PDA

View Full Version : Arizona makes me smile



delhalew
7/6/2010, 11:49 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38489.html

Another policy that needs to be passed at the federal level. Thanks to Arizona for rolling the boulder up the hill with their nose.

tommieharris91
7/6/2010, 12:11 PM
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.

Didn't we discuss this awhile back anyway?

delhalew
7/6/2010, 12:23 PM
Didn't we discuss this awhile back anyway?
It's back. Arizona is preparing to move on it. Even though any finished bill will probably be very fair and possibly legal, I don't see this being a success anywhere but the federal level.
Even so it is reentering the news cycle, because Arizona keeps pushing.

LosAngelesSooner
7/6/2010, 12:28 PM
The boulder is about to roll back over and crush their widdwle white heads. :D

delhalew
7/6/2010, 12:34 PM
The boulder is about to roll back over and crush their widdwle white heads. :D

Maybe. Those in the DOJ responsible for bringing suit against Arizona are the very same folks now being investigated for dismissing a case against Black Panthers with clubs screaming "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!", outside a polling station. Apparently adhering to the policy that no black on white voter intimidation cases will be prosecuted.
So, yes, now is not a great time to be a cracker...or an American for that matter.

OUMallen
7/6/2010, 12:39 PM
IMO- This is one so clearly pre-empted and unconstitutional that it's a waste of AZ taxpayers' money to draft and fight for it. Although I agree with the premise.

Okla-homey
7/6/2010, 12:44 PM
Silly 'Zoners.

There are very few "slam-dunks" in cases involving constitutional law nowadays. However, if a party sued AZ on behalf of a child born in that state to whom AZ refused to issue a birth certificate doumenting its US citizenship by virtue of "Birth in the United States," and cited the Fourteenth Amendment, that would be a slam-dunk.

delhalew
7/6/2010, 12:58 PM
I have to wonder how they expect to get around that. I know they plan on denying only children who have neither parent legal or in the process. I would think it would take an ammendment to accomplish this.
Nonetheless, Arizona is bringing an important issue to the national conversation. For that I commend them.

Frozen Sooner
7/6/2010, 01:12 PM
They're trying to get around it by saying that someone who's born to someone here illegally isn't subject to the jurisdiction of the state or the United States, so the 14th doesn't apply.

Which is patently ridiculous and has been since Pennoyer v. Neff.

MR2-Sooner86
7/6/2010, 01:17 PM
All persons born or naturalized, except illegal Mexicans, 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. Except for the god damn beaners crawling over here. **** them.Didn't we discuss this awhile back anyway?

I don't see a problem with the amendment and think Arizona is in the right.

Okla-homey
7/6/2010, 01:24 PM
I don't see a problem with the amendment and think Arizona is in the right.

All they have to do is to get the legislatures of 33 states to agree. Good luck with that.

delhalew
7/6/2010, 01:36 PM
All they have to do is to get the legislatures of 33 states to agree. Good luck with that.

The more it is discussed, the more states will support it.

Serge Ibaka
7/6/2010, 01:49 PM
It's funny because some of the people pushing this bill are the same people who argue for the absolute authority of the Constitution when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

It's a real shame when the Constitution limits your xenophobia, isn't it?

Harry Beanbag
7/6/2010, 01:56 PM
Which is patently ridiculous and has been since Pennoyer v. Neff.

Is there anything in your life that doesn't revolve around a court case?

OUMallen
7/6/2010, 01:57 PM
It's funny because some of the people pushing this bill are the same people who argue for the absolute authority of the Constitution when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

It's a real shame when the Constitution limits your xenophobia, isn't it?

You have a great point, but I think it's a little hyperbolic to say that everyone that feels that the offspring of illegal immigrants shouldn't be US citizens immediately is a "xenophobe." You're better than that.

Serge Ibaka
7/6/2010, 01:59 PM
You have a great point, but I think it's a little hyperbolic to say that everyone that feels that the offspring of illegal immigrants shouldn't be US citizens immediately is a "xenophobe." You're better than that.

I'm not sure that I am (considering the contradictions of that particular group).

MR2-Sooner86
7/6/2010, 02:02 PM
It's funny because some of the people pushing this bill are the same people who argue for the absolute authority of the Constitution when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

It's a real shame when the Constitution limits your xenophobia, isn't it?

The Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
The Founding Fathers did not put this in the Bill of Rights.

"But the Founding Fathers were racist and had slaves!"

Yeah, and they lived a pretty good life if you ask me :pop:

Harry Beanbag
7/6/2010, 02:03 PM
You have a great point, but I think it's a little hyperbolic to say that everyone that feels that the offspring of illegal immigrants shouldn't be US citizens immediately is a "xenophobe." You're better than that.


What on earth would you base that on?

Serge Ibaka
7/6/2010, 02:05 PM
The Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
The Founding Fathers did not put this in the Bill of Rights.


I suppose you also want to take away the right to vote from non-white people and women?

Let's reinstate Jim Crow, too, while we're at it.

Wait, no. I'm just kidding, and you don't make any sense.

MR2-Sooner86
7/6/2010, 02:11 PM
I suppose you also want to take away the right to vote from non-white people and women?

Let's reinstate Jim Crow, too, while we're at it.

I'm not that radical. I'd prefer slavery just be reinstated.

:pop:

OUMallen
7/6/2010, 02:26 PM
I'm not sure that I am (considering the contradictions of that particular group).

Well, I can prove it to you: I'm not a part of "that group", I am not xenophobic, but I think this is an issue to discuss and that Arizona has an arguably better stance.

SanJoaquinSooner
7/6/2010, 02:36 PM
Didn't we discuss this awhile back anyway?

Sí. Seis páginas:

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142246

GrapevineSooner
7/6/2010, 02:38 PM
Well, I can prove it to you: I'm not a part of "that group", I am not xenophobic, but I think this is an issue to discuss and that Arizona has an arguably better stance.

No you can't.

Some people are going to see xenophobia or bigotry in the positions of those who disagree with them. No matter how hard you try and convince them to the contrary.

;)

Serge Ibaka
7/6/2010, 03:22 PM
Oh bologna.

Read my first post: a lot of the people who favor this "re-working" (or whatever..it's a very obvious violation) of the 14th amendment are the same people who are aggressively in favor of the absolute authority of the 2nd Amendment. This is the "group" that I was suggesting, and I think they're embodied best by this woman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqnjzONrPiA&feature=player_embedded.

Obviously this is a contradiction, but people can sometimes easily justify this contradiction (note an earlier poster's arbitrary distinction between the amendments proposed by our founding fathers and those proposed by later statesmen). And, IMO, an indifference about their contradictions really just betrays their xenophobia.

So no, I wasn't talking about you, OUMallen. I was talking about gun-wielding xenophobes in Southwestern tea-parties.

StoopTroup
7/6/2010, 03:32 PM
Once AZ secedes from the U.S. they will be able to do what ever the hell they want.

Until then...they can cry and point fingers all they want about the Federal Gov't interfering with what they are trying to accomplish. Gov. Brewer and Sheriff Joe are starting to look like a couple of tyrannical out of control elected officials who are surrounded by folks who tell them how great they are everyday for fear of reprisal.

Leroy Lizard
7/6/2010, 03:37 PM
Once AZ secedes from the U.S. they will be able to do what ever the hell they want.

So you would be in favor of allowing AZ to secede?

texaspokieokie
7/6/2010, 04:22 PM
Anchor babies can stay, their parents have to go back to MX.

Peach Fuzz
7/6/2010, 04:35 PM
Why can they not focus on keeping immigrants out, and maybe for the ones here that have good backgrounds have English and American culture classes once or twice a week and make them take a test to have partial citizenship? Wouldn't that be more worth the money? Does it not start at culture? IMO people would be more willing to cooperate.

Serge Ibaka
7/6/2010, 04:55 PM
They can't keep them out--there's too much incentive to come. When they are caught, they're sent back. And then they come again.

Some people will try crossing dozens of times if they need to. Some cross back and forth several times.

"Securing the borders" is a meaningless phrase.

ndpruitt03
7/6/2010, 05:34 PM
They can't keep them out--there's too much incentive to come. When they are caught, they're sent back. And then they come again.

Some people will try crossing dozens of times if they need to. Some cross back and forth several times.

"Securing the borders" is a meaningless phrase.
It's meaningless because we don't really do it and we don't punish both those that hire the illegals and those that come across. We need to do all of those things for it not to be meaningless.

Leroy Lizard
7/6/2010, 06:32 PM
It's meaningless because we don't really do it and we don't punish both those that hire the illegals and those that come across. We need to do all of those things for it not to be meaningless.

Absolutely. The meaningfulness of a law is reflected in your judicial system.

For example, Singapore has a meaningful law against vandalism. They haven't stamped out vandalism in Singapore, but the law is certainly meaningful.

Here, laws against vandalism are meaningless. What's the difference?

Okla-homey
7/6/2010, 06:42 PM
Is there anything in your life that doesn't revolve around a court case?

He's a law student. It's pretty typical actually. When and if he leaves the legal academy, he'll begin to understand case law isn't nearly as important as law perfessers insist.

MR2-Sooner86
7/6/2010, 06:48 PM
Oh bologna.

Read my first post: a lot of the people who favor this "re-working" (or whatever..it's a very obvious violation) of the 14th amendment are the same people who are aggressively in favor of the absolute authority of the 2nd Amendment.

Maybe because people don't like illegals coming here taking advantage of this law, having their kid, and sucking from the welfare tit?

FYI I'm not for rewriting the law. Hand the kid over to DHS and kick the parents out. If they don't like it, tuff ****. They should have come over here legally then if they didn't want their family split apart.


(note an earlier poster's arbitrary distinction between the amendments proposed by our founding fathers and those proposed by later statesmen). And, IMO, an indifference about their contradictions really just betrays their xenophobia.

Pssst I know you're talking about me so you can say my name.


So no, I wasn't talking about you, OUMallen. I was talking about gun-wielding xenophobes in Southwestern tea-parties.

Is that all you got? When you throw out the race card then it's obvious you're not playing with a full deck.

Frozen Sooner
7/6/2010, 06:50 PM
Is there anything in your life that doesn't revolve around a court case?

Yeah, how crazy that I'd bring up a Supreme Court case that clearly lays out that a person inside a jurisdiction is subject to that jurisdiction when someone tries to argue that they aren't.

OUinFLA
7/6/2010, 07:30 PM
So you would be in favor of allowing AZ to secede?


That would certainly mess up the new Pac-10+2

AlbqSooner
7/6/2010, 07:57 PM
Yeah, how crazy that I'd bring up a Supreme Court case that clearly lays out that a person inside a jurisdiction is subject to that jurisdiction when someone tries to argue that they aren't.

So, how does that holding factor in to the DOJ threatening to sue AZ for having the temerity to argue that a person inside their jurisdiction is subject to their jurisdiction, ala SB 1020 or whatever the number is?

Frozen Sooner
7/6/2010, 08:07 PM
So, how does that holding factor in to the DOJ threatening to sue AZ for having the temerity to argue that a person inside their jurisdiction is subject to their jurisdiction, ala SB 1020 or whatever the number is?

Is that the argument the DoJ is making? I haven't read the complaint (and probably won't anytime soon.)

I thought the DoJ's argument is that the Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to legislate on matters of immigration. That's not the same thing as stating that the courts of Arizona don't have personal jurisdiction over someone present in Arizona. Which, of course, you know.

Harry Beanbag
7/6/2010, 08:28 PM
Yeah, how crazy that I'd bring up a Supreme Court case that clearly lays out that a person inside a jurisdiction is subject to that jurisdiction when someone tries to argue that they aren't.


I was just making a general observation. Seems like the only posts you make anymore all contain ______ vs. _______.

bluedogok
7/6/2010, 08:59 PM
I was just making a general observation. Seems like the only posts you make anymore all contain ______ vs. _______.
I see that with pretty much any law student/recent grad on any forum, it seems that most just can't get their mind away from it.

Frozen Sooner
7/6/2010, 09:30 PM
I was just making a general observation. Seems like the only posts you make anymore all contain ______ vs. _______.

Nah. I generally go with the caption of v.

I read the damn things pretty much 60 hours a week right now. Like bluedogok said, it's kind of hard to get out of the mindset of "all legal propositions must be supported by an appropriate case citation."

tommieharris91
7/6/2010, 11:40 PM
Even so it is reentering the news cycle, because Arizona keeps pushing.

Your article is dated 6/14/10 9:10 AM EDT.

OUMallen
7/7/2010, 12:19 PM
I was just making a general observation. Seems like the only posts you make anymore all contain ______ vs. _______.

Who cares anyway; it's helpful when he cites.

delhalew
7/7/2010, 01:10 PM
Your article is dated 6/14/10 9:10 AM EDT.
Christ. On the crackberry, I have trouble with links that aren't cached. You want one dated today...help yourself.
You nitpick because you have nothing else to offer.

Harry Beanbag
7/7/2010, 01:45 PM
Nah. I generally go with the caption of v.

Sorry, I'm just read for football season.




I read the damn things pretty much 60 hours a week right now. Like bluedogok said, it's kind of hard to get out of the mindset of "all legal propositions must be supported by an appropriate case citation."

I understand the school mindset. Maybe I just don't understand why anyone would want to do that to themselves. ;)