Let your words speak for themselves. ;)

I know that the outcome of such a law is discriminatory and will differentially impact racial and ethnic minorities and those of lower socioeconomic status.

I agree with not allowing birth certificates to children born to illegal immigrant in an attempt to make a statement regarding illegal immigration. America has immigration laws and immigration has a number of socioeconomic correlates that are said to have both negative effects and positive effects (*cough cough* bullshit *cough cough*) on society. We can't say we have immigration laws and then send mixed messages by having incentives in favor of illegal immigration (i.e. capitalists who take advantage of the labor of illegal immigrants).

I agree. The best way to cut down on illegal immigration is to crack down on those taking advantage of the immigrants.

People's deeds usually trickle down to their offspring. Poor parents have poor children who are brought up in poor school systems where there are very few safety nets to direct them toward a successful future. Rich and/or wealthy parents have children who reap the benefits. The cycle of poverty and wealth (generational poverty and wealth) go on and on.

Thus, birthright and naturalized citizens of America are often not "saved" from the circumstances of their birthright and naturalized citizen parents. Should illegal immigrants' children be "saved?" I don't think so.

This is just an instance where children are not just impacted socioeconomically but also on the basis of receiving birth and citizenship documentation. This law will probably not go over well but it is most likely an attempt to make a statement and garner attention to the serious nature of this. It is likely not going to scare illegal immigrants shitless but instead going to bring attention to the morons who are taking advantage of illegal immigrants.

"Come to America where we will take advantage of your low wage labor, offer you social welfare programs, and then complain that you're being smart and taking advantage of these services. We know that whatever you encounter here is better than what's going on in your shitty homeland."

I don't agree with making laws just to make a point. It creates fear, mistrust of authority and is an abuse of power, IMO. This law is unconstitutional, has pretty much been said to be so by everyone but the most avid supporters of it, and it's not going to stick, so stop threatening to put it out there.

And it shouldn't. Think of the exceptional cases that would be created, legal visitors or permanent residents who have their visa revoked, overstayed it, or otherwise broke the rules - maybe by working on a student visa - could/should their children's citizenship status be revoked as well?

Hell I'd rather GIVE citizenship to the near adults who were 4 years old when they came here, had no choice in the matter, and continued to not have a choice but go back to a country that they don't know. Until it takes less than 15-20 years to bring your family to the US from Latin America, and until we ditch the low quotas for that region, we're not going to solve the problem, and quite frankly it's racist and classist.

Although this can't be proven, I believe that most (and perhaps all) laws were introduced, supported, and/or passed to make a point and further some cause. It's simply a matter of whether people believe in the conflict approach or the consensus approach to laws in terms of whose points and causes are being furthered.

As I said passing it just to make a point, is inappropriate. The law cannot hold up in court.

It got people to talk about it and that may be the point. Whether it is unconstitutional and will hold up in court may've never been the goal.

I am fully aware that it is their point.

I find passing or trying to pass a law "just to get people to talk about it" to be wrong, an abuse of power, and in this case likely to inspire fear and increased mistrust of authority.

I really don't care if there are some incredibly earnest people who think that this is the best thing since sliced bread. Anchor babies aren't the problem here.

Nothing Earth shattering here, Jus Soli is outdated. It's my understanding that most first world countries that still recognize Jus Soli have modified the law specifically to state that the parents must be legal residents for their child to be a citizen.

Drolefille- If the primary non immigrant Visa holder gets deported, his dependents get deported as well, unless they have their own immigrant status and aren't present in the U.S due to the primary's status.

I think that amnesty isn't going to come cheap this time around, so laws like this popping up doesn't surprise me one bit. I think we are eventually going to have another amnesty, but we are going to see some very strict laws to go with them.

I disagree, I think it's part of what makes us a nation built of immigrants. I have friends whose parents were from Korea and who would not be US citizens today without the right of citizenship by being born here.

If the dependents were born here and are US citizens and it is found that the visa holder violated his visa at some point before the kids were born, do you revoke the child's citizenship?

As long as it is essentially impossible to immigrate here legally from a Spanish speaking country (that is, it takes an incredibly long time and the citizenship process costs thousands upon thousands of dollars) we will have this problem, laws or not. All that happens is you drive it further underground and put people in increasingly dangerous situations.

Regardless, the only way to change the constitution is an amendment, this law in Arizona will not do it and trying to pass this law on top of the also flawed "prove your citizenship" law smacks more of "oh noes the brown people" than anything else.

In a perfect world, yes. Citizenship by fraud is way too common but because of Jus Solis anyone born here is a citizen and cannot be deported.

[/QUOTE] long as it is essentially impossible to immigrate here legally from a Spanish speaking country (that is, it takes an incredibly long time and the citizenship process costs thousands upon thousands of dollars)
[/QUOTE]
It's no more difficult for an Asian to immigrate here than it is for a South American. Yes, it does cost money to immigrate but we don't charge certain ethnicities more than others. I'd actually say Mexicans have the advantage over others when it comes to immigration because they can just say hell to the Visas and inspections and sneak over.

Actually that is definitely NOT true. I don't know about South Americans, but it is very difficult for Mexicans to immigrate here legally, which is why they chose to cross illegally.

Why should they wait 5-10 years (if they are lucky) to get a Visa, when they can just hop the fence? If the US wants to really calm the influx of immigrants, then maybe they should start assisting with the Visa process, instead of letting the corrupt Mexican government handle it.

Not exactly true, a lot of Mexicans are deemed ineligible to immigrate here by OUR STANDARDS, as are a lot of others in the world. The difference is people that are denied a Visa in China don't have the luxury of being able to walk across the border.

Well I'll go ahead and let all the people i know who have been waiting years, some even decades that it isn't "exactly true" that their struggle is harder than most. :rolleyes:

Do you honestly even know that to be true? What proof do you have that Mexicans end up waiting longer than any other Nationality to get issued a Visa? Just because you know a few Mexicans that have been waiting for their Visa doesn't mean that everyone else in the world is getting right on in. For every Mexican waiting their is an African, European, Asian waiting as well.