citizen children cannot sponsor parents for entry into the country until they are 21 years of age, and if the parent had ever been in the country illegally, they would have to show they had left and not returned for at least ten years; however, pregnant and nursing mothers can receive free food vouchers through the federal WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program and enroll the children in Medicaid. In 2008 a total of 3.8 million unauthorized immigrants had at least one child who is an American citizen. Parents of citizen children who have been in the country for ten years or more can also apply for relief from deportation, though only 4,000 persons a year can receive relief status.

Loss of national citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:

Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically, this is not loss of citizenship but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a United States citizen.
Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions that demonstrate desire to give up national citizenship. Ok I freekin forgot my point....we're all in agreement?

Suz

Suzanne wrote:

So if you were born in the US you are automatically a citizen of the US? "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. 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."

Correct. We are on the same page here.

Quote::

Just because an illegal has a child (or children) here and those children are citizens, it does not grant the illegal person with citizenship as well. They are still illegal in this country and will be deported if caught. The child will not be deported because they were born here. If the parent is caught and it is not due to a criminal arrest, they may chose to take their child back to their country. If it is for a criminal arrest, however, the child will be placed in foster care or in the care of a legal family member.

No disagreements so far...

Quote::

Anchor babies create an interesting tax payer burden, we seem to keep the law around in spite of the troubles it causes. Citizen children cannot sponsor parents for entry into the country until they are 21 years of age, and if the parent had ever been in the country illegally, they would have to show they had left and not returned for at least ten years; however, pregnant and nursing mothers can receive free food vouchers through the federal WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program and enroll the children in Medicaid. In 2008 a total of 3.8 million unauthorized immigrants had at least one child who is an American citizen.

Still with ya...

Quote::

Parents of citizen children who have been in the country for ten years or more can also apply for relief from deportation, though only 4,000 persons a year can receive relief status.

This seems kind of counter-intuitive, but ok (as I am sure was the point of quoting this).

Quote::

Ok I freekin forgot my point....we're all in agreement? Suz

Whew! I thought it was just me missing something.

Well I'm not trying to start a fight, you're keepin me in line that's all. We do disagree about some points but they are valid and respectable points of view anyway.

Suz

Well said and I completely agree with!

When illegal aliens have children in this country they are not "subject to the juridiction of the US" - they are illegally in this country and their children are NOT necessarily US citizens.
There is an on-going discussion on what constitutes being under the jurisdiction of the US. It may mean that you submit to the laws of the US or that you are contributing to the "health" (financial, sociological, military) of the US. So the different interpretations are typically along "Party Lines" rather than any juditiary definition.

thats a very fine line really isnt it?
the aliens/overstayers who have kids in your country are a very big smelly kettle of fish really. we tend to have some similar issues with people from the pacific Islands.

I have a friend (democrat) who insists that I'm always not seeing things right. I told him about a date I had with a local fireman a few years ago and the date....well it ended on a bad note, not even a kiss....here's why. We started talking about the local ambulance service. Well I started the subject because all he could talk about was himself, and it was getting boring. The fire department of course has it's own emergency medical stuff and they do a great job, but since it's a government entity there are always issues about having to close a fire station because of funding and they need to share equipment between stations and so on...you know the rhetoric. Same as the school system...same as the librarys.

So I suggested that the ambulance service could be privately owned, put up for bid and would ease the burden on the fire department. I used to live in a state where the ambulance service was privately run, and frankly they had more ambulances, were well equipped, and at least equal response times as the fire dept. here has. His argument (yup he disagreed) was that nobody could do a better job than the government. That's why we pay taxes, so the government can take care of us. He continued on as if I'd just kicked him in the groin and you know what happens on a date when the dude gets kicked in the groin....kinda ends the date.
Here's what I shoulda told him;

The folks who are getting the free stuff don’t like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.
And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.
And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now… the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.
So… the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.
Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?
The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 236 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.