Funny thing, I was just listening to Anthony Bourdain's new book and he was talking about how he's sitting at an Irish pub. The bartender's Irish, overstayed his student visa, and continually games the system. Knows who to talk to, how to duck out of the country and back in on a new work or student visa at any given point in time. There was also a Mexican kitchen guy, also illegal. He doesn't have any of the benefits that the Irish guy does. No one's going to write letters for him, and he never gets enough money to play the games that the Irish guy does. No one's looking for Irish guy, but the Mexican guy lives in fear and is a much greater target for crime and abuse.

Anecdotal, sure, but raised the point well at least.

Canadians and Europeans together only account for 6% of our illegal population.
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf

LOL. it's not big enough a problem.

Senator John Kyl wants to repeal the 14th Amendment

And Lindsay Graham also


Seriously dude??? Wow.

He doesn't want to repeal the whole thing, just the part giving citizenship birth. That'd be a pretty rational thing to do considering the state of things.

The result would be an underclass of people who were not citizens of the US or any other country. Those people would HAVE to work under the table. It's a stupid idea no matter ~*the state of things*~

Here is what I find 'funny' about this whole thing.

I posted earlier this year that the GOP tasked Micheal Steele with recruiting Hispanics to their cause...now with the flap in Arizona, they can kiss that vote goodbye...so with that, why not make a play on the 14th amendment?

Now Lamar Smith seems a bit more rational, introducing a bill denying brithright citizenship rather than wrecking havok on what's already in existance.

Just my 2 cents.

And just to be clear, click here

That bill violates the amendment. Precedent is very clear that not being "under the jurisdiction of the US" only excludes foreign diplomats and an invading army.

Passing such a law is a bad idea both symbolically - as it damages the image of what America is - and practically.

well...back to square one!

Mexico and most other countries will grant citizenship to children of citizens. If their citizens are here illegally and have anchor babies, why should it be our problem? Why further victimize innocent American taxpayers with people who shouldn't be here in the first place who will be receiving thousands in subsidies? How is that sane?

I fail to see why legal Hispanic citizens would be in favor of illegal immigration. It seems that illegal immigration would probably do more financial damage to them than any other subset of the population.

What I posted has nothing to do about Hispanics being in favor or not of illegal immigration. You know like I do, that the whole bill itself in Arizona did nothing more than targeted and profiled ALL Hispanics, as well as inspire xenophobia, so yes, a party that is trying to gain their support designing a bill to single out that same group of people is going to cause loss of support.

You're assuming the children are a "problem." They're citizens. 2nd and 3rd generations assimilate into American society. Even the non-citizen children, the ones targeted by the DREAM Act, are fully functioning productive members of society.

And furthermore how would revoking the children's citizenship actually relieve any burden? If they're here they're still going to get medical care for example.

Finally what happens when those non-citizen children have children?
First generation comes here, second generation is born here, third generation has NO citizenship (or nationality as Mexico defines it). None. We're a country of immigrants, some brought here by force, some by deceit, some for opportunity.

Immigrants are not why "the state of things" are bad. California is not going bankrupt because of illegal immigrants. Yet they get the blame for all of it because it's easier than fixing the problem.

Probably because they're not a hive mind and have different opinions like everyone else. Hell, as cheesy and dumb as it was, CNN had "Family Divided" featured this past weekend. Large, hispanic family that was split about 50/50 regarding their beliefs on immigration.

^^^ **GASP*** Hispanics are divided over this??? OOOhhhh NOOOOESSSS!


That's it in a nutshell. A country full of hypocrites.

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?

again, speculation. you're assuming you know the intent of the law makers. just because it impacts one group of people disproportionately, doesn't mean that was the intent of the law.

it's arizona. a state with one of the highest hispanic populations in the country. a state that borders a hispanic country. of course, it will impact the hispanic community more. that doesn't mean it was intended to impact the hispanic community more.

that last statement was regarding changing the current immigration system.

I think it's just absurd when people here claim to want to keep "those foreigners" out. And that applies to whether it's legal or illegal immigration, whether it's anti-African, Arab, Persian, Hispanic, whatever sentiment, it's ridiculous and then angering at the same time.

However your last point made me think of this article Tea Party activists at colonial Williamsburg .

You should have finished this post with a "run and tell THAT."

*lightbulb*

And how many Hispanics from Arizona are representing them in the Senate?

Hmmmmmmmmmm....funny, I don't hear Washington state having issues with illegal Canadians.

both of those points are irrelevant. 83 percent of illegal aliens are hispanic. the hispanic population has the highest percentage of illegal aliens. most people who are suspected of being illegal will be hispanic.

duh.

Cool, let's make a law targeting Hispanics!

Oh yeah..Arizona is doing that.

Don't get me wrong...I am all for legislation that would make it difficult for people that are considered illegal to be in this country, however, as it stands, Arizona's laws and everything else that has gone down there in the past year is just wrong on so many levels and I think now we are finding out exactly what kind of people we are working with that runs their government.

LOL. not necessarily.

Because it doesn't matter how your ancestors got here. It matters about how you are here.

You are of the exact same worth as any other citizen as far as your country is concerned.

All you're doing is saying "Nuh uh" and "Not necessarily" and "you don't know that for sure."

So what are they doing?