This and what Drole said are what I don't understand about peoples hatred of immigrants (legal or illegal) unless you are a Native American somewhere in your family is an immigrant. Hypocrisy is the perfect term to describe it.

My ancestors came here legally.

And what they did has no bearing on how I view illegal immigrants today. Why should it? That was then, this was now, new game, new rules, totally different world. I know for a fact that even if my family did come over on the Mayflower, they didn't plop down in the middle of an Iroquois village, have babies and apply for federal and state benefits. The early settlers colonized the country, beat back the indigenous population because, well... that's what Europeans used to do back then. Right or wrong, we are where we are now.

My ancestors played by the rules of their day, eventually ended up in Oklahoma and built what passes for civilization in the middle of nowhere in just over 100 years time.

"Hatred" is not the same as an insistence that people should play by the rules or justly suffer the consequences for choosing not to. That isn't hatred under any definition I'm aware of.

The bill expressly says that race is not a factor in reaching probable cause.

We've been over that.

I'm with you for the most part, but this confused me. If the second generation is eligible to be natural-born Mexicans, then their children (third generation) are the children of natural-born Mexicans and are, therefore, natural-born Mexicans.

Am I reading it wrong?


Right. Racial profiling will be eliminated because the bill says so. Got it.

The second generation would only be natural-born because the parents were born WITHIN Mexican territory. So the third generation would be ineligible, because, although the parents were natural-born, they were not born within Mexican territory.

2 words.

Bull and Shit.

"My ancestors"....we aren't ready for a pissing contest stretcting back 400+ years about who deserves to be here legally or illegally...because if I factor mine in...you would lose.

The fact that you think this is what illegal immigrants do. That this is something that they have in common, shows your bias.

The children didn't do anything wrong. Stop trying to punish the parents by punishing the children.

Really, it's not completely hypocritical - immigration to fill vast expanses of unpopulated land, as was the case when most European immigrants came over, or out of force/servitude, isn't all that analogous to the current situation with immigration in the southwest. They simply bring along far different problems, of a different scope and scale, and with decades of differences in the social pressures and political problems associated with immigration. Sure, you'd expect a little more compassion, but recognizing problems that require solutions is still important.

As much as the specter of crime is a talking point for the far right that doesn't exactly hold water, the "Nation of Immigrants" point is hollow and rhetorical as a talking point for the far left.

Much more important, to me anyway, are the founding ideals of the United States, all of which would seem to indicate a course of action basically 180 degrees away from what Arizona/many bandwagon Republican leaders seem to support. It seems clear immigration was never intended solely as a "brain drain" on the Indian subcontinent for our benefit, for example - the notion of the United States as a 'safe harbor' for those under oppressive or restrictive regimes makes much more sense, even transposed a few hundred years.

For me, the "huddled masses" argument is completely different than the "Nation of Immigrants" stuff, and really gets to the ironic root: a nation of Patriotic Minutemen(c) wants to ignore what's written on the Statue of Liberty (and limit the rights of red-blooded Hispanic citizens in their own state).

Then what are the factors for probable cause that police should use as instructive? Riding a burro while wearing a poncho?

The bill's provisions don't pass the smell test in the slightest.

@preciousjeni - ^^^ This.

Mexico actually distinguishes between citizenship and nationality in the way that we might distinguish between "franchise" and citizenship. That is, to be a Mexican citizen you're 18 years old, not a criminal etc. Their "nationality" is like our "citizenship."

That said, while it is possible for those null-citizens to be naturalized as Mexican nationals, it's not automatic. If children brought over to the US as 3 year-olds feel little to no connection to Mexico, why would the third generation feel anything?

a speculative argument at best. one that shows your own personal bias. it's not the laws fault that 5 out of every 6 illegal immigrants are hispanic.

just because we have a colonialistic history, doesn't mean we need to rescind the laws of today.

no id and can't speak english?

Why?

My ancestors were Dutch and Irish who settled in Indiana and Oklahoma, mainly. Family lore has my father's side homesteading in Fairview, Oklahoma as FOB Irish. My mother's side was Dutch, showed up in Cushing, Oklahoma by way of Indiana, where they built a furniture store, also had a homestead and built a church and had various real-estate holdings (not oil, unfortunately).

I don't really see how that makes my status here any less tenuous than anyone else whose ancestors came here legally.

With all that's been going on in Arizona it's hard to say that this law has the best of intentions in mind.

it's not about rescinding the law it's about not passing laws that are BAD laws which target a specific people i.e. HISPANICS.

I refuse to go there with you today.

I have one question tho...for those who were brought here against their will, are they legal or illegal immigrants?