Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ariz. lawmakers mull automatic citizenship bill
Associated Press ^ | Feb. 7, 2011 | JACQUES BILLEAUD

Posted on 02/07/2011 11:54:40 AM PST by Free ThinkerNY

PHOENIX (AP) -- Arizona lawmakers are holding a hearing on a bill that challenges automatic U.S. citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.

The bill to be heard Monday by the Senate judiciary committee provides a definition of a citizen of Arizona as a person who was born or naturalized in the United States and lives legally in Arizona.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; anchor; babies; citizenship

1 posted on 02/07/2011 11:54:41 AM PST by Free ThinkerNY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
Something tells me that Democrats who think states have no right to pass a law requiring presidential candidates to show their birth certificate will think this law is long overdue.
2 posted on 02/07/2011 12:15:55 PM PST by abbyg55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
The bill's sponsors say the goal is to force a court to rule that a child born in the U.S. is a citizen only if either parent is a U.S. citizen or a legal immigrant. Similar proposals have been introduced by lawmakers in Indiana , Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma and South Dakota.

First step.

3 posted on 02/07/2011 12:16:58 PM PST by Netizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

Ping!


4 posted on 02/07/2011 12:28:04 PM PST by HiJinx (What new decade?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

State governments don’t determine citizenship, the federal government does. The constitution is clear; the issue went before the Supreme Court long ago and has been decided. If I were a resident of Arizona, I’d rather have my legislature working on something they can actually do something about rather than screwing around trying to earn political brownie points.


5 posted on 02/07/2011 12:30:34 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stormer
The bill to be heard Monday by the Senate judiciary committee seeks a court interpretation on an element of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to people born in the U.S. who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of this country.

I think this new bill raises a good question. What part of 'subject to the jurisdiction of', do you not understand. Illegals are NOT subject to our jurisdiction. In fact they should be sent back to the jurisdiction that they came from and the sooner the better!

6 posted on 02/07/2011 12:36:59 PM PST by Netizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Netizen
It's not "an element" of the 14th Amendment, it's the first sentence: 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.The only people not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are people with diplomatic immunity. What do you think jurisdiction means? It means subject to law - are you saying that people in the United States (regardless of immigration status) should not be subject to its laws? In other words, if an illegal alien kills someone, all we can do is deport him?
7 posted on 02/07/2011 12:48:55 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

Little Stormer is part of the insanity squad of after-birthers. So this AZ alien law makes them go bonkers.


8 posted on 02/07/2011 12:49:21 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Netizen
It's not "an element" of the 14th Amendment, it's the first sentence: 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. The only people not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are people with diplomatic immunity. What do you think jurisdiction means? It means subject to law - are you saying that people in the United States (regardless of immigration status) should not be subject to its laws? In other words, if an illegal alien kills someone, all we can do is deport him?
9 posted on 02/07/2011 12:49:33 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Sorry to see that critical thinking isn’t one of your strong points...


10 posted on 02/07/2011 12:52:18 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Entering the country is ILLEGAL, breaking the law. So yeah, let’s apply the law and deport them NOW!!


11 posted on 02/07/2011 12:53:25 PM PST by Netizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Yeah, I figured. One of those that thinks the US citizens should suffer rather than send illegals back home where they came from.


12 posted on 02/07/2011 12:54:53 PM PST by Netizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

Your statement illustrates your belief that illegal aliens are subject to jurisdiction. Thus, if and when their children are born, the children are US citizens. This was decided eons ago - it’s a non-starter and waste of time. The only way around this would be to amend the constitution, and the odds of that happening are about the same as me walking on the moon.


13 posted on 02/07/2011 1:00:01 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

At no time have I advocated any approach to dealing with illegal aliens - for all you know I might want to round them up and put them on an ice floe. My point is that the legislature of the State of Arizona is WASTING THE TAXPAYERS TIME AND MONEY by farting around with nonsense that A) is beyond their purview, and B) has been established in federal law for over 100 years.


14 posted on 02/07/2011 1:05:48 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: stormer

I look at it this way. If they are subject to our jurisdiction/LAWS then round em up and deport them pronto for breaking our laws by entering the country illegally.

If they are not subject to our laws, then gather them up and deport them, hey its a win, win!


15 posted on 02/07/2011 1:14:46 PM PST by Netizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Sorry to see that critical thinking isn’t one of your strong points...

Actually, I can back up my statements. It is my strong point. You want to know what the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means? Of course you don't but I'm going to tell you anyways.

The 14th Amendment intent and meaning.

Not only did the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean territorial jurisdiction as in following the laws of the country, it also has a political meaning - owing allegiance to a sovereign. It does not mean by crossing the border illegally having babies and shazam instant US citizen! It means supporting the body politic of a nation is what the founders of the 14th Amendment were speaking about. They meant total jurisdiction. Noway the authors of the 14th Amendment meant or intended it to be the way that you speak of. The left have bastardized the law, which you so truly want to believe their BS.

16 posted on 02/07/2011 1:19:21 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Why do you consider it a waste of taxpayer money to enforce our laws?

It is a waste to NOT enforce our laws.

If each state set up a site for people to donate money specifically for legal and deportation costs, I think the money would come rolling in hand over fist!


17 posted on 02/07/2011 1:22:47 PM PST by Netizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

And if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle. You can interpret or parse anyway you choose, but it won’t alter the facts, nor the definition of “jurisdiction”.


18 posted on 02/07/2011 1:49:18 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

They aren’t trying to enforce laws, there trying to generate political donations and curry favor by pretending to do work.


19 posted on 02/07/2011 1:51:56 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: stormer

They won’t get the donations without the work, hence the bill. :) This taxpayer wants them to do their jobs and doesn’t consider prosecuting and deporting to be a waste of time or money.


20 posted on 02/07/2011 2:11:07 PM PST by Netizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: stormer
And if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle. You can interpret or parse anyway you choose, but it won’t alter the facts, nor the definition of “jurisdiction”.

It's not parsed at all. It means exactly what I said it means.

21 posted on 02/07/2011 2:32:33 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Your statement illustrates your belief that illegal aliens are subject to jurisdiction.

Can the invaders vote? Are they required, by law, to pay taxes? If so, how without a SS#?

Jurisdiction doesn't mean what you think vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment.

Clearly you have a stake in providing these invaders citizenship. Care to tell us what that is?

22 posted on 02/07/2011 3:10:21 PM PST by raybbr (Someone who invades another country is NOT an immigrant - illegal or otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Good grief - is there none among you who understand English? Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning “oath” and dicere meaning “to speak”) is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility.


23 posted on 02/07/2011 3:27:36 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: raybbr; stormer
To Stormer - Jurisdiction doesn't mean what you think vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment.

Clearly you have a stake in providing these invaders citizenship. Care to tell us what that is?

Hey Dem Stormer. So what is your problem care to say? The US Supreme Court in 1873 understood English very well and they understood the meaning to those words that you have trouble understanding:

"Mr. Justice MILLER, now, April 14th, 1873, delivered the opinion of the court. ...

To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the

United States and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.

"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."

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

To repeat the words again to the uncouth and deaf here:

"The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.""


The meaning and intent to these words above have always been clear as day, even to Justice Horrace Gray in 1898 that he ignored.

24 posted on 02/07/2011 3:59:56 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I hope it passes.


25 posted on 02/07/2011 5:18:40 PM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
If it does pass, there will be the problem of judges rejecting and making laws. An outrageous example of a judge running amok is the action of Judge Dean S. Worcester blatantly defying the Virginia Supreme Court merely because he did not like their ruling and is in a frenzy to assist illegal aliens and undesirable immigrants. (See The Washington Post, Feb. 6, 2011)
26 posted on 02/08/2011 7:09:05 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson