Say what you want about the origins of the bill but I don't see any problem with a bill proposing that elected officials prove that they are eligible for public office.

All those subsequent bills also speak to the intent of these lawmakers as well.

Those items target poor, hispanic, stereotypes and show no indication of being related to illegal immigration as a whole or with a racial-neutral perspective.

Pika...ask this...how long and under what circumstances did it take for legislators to all of a sudden decide that this was needed?

So what if we go back about 200 years and find out that a senator was born in say....Cuba.

(just off the cuff someone can investigate that if they want)

Does that invalidate their service?

As we were discussing intent, the intent is pertinent.

Can you describe a situation where an official has not done so? Why the pressing need to write this law now, for a federal office in one state? What if Joe Secretary of State won't accept what 49 other states and the federal government have?

I thought the only office for which one must be a natural born citizen in order to run for and hold was the President.

You know....some laws are like food, just because you don't see it in there doesn't mean that it's not in there.

(also called reading between the lines)

Just because the law doesn't specifically SPELL OUT that it's after certain groups of people doesn't mean it's not.

I think what starang is missing is simply this:

Nobody would be foolish enough to blantantly and in writing say aloud who or what this law is targeting. To me, it's just a common sense thing to figure out that doesn't require a ton of websites and stats to hide behind.

When you cut through the bullshit, it's plain to see that a whole bunch of people are very uncomfortable that the people who live in the same space as they don't look nor sound like them, don't share the same culture and for that matter, the same language...they go to their stores and places of business and they see less and less of themselves and it makes them angry and fearful and now they want to reclaim 'what's theirs.'

But, how do you reclaim something, how do you legalize something without looking like a complete racist asshole?

Make some laws that are vague enough(we are just going after the illegals) yet obvious enough (those illegals are hispanic BTW) to get the job done.

Starang...nobody is foolish enough to think that just because that law doesn't say it, that the lawmakers weren't thinking it.

They just realized that what worked in the 1700's and 1800's doesn't work in the 2000's.

No it doesn't, and AFAIK one does not need to be born in the U.S. to be a senator or a governor, they can be naturalized ( Granholm and Arnold come to mind). Like I said, say what you want about the origins of the bill (birther movement) but I personally don't see how candidates having to prove themselves to be eligible for office is a bad thing. I'm also talking eligible in the broad sense, not just checking their birth certificate.

It's the only one of the federal ones that has that requirement. I don't know if some states have similar requirements for any state offices or not.

But giving that power to elected officials in the states is of questionable benefit. Obama, for example, was born in Hawaii, is at least 35 (birthday's tomorrow apparently) and has lived in the US for at least 14 years. What do you do when some elected officials deny that despite evidence?

John McCain was born in Panama to 2 Americans - and had his status as natural born confirmed by Congress- is at least 35 and has lived here for at least 14 years.

Just because there's not a formal process, there are multiple vetting processes among Congress, the parties, the electors, the press, security clearance, etc.

There's a lot of un-elected high level positions that require you to be a natural born citizen, i.e SECDEF.

I am so happy to see you 2 getting along today!

I luv you guyz!!!!

Right, but your OP was that elected officials should prove it... which I just don't see much of a point in if you're only talking about whether or not they were born here or were naturalized. Other eligibility requirements, though, I totally agree with.

So is this bill going through congress or is this at a state level? I was under the impression this was proposed to be a Federal bill. I'll have to read it and get back with y'all on a later date :cool:

I was only referring to elected ones. States don't have any say over the other positions.

However can you provide a citation for that? My understanding is that if someone in the line of succession is ineligible they're just skipped.

Everything and the kitchen sink should be verified. EVERYTHING.

I was talking about the AZ one, here's a list though of ones that have popped up in the past 2 years
Wiki

I'll have to review my U.S. Constitution Iphone app because you can be speaker of the house and not be a U.S, born citizen, right?

AFAIK. You only have to be a member of the House which requires 7 years of citizenship. Oh and if you're a confederate rebel you can't serve :p

Speakers are just elected by the majority.

Not that the line of succession has ever been tested further down than the VP anyway, so it's all theoretical.

How do you prove rebelship?

Why it's in that pesky 14th amendment. It kept people who had declared themselves members of the confederacy from later regaining office.

So even though there was a blanket pardon, they couldn't serve in office unless officially forgiven by congress. (And eventually there was a blanket forgiveness.)

and this entire argument was called speculative at best by a federal judge. you can infer all you want, but the court is where debates end. and how much of your inference is based on your own personal prejudice?

Still trying to decide if you're stating what you personally think or if you're stirring the pot. I'm going with the latter, given your history on GC. :p

who me? psssshh, i'm an saint.

1 - The tail wags the dog with the "no ID" portion, since generally American citizens who are not driving are under no compulsion to carry ID (see: why national ID cards have failed), and AZ's law seeks to change that.

1a - If it's a driving stop and the driver cannot produce ID, then obviously the police can proceed as they see fit . . . and they can already do that, so . . .

2 - You're not arguing what you think you are - saying "no ID" is probable cause to ask for proof of citizenship (essentially, ID) is circular at best. Upon what basis did the officer even STOP the person? That's the problem with "reasonable suspicion" clauses. The officer can't know there is no ID until after the stop.

3 - Americans are under no compulsion to speak English in general. An officer stopping somebody because they are not speaking English is a farce. Once the stop is made, if the person is unable or unwilling to communicate, obviously the officer can proceed from there - but we're talking about probable cause to even get to that point.

If the law only requires documentation for people already subject to criminal/traffic stops, then it is not even worth enacting because it does nothing. The original wording seems to go far beyond this, allowing police to make stops based on "reasonable suspicion" . . . which seems awful at best.

I believe one of the other reasons why Arizona won't spell out who they are targeting with their legislation is that they don't want a repeat of Jim Crow laws of the early 20th century.

Not to mention, for them to spell it out would be a direct violation of the Civil Rights Act


Heh.

HB2162 covers that i believe.

Probable cause doesn't mean you have to have to be 100% sure a crime is going on, there just has to be reasonable suspicion. If the police officer began his investigation based on that one item, the judge would likely throw out anything he found. But that item and other things? No license, can't speak English, acting nervous, won't make eye contact? Add a few together and you have probable cause.

[quote]1a - If it's a driving stop and the driver cannot produce ID, then obviously the police can proceed as they see fit . . . and they can already do that, so . . .

2 - You're not arguing what you think you are - saying "no ID" is probable cause to ask for proof of citizenship (essentially, ID) is circular at best. Upon what basis did the officer even STOP the person? That's the problem with "reasonable suspicion" clauses. The officer can't know there is no ID until after the stop.[

3 - Americans are under no compulsion to speak English in general. An officer stopping somebody because they are not speaking English is a farce. Once the stop is made, if the person is unable or unwilling to communicate, obviously the officer can proceed from there - but we're talking about probable cause to even get to that point.

My understanding is that the law requires that the suspect has already been detained for some other offense.

So ummm is Superman an illegal alien?

Yes, and the creators of that law specifically listed violations to target poor Hispanics. (See above.)

Also the police have a well documented history of racial profiling anyway.

All of those things are probable cause. You can't ask that police simply ignore reasonably obvious signs that a crime is being committed. Whether the things held up by the creators of the law would hold up in a court of law to a judge is also a different matter. Really, what the creators thought is pretty irrelevant when you get right down to it.

And if you can show that's what happen, you have a civil rights suit. The mere threat of racial profiling is not enough to overturn a law.

That's not what the law's being challenged on, legally, so you can stop making that point.

And when we're talking about the intent behind the law, we're not talking about what would hold up in front of a judge. We're talking about racist, asshat, lawmakers and lobbyists targeting Hispanics in campaign based on fear and prejudice to make political hay by "making a stand" on illegal immigration. All of which serve to do nothing to actually solve the problem, but it sure sounds good to all those people who are now afraid, "fed-up" and convinced that if it weren't for those immigrants they'd all have jobs and McMansions.

I don't have to drag the law in front of the Supreme Court to say it's a bad law. It's pretty obvious it's a bad law. Even if the federal government lost its case (which I sincerely doubt it will), it'd still be a bad law.

This is starting to sound like a rerun from yesterday.

We derail down the same road every day. People need to keep up with the conversation :p

Spinning wheels.

Well Duh! Of course he is. He's from Krypton for cryin' out loud. Unless he's been through proper immigration channels, of course.

I know what grounds the law is being challenged on. I believe the potential for discrimination is one of those grounds, but it is not a ground upon which the TRO was issued.

It's not ripe for litigation yet at any rate.

The law will more than likely be struck down for various reasons. The argument that the preemption argument is pretty tough to overcome, but not insurmountable. The smart money is on the feds, but not too many people have called this a sure thing just yet.

A visa is his kryptonite.

So we are going to punish him for his parents sending him here?

That's my understanding too - I was asking somewhat rhetorically, but I suppose I can be more specific.

Essentially, the law gives local police the authority to do something that would eventually happen anyway (determine citizenship of criminals) - only for non-criminals as well (since, as you noted, "probable cause" is not legally defined as "crime in progress" and for good reason). Is that really a good plan? Does this really provide adequate disincentive for immigration on the whole? Will streams suddenly be sent across the border?

Additionally, I'm basically categorically against any increase in subjective authority to determine probable cause in real time - I can't imagine why others wouldn't be as well, but I'm willing to listen I guess?

Agreed