Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

[DaemonSeid]

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

I luv you guyz!!!!

[agzg]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

Everything and the kitchen sink should be verified. EVERYTHING.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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

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

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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

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?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

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.)

[starang21]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

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?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by starang21

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.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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.

who me? psssshh, i'm an saint.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by starang21

no id and can't speak english?

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.

[DaemonSeid]

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.