Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?

[Callie Del Noire]

I think the latest proposed law is a wee bit harsh.

Definitely beyond the scope of power the Arizona state government has. Citizenship isn't conferred by each state.

[Oniya]

And excuse me if a child is born of an illegal immigrant and an American citizen and there is an issue the illegal must go back to say Mexico, can't the American and child [e]migrate to the nation the other parent came from? I would think they would have the right to do that?

Or just marry the American and apply for citizenship that way.

As for the first case, I'm pretty sure that simply having one American parent would currently confer citizenship under jus sanguinus.  In the second, marriage would be a perfectly reasonable way to naturalize both the child and the immigrant parent (by way of a green card).

The tricky part is jus solis, where the only claim to citizenship is the fact that the child was born inside the borders of the US.

[Cythieus]

 I really can't feel sorry for people who are breaking the law to be here and their family gets broken up. If you didn't break the law in the first place and just came through other channels it wouldn't happen. I mean take the flip side of things, Mexican law is much harsher than American law when it comes to immigration. You can never become a full citizen there if you aren't born there and you actually go to jail a year if caught.

But then, remember the Mexican President came here and trash talked our system and Arizona especially. But their system is worse, this just shows that he doesn't care about what happens on this side and sees our country as something to balance the corruption and issues in the government of his.

Honestly I don't think anyone should weep for people getting deported. They were breaking the law and on the flip side of the coin if you did it in Mexico you'd be in jail a year and ten years if you were caught a second time. What Arizona's doing is working because they're having knee jerk reaction to a serious issue that needs to be rectified. And I don't mean by making them all citizens faster. You don't reward someone for breaking the law. You punish them.

[Caela]

Do I feel badly for the kids caught in the middle of this situation? Yes, of course I do, but you can't just say "Oh we won't punish a criminal because they have kids." If you are in a country, ANY country, illegally, then you are, by definition a CRIMINAL. You have broken the law and as such need to face the punishment for breaking that law. In the States we're actually pretty damned lenient. I believe it's only a misdemeanor and you get sent back home. In Mexico it is a FELONY offense to be there illegally and you can spend up to 10 years in jail if you are caught more than once.

I'd be all for an amendment that got rid of our system of making you a citizen simply by virtue of being born on American soil. Most countries did away with this a long time ago. It's an unreasonable way of conferring citizenship, especially in a country that has such an issue with illegal immigration as the US does. It would make much more sense for a child to simply be of the same nationality as it's parents. If the child has one American parent and one parent of another nationality then give them dual-citizenship until the age of 18 and then make them choose.

As for AZ's law. I have no problem with it, especially when most of it's stipulations are actually more lenient than the federal laws that our gov't finds so convenient to ignore.

[Lyell]

I'm sorry, but this latest bill simply won't hold water in the Supreme Court if it tries to pass.

US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Sec. 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Arizona can't pass that bill as it stands without it being ripped to shreds. While I support the attempt to remove the "anchor baby" out of the equation, this is not the way to do it.

[Cythieus]

Then the Constitution needs to be amended, but this doesn't need to be how people get here. Simply being birthed on this side of the border shouldn't mean that they can take you from their parents.

[Lyell]

Then the Constitution needs to be amended, but this doesn't need to be how people get here. Simply being birthed on this side of the border shouldn't mean that they can take you from their parents.

Current legislation needs to be altered before what they're proposing would be allowed to pass. Courts work based on established law and use it as a building block to determine judgement. Like I said, I agree that the "anchor baby" should be taken out of the equation but Arizona is going about it the wrong way.

[consortium11]

I'm sorry, but this latest bill simply won't hold water in the Supreme Court if it tries to pass.

US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Sec. 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Arizona can't pass that bill as it stands without it being ripped to shreds. While I support the attempt to remove the "anchor baby" out of the equation, this is not the way to do it.

I'm no constitutional scholar but from what I've read of the jurisprudence around the issue the argument is that as a the child of illegal immigrants you aren't immediately under the jurisdiction of the US and, as such, they're try to push any law through that way. I don't know if there's any precedent on that specific issue that helps either side.

[Oniya]

I'm no constitutional scholar but from what I've read of the jurisprudence around the issue the argument is that as a the child of illegal immigrants you aren't immediately under the jurisdiction of the US and, as such, they're try to push any law through that way. I don't know if there's any precedent on that specific issue that helps either side.

I believe you might be looking for this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

[consortium11]

I believe you might be looking for this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Thanks for that, although I'm aware of the case.

The issue with using it as precedent is that his parents were legal immigrants who had not taken US citizenship rather than illegal immigrants. Taking the ratio decidendi from wiki:

...a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

The question therefore is, do illegal immigrants count as having "permanent domicile and residence in the United States"... in truth you could put together a half-decent legal argument that they're not "carrying on business". If/when it does hit the Supreme Court it'll should be a great reading of previous jurisprudence... ut I don't have the detailed knowledge to comment.

[Oniya]

Actually, towards the bottom of the article, it goes into other issues associated with the case, including how it's been applied to children of illegal immigrants.  I got a little bogged down in the wording, but there was one case where a state was trying to deny things like public schooling to children of illegal immigrants, and U.S. v. Ark was brought in.

[consortium11]

Actually, towards the bottom of the article, it goes into other issues associated with the case, including how it's been applied to children of illegal immigrants.  I got a little bogged down in the wording, but there was one case where a state was trying to deny things like public schooling to children of illegal immigrants, and U.S. v. Ark was brought in.

I'm not quite sure which case you're referring to. On the facts you mention it appears to be Plyler vs Doe. However that judgement only goes into depth on "jurisdiction" and doesn't really touch or define domiciled (which is understandable as Section 1 of the 14th doesn't include the term and the discussion was about children who were themselves illegal immigrants). As I understand it domicile in US law works on both State and Federal level and is different between states but, on the whole, it basically means you have cut most of your ties with previous countries and intend to permanently remain within the State (in the US as a whole sense). Plyler certainly suggests that the children of illegal immigrants would be citizens with its interpretation of "under the jurisdiction", but it isn't definitive... overall it forms little more than strong dicta.

[Oniya]

That's the one I was thinking of (and I think the argument could be made that illegal immigrants intend to remain permanently within the State).  I'm far from a legal scholar myself, but I suspect that the person arguing on behalf of citizenship would use Plyler v. Doe as at least a stab towards precedent.

[kylie]

         I have to sigh a little at all the references to simply "following the law," this way or that.  Twenty years ago, apartheid was the law in South Africa.  Until the 1970's, interracial marriages were illegal in parts of the US.  In the early 20th century, American laws were still largely intended to keep women as second class citizens under male custody.  Immigration laws have long held a series of particular hoops for "outsiders" to jump through, or rather for those few outsiders of whichever origins are being sought by policy at a given time. 

        Simply saying follow the law, can lead to considerable moral quandaries and logical confusions.  What about _why_ a particular law should (or should not) be followed?  There are more fundamental questions than whether or not something happens to be on the books.  It's also generally true that there are different crimes, levels of legal assistance, and punishments for wealthy citizens versus less wealthy established citizens, and again for (often) poorer immigrants.  The law itself supports a class structure thick with inequality.       

[consortium11]

         I have to sigh a little at all the references to simply "following the law," this way or that.  Twenty years ago, apartheid was the law in South Africa.  Until the 1970's, interracial marriages were illegal in parts of the US.  In the early 20th century, American laws were still largely intended to keep women as second class citizens under male custody.  Immigration laws have long held a series of particular hoops for "outsiders" to jump through, or rather for those few outsiders of whichever origins are being sought by policy at a given time. 

        Simply saying follow the law, can lead to considerable moral quandaries and logical confusions.  What about _why_ a particular law should (or should not) be followed?  There are more fundamental questions than whether or not something happens to be on the books.  It's also generally true that there are different crimes, levels of legal assistance, and punishments for wealthy citizens versus less wealthy established citizens, and again for (often) poorer immigrants.  The law itself supports a class structure thick with inequality.     

At the risk of derailing the thread there's actually a decent amount of (very) coherent jurisprudence about why it's right to always follow whatever law is on the books... regardless of whether it's "good law" or not.

That said, there's equally coherent arguments about why you shouldn't...

[Caela]

         I have to sigh a little at all the references to simply "following the law," this way or that.  Twenty years ago, apartheid was the law in South Africa.  Until the 1970's, interracial marriages were illegal in parts of the US.  In the early 20th century, American laws were still largely intended to keep women as second class citizens under male custody.  Immigration laws have long held a series of particular hoops for "outsiders" to jump through, or rather for those few outsiders of whichever origins are being sought by policy at a given time. 

        Simply saying follow the law, can lead to considerable moral quandaries and logical confusions.  What about _why_ a particular law should (or should not) be followed?  There are more fundamental questions than whether or not something happens to be on the books.  It's also generally true that there are different crimes, levels of legal assistance, and punishments for wealthy citizens versus less wealthy established citizens, and again for (often) poorer immigrants.  The law itself supports a class structure thick with inequality.     

You make an excellent point that some laws are simply "bad" laws, for lack of a better term. Some are inherently or unequal (your own examples are excellent) but at the time they are still the law. Should work be done to change them? Yes, absolutely! Apartheid was a horrific system, laws disallowing interracial marriages are aweful...both were changed though that change wasn't easy.

Until a law is changed though it's still the law and should be followed. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you follow and which ones you don't. At least not without paying the consequences of breaking said law.

You can't just break into someone's house and claim it as your own because it is nicer/bigger/has better amenities etc. simply because you feel like it. There is a process in place for purchasing a home and we abide by it. Moving to a new country, any country, is the same. You can't just wander across the border and say, "This is mine now." There are immigrations procedures in place no matter which country you are choosing to move to and, if you truly intend to be a citizen of that country, those policies, those LAWS of the land you wish to live in should be respected. If you have so little respect for someone's home that you feel free to just break into it, why would they want you there?

[Serephino]

Entering a country illegally isn't exactly like breaking into someone's home.  I can sort of see the analogy, but there is a big difference.  I really think Arizona is taking things a bit too far. 

And if you really think about it, pretty much all of us are descended from immigrants.  Before there were immigration laws, our ancestors did just come over, picked a spot, and claimed it.  So what made them special?  If you went with the logic that a child should belong to the same country as their parents then only Native Americans would be American, because before the Revolution everyone else was English, Dutch, German, etc...   

Most Americans are such because at some point their ancestors came to this country and they had kids which became citizens because they were born here.  Wanting to take that away from others is extremely hypocritical.     

[Caela]

Entering a country illegally isn't exactly like breaking into someone's home.  I can sort of see the analogy, but there is a big difference.  I really think Arizona is taking things a bit too far. 

And if you really think about it, pretty much all of us are descended from immigrants.  Before there were immigration laws, our ancestors did just come over, picked a spot, and claimed it.  So what made them special?  If you went with the logic that a child should belong to the same country as their parents then only Native Americans would be American, because before the Revolution everyone else was English, Dutch, German, etc...   

Most Americans are such because at some point their ancestors came to this country and they had kids which became citizens because they were born here.  Wanting to take that away from others is extremely hypocritical.     

I admit my analogy about the house is a bit simplistic but so is your comment that none of us would be American's because ancestors dead long before we were born, came from somewhere else.

Before immigration laws showing up and claiming a spot wasn't illegal. It's how people spread out and country's became occupied and settled. No laws broken and so it doesn't have any real bearing on the discussion.

And there is nothing hypocritical in my thinking. I have no problem with people coming here and having children and their children being citizens. I just expect them to do it legally. A naturalized citizen is a citizen and as such any children they have would be American citizens as well. We have enough of our own actual citizens, and people wanting to be here legally, that need to be taken care of without people coming here illegally and, (in simplest terms, yes) basically stealing services and resources from those trying to become citizens legally and trying to circumvent our laws by having anchor-babies to keep them here.

[kylie]

We have enough of our own actual citizens, and people wanting to be here legally, that need to be taken care of without people coming here illegally and, (in simplest terms, yes) basically stealing services and resources from those trying to become citizens legally and trying to circumvent our laws by having anchor-babies to keep them here.

I think this is not so simple, but actually rather simplistic.  Anyone who is here and working is creating wealth.  It seems to be mainly when the economy goes sour that suddenly their largely underpaid, labor-intensive jobs become things that are being "drained" from so many others.  They do the jobs, which make for stability and wealth throughout the economy (albeit through great exploitation).  They pay sales and consumption taxes.  In some cases, they add to labor and social security taxes (there is debate as to just how much, and whether they wouldn't actually create a more satisfactory pool of wealth if granted amnesty).

         Finally, if a baby is a citizen under the law -- or if in fact, having one served to keep one legally in the country -- then I don't see how you could fairly call having the baby with such purposes, circumventing the law.  It is allowed or it isn't.  First attacking them for being illegal, and then for acting in a way that observes the law, is not consistent.  Either they are "sneaky" or they are not.  Above you are changing the criteria as you go, to suit your own wishes.

         There is some controversy to say the least about the term "anchor-baby."  Apparently it's also been used shotgun-style as a sort of racist epithet, but aside from that, there are reportedly dubious assumptions.  Assuming the citations of government sources in Wikipedia are accurate, I'll quote them for a quick response:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

The term "anchor baby" assumes that having a US citizen child confers immigration benefits on the parents and extended family. This is generally a false assumption, as immigration law does not allow a US citizen child to sponsor his parents until he or she turns 21. Once the child turns 18, immigration law also allows a US citizen child to sponsor his own siblings with a 15 to 23 year quota delay. Immigration law does not provide categories for any other relatives that would apply in this situation. In addition, if the parents are illegal immigrants, they are usually barred from immigration despite having a sponsor.[1][13]

In the public debate surrounding "anchor babies", it is also frequently assumed that an "anchor baby" would be beneficial in deportation proceedings. Such benefits do not exist except in the very rare case of extreme and profound hardship on the child. Approximately 88,000 parents of US citizen children have been deported in the past ten years.[14] Federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court have upheld the refusal by the Immigration and Naturalization Service or Immigration and Customs Enforcement to stay the deportation of illegal immigrants merely on the grounds that they have U.S.-citizen, minor children.[15]

[Lyell]

          I think this is not so simple, but actually rather simplistic.  Anyone who is here and working is creating wealth.  It seems to be mainly when the economy goes sour that suddenly their largely underpaid, labor-intensive jobs become things that are being "drained" from so many others.  They do the jobs, which make for stability and wealth throughout the economy (albeit through great exploitation).  They pay sales and consumption taxes.  In some cases, they add to labor and social security taxes (there is debate as to just how much, and whether they wouldn't actually create a more satisfactory pool of wealth if granted amnesty).

         Taken from Caela in the "Take your job back" thread:

"This I think is a self-perpetuating cycle. Legal citizens don't want to work for farmers that basically pay slave wages and farmers don't want to pay more than what they are already paying. It sets up a system in which people say that no citizen will do the job and that they "need" the illegals to them or it won't get done. In truth, I don't think there is a job out there that some legal citizen won't do, but no one is going to do it for a wage so low they can't afford to buy that cool new video game they want, much less trying to sustain an independent and productive life on your own. It's sort of a catch 22 really."

         Finally, if a baby is a citizen under the law -- or if in fact, having one served to keep one legally in the country -- then I don't see how you could fairly call having the baby with such purposes, circumventing the law.  It is allowed or it isn't.  First attacking them for being illegal, and then for acting in a way that observes the law, is not consistent.  Either they are "sneaky" or they are not.  Above you are changing the criteria as you go, to suit your own wishes.

         There is some controversy to say the least about the term "anchor-baby."  Apparently it's also been used shotgun-style as a sort of racist epithet, but aside from that, there are reportedly dubious assumptions.  Assuming the citations of government sources in Wikipedia are accurate, I'll quote them for a quick response:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

        Interpreting past legislation out of context with the events that said legislation was formed around allowed Goldman Sachs to distribute nearly 24 trillion in government bailouts to whatever financial institution it saw fit, and without revealing to the american taxpayer who that money went to going so far as to say it was none of our business. The Immigration and Nationality Reform Act of 1965 was a relaxation of immigration policy for European immigrants. The National Origins and Quotas system was phased out because visas reserved for the United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany went mostly unused while there were 'waiting lines' for countries like Italy, Greece, Poland, Portugal, and elsewhere in eastern and southern Europe.(Center for Immigration Studies, Three Decades of Mass Immigration, The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act, September 1995)
        The new system eliminated the various nationality criteria, supposedly putting people of all nations on an equal footing for immigration to the United States. But Ted Kennedy was quoted on the debate floor for the act he was sheparding having stated:  "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."(U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)

[cassia]

What I wish is that there was a happy medium between the two extremes - that we could increase immigration limits and allow nearly unlimited numbers of legal immigrants who are willing to obtain proper identification, and punish those who refuse. Preferably by a fine and a time frame in which s/he must obtain the needed papers, and using detention and deportation as a last resort for those who still refuse or who have a proven history of violent crime. No matter how desperate someone is, when they have broken the law, they have broken the law and "s/he came from poverty" is no excuse. At best, it should reduce - not eliminate - the appropriate punishment. It doesn't give citizens a free pass to break laws; why should it work for illegal immigrants?

This would mean that would-be illegal immigrants have better access to fair wages and will pay income tax, which means more money for them and a lower percentage of the tax burden on other taxpayers. They also have a bit more protection against the actions of corrupt police, who are not as common as the media would have you believe but they do exist. The only people who lose out are the ones who have criminal history to hide and the employers who take advantage of workers.

The laws may need changed, but changing them by failing to enforce them isn't the right way to do it. That makes the people who do enforce the laws look like jerks just for doing their job.

[RubySlippers]

I think the latest proposed law is a wee bit harsh.

Definitely beyond the scope of power the Arizona state government has. Citizenship isn't conferred by each state.

That is not the law the law is having improper identification or no identification, a state misdomeanor. And they have every obligation to find and report illegal immigrants to the INS and enforce Federal Law. I pointed out if that is not the case then anytime an person charged with a Federal crime shows up in a state the local officers would have no legal right to arrest the person or act on that but would have to leave if to the Federal agencies to deal with it. And last time I looked being in the nation without proper permission is a crime at the Federal level. And if they have fake documents that is a felony in every state and ifa SS Card or Federal documents a Federal crime.

[kylie]

          Ruby, I understand the "spirit of the law" argument to some degree, but I'm uneasy with the comparison to white-collar crime.  The spirit of the law does not necessarily go so far as to make it right to punish immigrants for Ted Kennedy simply being wrong in how he forecasted the facts.  People use silly rationales for future planning all the time, but at most then they would be liable, not the immigrants in question.   That was just clumsy or unfortunate use of the crystal ball. 

          I don't think most of the immigrants we're talking about are so well aware of the letter of the law, nor do they generally have extremely high paid lawyers picking over thousands of words to find a loophole in their defense.  Goldman Sachs is being investigated as having actually breached a trust it was party to, whereas in most cases when immigrants are prosecuted they are just deported.  Goldman extracted a huge lot of liquid wealth from the situation, hunks of currency that changed the entire economy...  Whereas immigrant earnings may make a difference for some relatives in Latin America but it's much more questionable (as you note) how many people would accept their jobs in the US under the sort of wages and conditions they often suffer. 

          However, when many of the jobs are in areas like agriculture, I'm skeptical that one such law is actually going to cut illegal immigration so much that the playing field will change significantly.  It may simply encourage employers to hide and regulate the immigrants in remote locations even more harshly.  To the extent that police do become active in constantly checking papers (which would be necessary to merely police town centers thoroughly), they will also often do so at the expense and disruption of legal ethnic citizens.

[Lyell]

Let me just ask you this, kylie. Why do we have a cap on the amount of visas and nationalizations allowed every year? Is it so we can turn our noses up to those who want to live the american dream? Or is it because this country can't support that kind of population flux? Do we really want to be assholes or is there some legitamate reason behind it? Or is there some grey area between those that I don't know about?

[kylie]

Sheesh, Lyell -- what is this "we" stuff...  Hyperbole. 
You're demanding that I speak for the whole country?  I didn't claim that everyone agreed on the issue. 

Now, if the agreement you wish to have is that America is obviously egalitarian utopia #1 and there really is equal opportunity for everyone who's legal or at least for those willing to be worked to the bone for a generation (typical rendering of the "American dream" ideal in my mind)...  No, I don't buy it.  As to the rest of your very rhetorical questions:

1.  It's not feasible to claim there is no arrogance involved.  I'd need wool in my ears.

2.  It's not true that all of the immigrants believe in the "American dream" as you put it.  Unless you mean some alternative form of dream, say grinding out a very sketchy form of survival they aren't offered in neighboring places.  Not the typical, "whoever strives will be secure" use of the words. 

3.  And it's also possible that I can think someone is being piggish or effectively exploitive and they think they have a legitimate concern.  Which may, on the facts, be a totally confused take or not even involve accurate arguments.  That swings either way, much as I strive to avoid being on the nasty end of that calculation.

         Were you hoping I was going to say surely we have all the facts and based on them, my better sense knows that immigration policy as it exists is a matter of rational, unbiased practicality?  The onus would be on you to convince me of that.  First you have to state your goals, and that happens to (at least tacitly) involve "who is going to benefit from this?"  It isn't everyone.  I'm betting it isn't even all the legal Americans.  Pick whichever cost or benefit you have in mind, relative to what, and then let's find some facts.