It turns out that the Arizona immigration-bashing nativists who enacted SB1070, led by State Sen. Russell Pearce, were just getting started in their campaign to drive out Latino immigrants:
E-mails to and from Ariz.state Sen. Russell Pearce reveal the immigration enforcement debate may not stop with SB 1070, the controversial immigration law.
Pearce, R-Mesa, the author of Arizona’s immigration law, has been writing to some of his constituents about what he plans to accomplish next.
In e-mails obtained by CBS 5 News, Pearce said he intends to push for a bill that would enable Arizona to no longer grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil.
Pearce wrote in one e-mail: "I also intend to push for an Arizona bill that would refuse to accept or issue a birth certificate that recognizes citizenship to those born to illegal aliens, unless one parent is a citizen."
CBS 5 Investigates looked through hundreds of e-mails Pearce had sent to constituents and some of their replies. The e-mails varied from praise to criticism and outlined Pearce’s future plans. Most were about SB 1070, his immigration law.
E-mails from the law’s supporters outnumbered those from critics by seven to one.
One supporter wrote, "I think it is about time we take our state and country back from the Mexicans."
So Pearce went on Bill O'Reilly's show last night to try to explain his thinking. According to Pearce, the 14th Amendment doesn't actually say what it says in in plain language:
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.
O'Reilly, of course, is not much help: He counters Pearce by observing that this is "federal law" -- though that is hardly the half of it, since this particular principle, of birthright citizenship, is embedded in the Constitution and is indeed a proud part of America's heritage as a nation of immigrants.
Pearce wants to claim that this only refers to people with "legal domicile" in the U.S. -- even though the words appear nowhere in the Constitution.
He complains that the concept of "illegal immigration" hadn't been conceived when the 14th Amendment was written -- which is true enough, but irrelevant to whether it remains in force. Indeed, a much stronger argument can be made that the nakedly racist/eugenicist/Nativist Immigration Act of 1924 -- which first created "illegal immigration" -- was grossly unconstitutional because it clearly violated the 14th Amendment.
Moreover, it's irrelevant because the law has always been interpreted to mean that, when a newborn is accorded automatic birthright citizenship based on birth on American soil, its status is generally unaffected by the legal status or citizenship of that individual's mother or father. This was true both before and after 1924.
Indeed, Pearce then rambles over to the 1898 Supreme Court ruling United_States v. Wong Kim Ark and tries to claim that it, too, doesn't actually say what it clearly says -- namely, that
The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction) - and that since none of these conditions applied to Wong's situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act).
Pearce wraps up by claiming we'll never solve the problem of illegal immigration if we don't cut off the great big incentive of having "anchor babies" here.
But this is a sick joke. Surveys of undocumented workers have made indelibly clear that they don't come here to have "anchor babies," or to get our free health care, or any of the other fantasies harbored by nativists: they come here for jobs.
Moreover, there's no serious benefit to be had from having your child be born a citizen -- because under American law, you can be deported anyway, and in fact thousands of parents of American birthright-citizen children are deported every year: 100,000 of them over 10 years, to be precise.
There is an exemption available: After the immigrant parent has been present for no less than ten years, he or she may apply for Cancellation of Removal if he/she can prove ten years of good moral character and establish that deportation would create an exceptional hardship to her citizen child. There is an annual cap of 4,000 on the number of illegal immigrants who can be granted such relief, and for the past several years the government has not even reached that cap.
Pearce is creating a boogeyman that doesn't exist -- just as he did in waving about drug-gang crimes as an "immigration" problem in pushing SB1070.
And this boogeyman is scary brown babies. That takes a special kind of chutzpah.
Stephen Lemons at Phoenix New Times has more.
And Immigration Policy Center has a good rundown on the myths and facts about birthright citizenship. [PDF file]
They'll get away with it.
We've started down the slippery slope, folks.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Fuck, these guys got out and pushed real hard. We're going full tilt.
Homeland, homeland, uber alles ...
I mean started down the slippery slope toward a dissolution of the Union. Don't think it can't happen.
Either the federal government is going to step in and enforce the Constitution, in which case we will have a re-enactment of the 1960s prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act, or we are going to have 50 States all following their own rules, in which case we won't really have a country. It will be a country in the same manner that the USSR was one country.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
n/t
sneaking over a border, dumping a kid, and staying in the USA forever is NOT in the spirit of the founding fathers, or desired by every legal citizen of America. Alien go home and take your illegal children with you!
and yet we still fly. Read the post above; it's called the 14th amendment. It's not just a federal law, it's part of the Constitution. That requires an amendment to the Constitution with 3/4 of the states agreeing to change it, which won't happen. Live with it.
... was to make sure that children born of ex-slaves after the end of the Civil War would be given citizenship. I don't think Congress had "anchor-babies" in mind at the time the 14th amendement was passed.
No that would be the IX amendment, and the basic concept that while the Constitution specifically promises to protect certain rights, it doesn't limit us to those rights only.
You also forgot the step where an amendment has to be passed by 2/3's of both houses of Congress.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
It ain't easy to amend the Constitution and it shouldn't be.
Thank you people who make sense! I know there are more of you out there.
flock together.
me-oww!
constitution, yet they're allowed.
me-oww!
...the "legal domicile" thing comes from a SCOTUS ruling about who qualifies as being "under the jurisdiction" of the US.
But I'm sure no self-respecting conservative will endorse any such *shudder* JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.
we could solve this f#cking problem with
arizona by selling arizona back to mexico
and then let's see what the current gov and
deputy dog/arapahoe would do.
if they try to relocate to the USA, then we
should make them apply for citizenship.
.
Nothing like putting the AZ in NAZI...
... Eh, Arizona?
p.s.
But DO NOT take their gunz.
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
AZ in Nazi!
Good one - made me giggle
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
you can't spell ArIZoNa without NAZI.
how do you compare this law with the NAzi. the law which is not being enforced by the feds is being enforced at the state level. we are not throwing people in ovens. we are saying come here legally pay your taxes and assimilate into our society. we are not blaming illegals for all the ills in this country like the nazis did. to equate the two is asinine.
This is another volatile issue. My 1986 midwife got a lot of training as a resident very fast, in an El Paso hospital at the end of a bridge from Mexico. Women would wait until they were in labor-- at which point no hospital can turn a patient away. The baby is born an American citizen.
Whether this is legal is not the real question (it is.) Whether it should be changed is subject to discussion; simple state laws won't do it. It would have to be part of a Constitutional amendment.
I think Arizona is wasting a lot of time and money trying to legislate changes that WILL be challenged in court.
"Courtesy is owed. Respect is earned. Love is given." --Unknown author, found in Guide to Texas Etiquette by Kinky Friedman
... because the argument will inevitably go back several generations when it suits the racists' views of a nice, white, America.
You came on a boat, you're out ...
(I am kidding .. for the record, and of mixed heritage genetically - so no sending my left leg back to Europe without the rest of me!).
You know, I think we used to welcome immigrants. This nativist crap makes us look bad.
Besides, as far as Texas is concerned, the Constitution was perfect as it was created... to hell with that pesky "bill of rights" along with the 14th amendment ...
Glad I don't live anywhere near there.
Dear State Sen. Russell Pearce,
I would have a illegal immigrant in my home for dinner long before you would ever get an invite to the table.
Please go somewhere and die, post haste.
-Ax
Get packin' Mrs Malkin. It's back to the Philippines with you.
The upside.
me-oww!
"Papers Please. No? Onto the boat with you."
NOBODY 2012
More people feel this way than you would like. I work in an office with 4 women. One commented about this, saying "I don't think it's FAIR that they get US citizenship just by being BORN here!"
I replied, "Really? How did you get YOUR citizenship? Did you slay a dragon? Build a pyramid? Clean the stables at Thebes? Unless your name is Sitting Bull or Cochise, EVERYBODY at some point in their family tree got their citizenship by virtue of being born here."
Unless they are naturalized, and we know how the right-wingers feel about THEM.
we have to remember the native americans didn't have any laws against immigration.
They were ignored.
they didn't have any laws in writing.
The real Americans forgot to deed the land to themselves so . . .
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
fixed that and put things in writing. Still got ignored.
Well, they would have lost in our courts anyway.
Some loophole like the paperwork wasn't notarized properly or some such thing.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
had our own lawyers, and might have won.
Internal treachery struck! We killed the traitors in retaliation but the damage was done.
//it really was quite the sordid story ...
Depends on where they came from before they were naturalized, doesn't it? Cubans who escape the Castro regime are good, Haitians who try to escape crushing poverty are bad- from a Republican's perspective, that is.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
There are a lot of racist, ignorant people I know who probably don't "deserve" to be here in that sense, or even appreciate this place as much as some of the people who try like hell to become citizens, but in the end become "illegals" because our system is woefully inadequate to the task of naturalizing people at the rate that it needs to be...
Most of us are immigrants, the majority of the rest got to live on reservations.
of freed slaves
i dont believe that the authors ever thought it would be misused the way it is today
deport michelle malkin
And if that doesn't push the "brown people" out how far back does Pearce want to go? What about your grandparents? Great grandparents? What do you wanna bet that somewhere in Pearce's family history someone walked over the border -- illegally.
I really do hope someone from one of the Southwest Indian nations gets in a debate with Pearce and says, "Okay, everybody out."
(Am coming around to the idea that a sense of irony is genetic. Because these guys certainly don't have one.)
All of my great-grandparents were illegals. Every stinking one. I heard the story told when I was a kid - about how they booked "tourist" tickets and wore 3 layers of clothing because tourists were only allowed one suitcase each and they needed that space for family heirlooms that could fit in a small bag. They came in through east coast ports and immediately headed to the midwest, where they were still giving small plots of farmland away if you homesteaded. No immigration questions asked.
They weren't brown (all Bavarians), but how could you stop with brown people? According to these idiots my grandparents weren't citizens so my parents aren't and I'm screwed. Idiots.
strict constructionists.
Yup, back when the best black man was only 3/5ths human. . .
(/snark)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
It must be soooo damn embarrassing to be hired to be a stupid Reslug on Fux Noise.
....flood the state with every liberal, progressive and every flavor of minority, so that the conservative/bigot vote becomes such a small minority that they couldn't even win a slot for local dog catcher, even with 100% turnout.
Cancervatives are strict Constitutionalists, except when the Constitution goes against their racism, bigotry or greed, which is most of the time.
And what happened to smaller government and keeping government out of their business?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
again, they only care about that stuff when it doesn't work in their favor.
"they only care about that stuff when . . ."
They can't complain about a man of color in the white house.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Boy, these GOPers are really out to get the Latinos. I have not seen anything like this since the sixties against African Americans.
THEY WOULD OPEN THE BOARDER AND DRIVE THEM ACROSS BY THE BUS LOAD!! The Hispanic vote tends to be Democratic as John Tanton says they are going to breed whites into the minority!
here in Arizona. Strongly religious, anti-abortion, yet they are being forced away from the Republican party in droves. I wonder: are the parents of new babies going to be asked to prove their citizenship before delivery?
Are they only going to ask Latino parents? (No racial or ethnic profiling there).
I just saw him on Fox again and he was referring to the babies as anchor babies. Shep said he thought that was a harsh term to use and the guy said you can them anything you want to, call them jack pot babies if you like.
He seems like a mean old cuss.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
illegal immigrants. They (many, most) welcomed them, because people were usually in short supply. Often raids were expressly intended to capture children. Most nations were quite flexible about membership, so long as a contribution was made and harmony within the culture was maintained.
I saw Dances with Wolves.
Ice9
Wait a minute, what if the anchor baby can show his or her long form birth certificate?
Maybe that only applies to the next generation born here or their children or their childrens children?
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
why was this deleted?
I was just looking for a "luggage handler"
lololol
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
does it make any reference to individuals having the right to personally own guns. that doesn't seem to be an impediment to the NRA.
i just kind of hope, when this guy's head finally explodes, it's caught on tape, so it can be put on youtube.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", if you want to argue that the people does not include the individual, please give up your 1st and 4th amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Along with any that fall under the 9th and 10th.
are corporations?
Arms does not specify guns, to keep and bear could be issued weapons, and there's also no mention that one should be able to conceal them.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So although it's clear that the Ist and IV amendments are directed to the people, as in individual, the inclusion of the former term conditions the latter term in the IInd amendment, and when one considers this was soon after the Shays' rebellion, that nearly took over Massachusetts one can see that the writers were not advocating self-identified "militias" having any special rights.
In fact, when a smaller revolt broke later, the Whiskey Rebellion, President Washington personally led the troops into battle against them...
And what does this have to do with the XIV amendment?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
it specifies arms. What is the definition of arms? Does it include guns?
And who was the militia at the time? And are you serious about issued? Unless you mean that arms include the type of weapons that are normally issued. If you are saying that it means only weapons that are issued, why would they need an amendment for that?
And I don't believe that the term militia sets a condition but explains the reasoning behind the 2nd. Yes the Shays and the Whiskey rebellions were fresh in their mind, so was the rebellion against the British crown.
Also see the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, which explains the intent behind them. Which is to further restrict government.
And what does this have to do with the 14th? Nothing really, but I'm not the one who brought it up.
If you want to get all super-technical, read it again. cpinva states that the second amendment does not reference individual ownership. Where in this sentence do you see the worn "own":
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Is says the people can keep arms, and bear them, but does not specify that ownership is a right. And of course there's the issue of whether "the people" was intended as a collective reference.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for personal ownership. Gotta defend ourselves against the wingnuts somehow. It's just not clearly specified in the Amendment.
Side note: as far as I know, there is no provision in the Constitution for waiving your rights. You have them whether you want them or not.
Trying to be respectful here, but it's hard to believe no one's offering solutions to the problem of a large number of immigrants in the US today, my issue is with the ones here illegally. Issues like safety in border states, economics for citizens who have been here for years (including many immigrants) who can't find jobs at the lower end of the scale (I'm one of them). Name-calling is not getting us anywhere, in fact ignores the real issues that need fixing.
if we didn't have employers willing to hire illegal immigrants your problem wouldn't be so bad. Why aren't they arresting the employers that are breaking the law?
Campaign contributions from the hirers, who want to keep wages and benefits artificially low, and keep unions as powerless as possible, because they might oppose such things as outsourcing and right-sizing...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
all those illegal immigrants who came over here from Europe should go back where they came from.
there, problem solved.
There was no immigration law to break.
Immigration laws only appeared starting around 1900, due to the desire to control the spread of disease, like Typhoid Mary may've caused...
And to logically extend your argument you're suggesting it would be a smart idea to let everyone in without restriction so we can all end up like the Amerindians, which when last I checked wasn't too good.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
... that Pearce is interpreting the Constitution and the 14th Amendment to suit his whims of who should and should not be allowed into this country, or granted citizenship on the basis of birth.
Also, do your bloody homework. Go look up the Chinese Exclusion Act, a law that remained on the books for nearly 60 years, to protect us against the heathen Chinese. They were going to come and take our jobs, spread filth and disease and their foreign ways, corrupt our children, bring crime to our cities ... sound familiar?
There's no reason we should be regressing to this kind of legislation.
"anchor babies"?
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
Sounds cute.
@ron: Yes, the employers are being greedy, getting something cheap (labor) and depressing wages, they should be gone after. There is law that's supposed to address that. The Feds dropped the ball. Also, the punishment for them is not great enough, they just go out and have a third party do the hiring. However, they are illegally here, so they so need to be dealt with somehow.
@Pete Seattle: it's not the same country anymore, the numbers are geometrically larger, and is a large strain on the existing infrastructure. Again, they are taking jobs that "Americans" (whatever that means to you) would do, as well as those they wouldn't do.
@Shadowgm: I don't agree with Pearce, sorry you thought I did. However, this legislation is hardly new. It strengthens the federal law. For years, you and I (regardless of race) can be pulled over for something illegal (small or large) and asked for documents we should have anyway. For me it's a driver's license and proof of insurance, for immigrants, it's their "papers" that they've needed to have for decades anyway. There's a huge problem in Arizona, I would think everyone would be open to showing papers-except the ones that have something to hide.
@Annaleigh: while the term anchor baby is crass, the situation and sarcastic term is created because of the situation of people who want to come here and just have a better life. So, they get jobs, start families, and create a future. Unfortunately, they have a secret that they live with every day-they came here and are here illegally, and they know it. So, they created a false hope for them and their children, knowing that legally, they can be deported any day. But since they now have a baby who is a citizen, it pulls on our heartstrings, and rightly so.
But, again, they knew what they were doing, and how it would affect people's opinions about them, so it is a bit disingenuous, in my opinion. I don't think they do all this in a mean way, but they still do it, and it shows a lack of integrity or at least desperation (no matter how much integrity they have in the rest of their character).
"For me it's a driver's license and proof of insurance, for immigrants, it's their "papers" that they've needed to have for decades anyway. There's a huge problem in Arizona, I would think everyone would be open to showing papers-except the ones that have something to hide."
How do you tell an immigrant, legal or illegal, without demanding papers? Arizona is 30% Hispanic. Eighty percent of those Hispanics are legal/natural citizens. The only reason they will be stopped is because they are Hispanic looking. Hispanic looking citizens are not required to have "papers". I (white, 60+) do not have "papers". I would object to being stopped on the street and asked for "papers" as I am sure that our Hispanic citizens would object, too.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This a bedrock amendment to the Constitution, and why SB1070 will be rejected. We're not talking about just checking illegals; we're talking about stopping US citizens on the streets and asking for "papers".
these children their rights under the 14th amendment, which he cannot legally do.
Be careful what you support, it could be your constitutional rights on the chopping block next.
Arizona is letting their blind hate lead them to a place they won't enjoy being at.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
"it's not the same country anymore"
what a weak ass argument.
Yes, there is an illegal immigration problem. The problem is, they're making us look bad. They risk imprisonment or even death to cross the border into a foreign land where they don't speak the same language as most folks. They work untold hours at shitty jobs that nobody else wants and get paid a pittance for doing so. And on top of that they generally seem to love the U.S. and what this country supposedly stands for. Many of the migrant workers I've seen around here drive American-made trucks prominently decorated with American flags. And it comes across as a lot more genuine than the "I-slapped-a-Support-Our-Troops-magnet-on-my-SUV-so-I'm-a-patriot" crowd. To me that makes them more American than a lot of the whiners who are complaining about them.
is the puposely vague language that in many instances provide flexibility of interpretation with changes in cultural values and technological discoveries. This is not one of those cases.
When the constitution was written, white people were the illegal immigrants. Kept it up for another 100 years until they pretty much wiped out the folks who were here first. People like Pearce make me sick.
Arizona needs to rename their GOP to the REPUBLICLAN Party. These people in Az are trying to bring their hatespeak into the mainstream disscussion of American Politics. We need to get Kobach, Pearce, Sam Francis, Gordon Baum and Tancredo give them their white sheets and call them what they are Klansmen!
... RepubliKLAN Party.
Maybe Pearce is a Anchor-Baby! How long has Pearce's family been here in this country and did they come here legally to begin with?
Some guys in FLA have a solution for you! (Satire)
Spanish page is down, hmm. And replaced with:
http://www.gringomask.com/index.html
Google still has cache of it though.
they aren't motivated by racism, especially with the filthy language used by Russell Pearce?
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
I live in Mesa, AZ, and Pearce in MY state Senator. Mesa is heavily Republican, and an extremely safe district even for a racist like Pearce. All Arizonans are not like Pearce, even many who might agree with him on some things. We, like many other states, have our embarrassments in office that we can't get rid of. Unfortunately, Russell Pearce is one of them, but even his misogynist rants won't change the fact that it takes 3/4 of the states to amend the Constitution.
The vast majority of the U.S. population is in favor of legal immigration not the illegal type. This makes perfect sense and the problem Arizona is trying to deal with is illegal immigration. The laws already exist and are clear in this regard. Arizona and a few other states are being overrun by illegal immigrants and if the ultra liberals can't understand that it is for illogical reasons.
that allows me to kick Rooti Nyack outof the country. He/she sounds foreign to me.
people concerned about upholding the Constitution, beyond the 2nd amendment, and people who are concerned about the humane treatment of other people, unlike you and your gang.
Michelle Malkin is an anchor baby. She wasn't born in AZ...
me-oww!
overstepping it's legal boundaries...
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
Define "overrun."
I don't even know where to start...
FWIW, last night the local media here ran a story on the proposed "no teachers with accents" stupidity. They featured an ESL teacher from Brazil who was "audited" by the state. In the middle of her class, without any forewarning, an official showed up to observe her teach. Rightfully so, the teacher was deeply offended and felt that it was a matter of the state not honoring its legally binding finding that she was qualified to teach (per the certification that she received from the very same AZ Dept of Edu that is now scrutinizing her). The story also had Tom Horne (BASTARD!) making all of his spurious/uninformed claims about "accents" and "accent-less" language. I swear to god, he is probably the best example that I've ever seen of a person most needing to take a linguistics course and to really learn about language and "accents"/dialects...
The people and politicians in charge of this state are just so stupid I don't think they deserve to live. I'm stuck here, for now, because I am the caregiver to my 83 y/o grandmother and even though I have a lot of extended family here, it's on me to help my grandmother out. I'll tell you what, though... the first chance I get (provided I've finished my Master's), my ass is going to interview for ESL positions overseas (preferably for the J.E.T. Programme in Japan) and I'm saying goodbye to this place for good. I love the natural beauty here and some of the people are great, but this kind of shit is way more than a few bad apples and they definitely have ruined the whole barrel.
Security increased for PHX Mayor (who publicly oppose SB1070) b/c he's receiving loads of death threats...
and HERE's a link about the teacher from Brazil
to discuss the "no teachers w/ accents" madness. Predictably enough, Horne was a moron and said all kinds of stupid shit that made me want to throw stuff at my T.V. set. I will have to write a long, rambling comment about it sometime to release the demons... But, I guess all of your mouse wheels are safe from excessive quick-scrolling... for now. Well, excepting LANative's quite successful trolling. Don't feed the troll, children. It only encourages them...
Ugh!...talking to myself is stupid. Nvm. =/
this has been loads of fun. Talk about someone bringing a knife to a gun fight. Easiest creepy racist I pissed off in awhile. Except for the one the other day...
:)
me-oww!
.
and record everyone's name who vote in favor of it.
Therefore, a good record of total imbeciles can be forever ridiculed for even taking such an idiotic position.
Question from reporter:
"Why did you vote Yes on that rascist legislation?"
"Why did you spend millions of taxpayer dollars defending this legislation in court after court, appeal after appeal, only to be flatly repudiated at every legal point?"
My real favorites to ask local Arizonans are:
"Do you believe the Apache and Navajo indians are US Citizens?"
"Who was in Arizona first? The white settlers or the native indians?"
The fat white guys that are calling themselves natives, has to be upsetting the real Native Americans. I would think that all the American Indians and Native American Hispanics have to be wondering how they inherited all these fat white guys of European Descent.
Nativist is a political term, nothing more, nothing less.
To the early Anasazi, Mogollon, Hohokam (and arguably Sinagua and Patayan) tribes, Navajos and Apaches were actually considered "outsiders"/interlopers who were encroaching upon long established "ancestral lands." Of course, once the Navajos and Apaches were established in their own right, again the various tribes were forced to deal with "invaders/interlopers" as the early Spanish missionaries and explorers settled the region.
Once Spanish influenced declined (in large part because of the "Apache Wars" and Spain's economic/military decline), Mexican power became more prominent and the Southwest was under the loose jurisdiction of Mexican governance (primarily from a governor in Santa Fe, New Mexico -- though Tucson and Tubac were governed locally by local patrons and businessmen).
Of course, the Mexican-American war and its companion treaty/land grab (aka: The Gadsen Purchase) saw the annexation of much of the southwestern U.S. in the name of "manifest destiny" and the like. Then, of course, American Indians and Mexicans who had either recently migrated to the area (or had been living there for multiple generations) were now faced with an influx of Anglo interlopers/invaders.
My whole point is, be it ancient tribes long here since 15,000 b.c.e. or more "modern" tribes feeling that the Spanish missionaries/explorers were going to far, this area has a looooooong history of those who feel they are "native" being "displaced" by newcomers.
I will grant that many of the "Mexican Americans" whom I am friends with/work with/went to school with/etc. are from families that have lived in this area for many more generations than my family has. But, we should also bear in mind that even among the "real Native Americans" there was a feeling of "nativist" vs. "outsider" at one time.
I just say this because I think the whole mentality that "I was here first" sets us up for such strife and inherent oppression. When we use "being first" as grounds for rightful possession, those who have clearly stolen and are late comers (i.e., whites) are going to use every brutal method and manner possible to prevent the next group from taking over.
The reality is that the most healthy, adaptable cultures still exist today even after their subjugation (even when the newcomers tried to exterminate them and actively pursued policies of genocide against them). But, throughout history, if you look at cultures that refuse to change or yield... that will do whatever possible to prevent the next wave of people from "stealing what is ours by birthright" (even at the expense of civil liberties)... those cultures perish and disappear. Well, maybe not totally disappear, but they are lost to their descendants and only fragments remain...
My main point is we must stop thinking of this issue as one of "birthrights" and who was here first. Those are important considerations, undoubtedly, but they don't solve the problem (history has shown change is INEVITABLE). In light of this, we have to talk more about how to make the change orderly, sensible and work well for those living through the transition. SB1070, teachers w/out accents, stripping application of the 14th amendment from "anchor babies" -- none of these are sensible or reasonable ways to address the change that is happening throughout our nation (not just border states!).
The U.S. is in denial about what is really happening vis a vis immigration. If we don't wake up and find real world workable solutions, we'll simply fade away like the Anasazi or Hohokam... leaving behind little more than great building projects, canals, settlements and an "unsolved" mystery about our demise for those who come after us (if humans last that long, that is...)
Birthrights and "real" natives nonsense is not the issue. Economic disparity and reactive (not proactive) government agencies/policies/etc. is what is strangling our nation. If we can't learn to just embrace change and stop worrying so much about possession meaning 9/10th's of the law, then the idealism of what the U.S. supposedly stands for will be lost in the wind forever...
The fact is these neo nazis and white power advocates do not want brown skinned people in this country- thats what it boils down to.
The solution is to treat Arizona like a pariah- don't do any buisness with anyone or anything connected to that sh*thole state in any way shape or form.
My grandparents were 'undocumented' immigrants from Ireland and Canada. Does that mean that my mother and father are not really American, even though they were born here?
I and my friends and most people I see who agree with the law are not racists or nazis. There are some nuts who agree with this law for their reasons, but that doesn't mean the law is wrong. It's already law that immigrants should have documentation anyway. The problem is economic and safety issues.
If there were white people coming over the border in droves, I would feel the same and you would have no argument. There are just too many coming over, and it's unsustainable.
is a little thing I like to call the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. Be it 'too many' people of any ethnicity.
Being brown (the target of this shite piece of legislation) is NOT probable cause. And it invites officers to make shit up to hassle brown people. Black people know ALL about it.
me-oww!
I think the XIV amendment has been long misinterpreted by the courts, although what the court did is precedent, much like Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886).
When placed into the historical context not only was it clear that it was primarily for the newly freed slaves, an industry that brought that bought and sold them legally, but not morally
It was also clear that the kicker was that the American Indians were NOT considered American Citizens, despite their being born here, but a nation within a nation.
Essentially it's using one part of the Constitution to overthrow another part of the Constitution, where in Article I, Sec 8 Congress has the sole power to determine uniform naturalization laws.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
There is citizenship in the United States of America. not in the State of Arizona. What part of the Constitution of the United States of America doesn't this guy understand.
It's in violation of Article I, Sec 8, cl 4 and Article VI.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Have you been in a public school in Los Angeles lately? Let me draw you a picture. More than half the students do not speak passable English. Their presence dumbs down the entire educational system, and then people like my husband and I have to take whatever discretionary income we have to send our children to private schools so they have some hope of getting a decent education.
Fewer illegals breeding like friggin' rabbits in CA and AZ and we might have better public schools and public health here. Instead the illegals keep racing over the borders and dropping their litters so my property taxes can pay for their kids to get an education and get a checkup while I work two jobs to pay my insurance premiums and two kids' tuition.
Maybe I'd let them over the border if they promised to take birth control.
.
...got a little "colorful" near the end of that rant.
I have to defend you right to express your ignorant opinion. You make me sick, let me guess your a "Christian" as well. A we are talking about people, people do not have litters. I have 2 kids in Catholic schools one in Catholic High School one in Catholic Middle school. I have to put them in Catholic because the idiots on the public school boards, where I am from, thought it best to push fricken intelligent design(I have to send my kids to a Catholic school so they can learn evolution, GO FIGURE!!!) Every study shows workers improve IMPROVE the local economies of the areas they settle in. You have been listening to too much O'riley and Beck and their falsified facts on illegals and criminal activity. IF YOU WANT TO STOP ILLEGAL WORKERS FROM COMING TO OUR COUNTRY PROSECUTE THE EMPLOYERS WHO HIRE THEM!!!
Oh wait, you can't be because then you wouldn't be posting this RACIST BULLSHIT of yours! ;)
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
Isn't Chumash a homey of Cthulhu?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
:D
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/538...
http://www.chabad.org/kids/article_cdo/aid/52...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
:)
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
CA education. And the greedy rich conservative fuckers in the state.
Look, if you didn't have all these "illegals breeding like friggin' rabbits," you'd have to put the blame where it belongs: on ignorant people like you who don't want to pay property taxes anymore but want to be back up at number 1 in education in the country (where CA was pre-Reagan and Prop 13, not 49th, where you are now), who let rich people have a free ride, Ronald Reagan and Prop 13.
So be happy. You can retain your über nativist racism and exceptionalism with all these "illegals breeding like friggin' rabbits" hanging around. Because once THEY'RE gone, you'll find it's down to you, and heavens!!! We couldn't have a bit of reality slip in there, now could we?
me-oww!
weren't here, he or she would have to embrace that personal responsibility thingie that conservatives love to push on others but don't have the balls to stand behind themselves.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
people like LA'Native' would have to find a whole new scapegoat.
me-oww!
Obviously none of you live in the Southwest. The illegals aren't invading Ohio or Nebraska or Oregon or wherever the heck you all live. And if they were-- coming in and putting a strain on your social services like they do out here-- I GUARANTEE you'd be singing a different tune.
Also, I'm not a Christian. Agnostic here. Also pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-health care reform and lots of other things you guys agree with. Wanna know something else? My parents were immigrants and so were my husband's-- they just did it LEGALLY. It wasn't easy for them. It shouldn't be--that's something the Latinos just can't get their heads around. They think they can show up, have kids, and since those kids are now "citizens," they get all the benefits. And I'm punished for it every single day. I pay my taxes and gladly. I'd just like THE LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS in my city, county, and state to see those benefits we pay for, not a criminal sub-section of the population.
You all conveniently forget that. We're taking about CRIMINALS here. Illegal immigrants are criminals, any way you slice it, people.
No, they're not "CRIMINALS", honey. At worst, they've committed a civil infraction. Now go back to polishing your jackboots, Elsa.
specifically and I'm much closer to the issue than you foolishly assume.
Also, the term "Latinos" applies to everyone from immigrants to those whose families have been here for many generations, not just in the immigrant sense of the term which you seem to think it is.
Wow, I'm amazed we're even bothering with you, today is just not your day for being strong on the facts, I guess.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
La Native (that's got a nice Spanish ring to it), obviously you've never been outside the southwest. Ever been to Minnesota, or any of the other states you mentioned? Who do you think does the manual field work in the Midwest? Next time you grab a can of green beans off the grocery shelf, think about who pulled the weeds out of those bean fields.
possibly understand, but one of the Lakota leaders of the American Indian Movement, John Trudell, a Nebraska Lakota, had, wait for it...a Mexican mother!
And don't even get me started on the generations of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who've called Chicago home.
But we're dealing with someone who's weak on the facts, knows nothing about the history of the community she maligns, only that she's scared they'll make her a minority (whining about birthrates gives it away every time) and that they've "victimized" her.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
...and I'll show you a unicorn.
with only one child, and a few childless couples in the neighborhood as well.
Racist stereotyping is for LOSERS.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
First of all, what does the number of kids in a family have to do with ANYTHING?
Secondly, you must have a real problem with pretty much every Catholic family, right? Or are the white ones OK?
...for several years. I've also lived in New York, Nevada, Melbourne, Australia, and London in addition to Los Angeles. The midwest's illegal alien problems are absolutely NOTHING compared to CA, AZ, or southern Nevada. Get real. Your public schools still have English-speaking students for Christ's sake.
...some of the 12.5% of my state's population that is unemployed could get jobs. People love to say that illegals take the jobs legals won't but we all know times have changed. I know college graduates applying to work at Sav-On.
But let's be real here for a minute. We all know illegal immigration will never get fixed. The illegals are far too important a voting bloc for either side to let go of. So they pander to them instead.
"illegal" voting bloc, but I'm sure people here illegally and U.S. citizen Hispanics like myself are one in the same to idiot racists like you. *rolling eyes*
(And then Repugs wonder why they are losing the *Hispanic* voting bloc and would lose the "illegal voting bloc" too if it fucking existed to begin with!
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
The GOP wants to give the illegals amnesty so they WILL vote for them. Whatever side gives them amnesty wins the votes. Guess I should have clarified and called it the "formerly illegal" voting bloc. Apologies.
that takes loads of time and costs hundreds of dollars.
Fail.
me-oww!
They can't afford the fees? THAT'S the real reason???? OMG you people will say anything to apologize for them, won't you.
Bwhahahahah.
Now THAT's a FAIL.
and yeah, the costs can be astronomical for someone making a subsistence wage.
And I'm not apologising for anyone, reread. I was saying the whole amnesty 'plan' you think someone has in mind is not a quick vote getter.
so double fail. and try to come up with your own material.
me-oww!
I'm not. And you're not the same in my eyes. You went through the process. You obeyed the law. If anything you should be pissed at the illegals too for making worse people than me group all Hispanics together in the manner you speak of!
I do, however, have a problem with legal Hispanics (like yourself) excusing and even encouraging the behavior of those who do break the law. Be an example to them-- you did it legally, so can others.
go ahead and deny it, but the way you merely describe other human beings that don't meet up to your OC standards makes it so.
Deny all you want, but it won't undo how you speak about people who are less fortunate and less white than you are.
me-oww!
I worked my ass off for everything I have. I'm not white, and I live a long long way from the O.C. Look who's stereotyping now. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I'm going to believe something a racist stranger tells me on the internet. Um not, in case you missed the sarcasm
PS. non whites can be racist too. and the OC crack was to do with the high and mighty horse you rode in on.
me-oww!
at all to be here, I was born here. ;) And my mother was born here, and her parents were born here, and their parents were born here, and on and on. The Trevinos were in Texas by the 1820's, and the Marichalars here by the 1830's, and the Rodriguezes were relative newcomers arriving by the 1880's. Who's the immigrant again? Because it's not me, and again you show ignorance about the Latino community!
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
Kinda bruises someone's preconceived notions, don't it?
:)
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
yesterday! :)
It's mind-numbing. :S
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
super mega condescending too.
me-oww!
Just another reminder that the descendants of very recent immigrants are often some of the worst xenophobes...
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
Literally.
:P
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
is that Euros came in, killed off most of the indigenous people, marginalised and stole from the survivors, have broken every contract with them, and now have set themselves up as the gatekeepers of the country they stole.
me-oww!
...in this "stolen" country. And that you believe in the Constitution that these "Euros" wrote. I'm starting to just think you're the racist here.
It's a simple question and I'd love to hear your answer.
...that you were a legal immigrant. Sorry I misunderstood. But I still don't understand why you support people breaking the law. Is that what the Latino community stands for?
...the AZ law is based, with it's "reasonable suspicion" clause that any idiot cop who, like you, thinks that coming from the latino gene pool makes one an immigrant, legal or not.
For fuck's sake, it's a law designed not to catch illegal immigrants, but to harass and intimidate legal US citizens. It was written by a fucking GOP operative who wrote voter caging laws in, iirc, Kansas.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it
me-oww!
she'd still consider every Latino an immigrant. *sigh*
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
Not to mention a lot of the people crossing have a lot Native American/First Nations blood in their veins and are indigenous to the area.
And the AZ cops would do the same. Every Latino a possible 'illegal.'
me-oww!
And prove that you ARE legal!
If I got stopped and was asked to see my driver's license, I wouldn't give a crap. I don't have a white face, but I'm also not breaking any laws. It's the ones breaking the laws and all their former countrymen (whether centuries ago or days ago) that constantly apologize for their criminal acts who are scared.
If you are a legal citizen, you have nothing to worry about. So have your papers or get the hell out of my country! I don't care if you're Mexican, Swedish, Chinese, African or from freaking Mars. YOU'RE BREAKING THE LAW AND YOU KNOW IT. And apparently, you have a whole message board of bleeding heart apologists here who will help you keep on breaking it in the name of "Latino solidarity" or whatever they want to call it.
Here's the bottom line. The VAST majority of illegals are Hispanic. I think what they're doing is wrong and it should be stopped. Therefore, according to you, I'm a racist. But if the illegals were Canadian and white and still having 5 kids apiece and sapping all the social services along that OTHER border, my position would be the same. Am I still a racist? Or just someone who wishes people respected the laws of this country.
Apparently none of you do.
Do you think that this law in Arizona only applies to drivers? Or to people who are old enough to drive?
The cops there could question a six-year-old US citizen, who they could bring in for not having proof of citizenship on her. All the cop would need to stop the kid is "reasonable suspicion". What's "reasonable suspicion" when you're talking about illegal immigration? Beady eyes?
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
she does not comprehend
me-oww!
Comments are closed on this entry