Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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*~

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?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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?

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?

The constitution declares that Mexicans by birth—that is, natural born Mexicans—are:[1]

* those individuals born in Mexican territory regardless of the nationality of their parents;
* those individuals born abroad if one or both of their parents was a Mexican national born in Mexican territory;
* those individuals born abroad if one or both of their parents was a Mexican national by naturalization; and
* those individuals born in Mexican merchant or Navy ships or Mexican merchant or Army aircrafts

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.

[DaemonSeid]

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

Originally Posted by Drolefille

We're a country of immigrants, some brought here by force, some by deceit, some for opportunity.

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

[Nanners52674]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Nanners52674

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

they didn't plop down in the middle of an Iroquois village, have babies and apply for federal and state benefits.

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

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

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Nanners52674

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.

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).

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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).

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 .

The executives who oversee Williamsburg said they have noticed the influx of tea partiers, and have also noted a rise in the number of guests who ply the costumed actors for advice about how to rebel against 21st-century politicians. (The actors do their best to provide 18th-century answers.)

"If people . . . can recognize that subjects such as war and taxation, religion and race, were really at the heart of the situation in the 18th century, and there is some connection between what was going on then and what's going on now, that's all to the good," said Colin Campbell, president and chairman of Colonial Williamsburg. "What happened in the 18th century here required engagement, and what's required to preserve democracy in the 21st century is engagement. That is really our message."
...
Sometimes, the activists appear surprised when the Founding Fathers don't always provide the "give 'em hell" response they seem to be looking for.

When a tourist asked George Washington a question about what should be done to those colonists who remain loyal to the tyrannical British king, Washington interjected: "I hope that we're all loyal, sir" -- a reminder that Washington, far from being an early agitator against the throne, was among those who sought to avoid revolution until the very end.
...
And when another asked whether the Boston Tea Party had helped rally the patriots, Washington disagreed with force: The tea party "should never have occurred," he said. "It's hurt our cause, sir."

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Kevin

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

We've been over that.

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

[agzg]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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?

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

@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?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by agzg

WITHIN Mexican territory

*lightbulb*