Arizona Republicans to deny birth certificates to "anchor babies"!

Why should I? All anyone (including the illegal immigrant) has to do is say, “I am a US citizen. Do you have reason to suspect I am violating the law? Am I free to go?” and the officer has no choice but to let them go, unless they want to break the law and detain them on the basis of racial profiling (appearance, accent, language).

Wow, you almost made it through an entire post without being a complete asshole. I guess the temptation was just too great.

Well, now, hold up there, hoss. I think friend Bricker is casting a gimlet eye towards conservative hypocrisy as well, here. It is not a point that he has belabored or droned on about at great length.

Accepted this time.

Honestly I don’t pay much attention to what my state legislators are doing and I think it’s entirely possible for any state to go off the deep end and not be able to correct the problem till the next election.

Your state elects JD Hayworth on the other hand after all this… the sane people in the state better be sending chocolates to the rest of the country.

No. According to the article in the link, Senator Pearce states that he is aware of the constitutionality issues involved, and has said, “We will write it right.” (Implying that it hasn’t been written yet.)

Confusing to me, though is this, from the article:

How does that work, exactly? Isn’t SCOTUS historically reluctant to hear cases that are still in the hypothetical?

I, like the OP, was only referring to the situation in which SB 1070 were being enforced. I have a feeling that SB 1070, as would any proposed law denying birth certificates to any non-diplomat child born in the US, will be struck down at some point along the 9th circuit path.

But, there is nothing racial about someone’s accent or language, however much they may be associated with or linked to race. Someone’s accent, if they were foreign born, would likely be linked to national origin, which is a prohibited factor for solely basing reasonable suspicion of someone’s legal status under the law that amended SB 1070, HB 2162.

If someone is driving, which would be one of the more common places where SB 1070 would come into play, then the driver is obligated to present their driver’s license to police upon request any way. If an officer approached someone on the street and demanded identification from them, the person would be perfectly entitled to give the quote you mention and walk away. Under SB 1070, if an officer stopped someone on the street because they had reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person was in the country illegally, then so long as the basis for this suspicion was not the person’s race, color, or national origin, the officer can detain the person for a reasonable period of time while attempting to verify the person’s immigration status with the feds (usually through an ICE or DHS database).

Yeah, but there’s a big ladleful of “damn world would just be OK if everyone listened to me” in there, too.

Could you give an example of a reasonable, articulable suspicion of illegal immigration that is not racial profiling?

A unique sentiment hereabouts, I know.

Correct. You’re abolutely right.

But I doubt that many will do this, for the same reason that many criminals could avoid searches by saying, “No, I don’t consent to any search. Am I free to go?” but few do.


OFFICER: Sir, I clocked you doing 67 is a 55 mile per hour zone. I’ll need to see your license and registration, and while you’re getting it out, we ask everyone this question: are you a U.S. citizen or a permanant resident?

SUSPECT: Permanant resident.

OFFICER: Do you have your green card with you?

SUSPECT: No, I left it at home.


I wish I could move back to the Mitten; this place is fucking insane.

Would he be any relation to William Luther Pierce? No, probably not, that would be too rich . . .

Legal question: Since children don’t have the rights of adults, what specifically is keeping us from deporting the parents anyway? Give them the option: take your kid with you and in 18 years the kid can claim US citizenship, or leave the kid to be stuck in an orphanage in the US while your illegal asses are shipped back to wherever. What is the constitutional key to the “anchor?” Because if you remove that, you solve a bunch of problems.

To borrow my own words from another recent thread:

That is what we do now.

Yes, but do they check ALL of the passengers in the car? What about those who don’t HAVE a driver’s license?

The example Camus gave was a pedestrian on the street. Drivers are required to show their operator’s license anyway, so the status question is unnecessary. Care to have another swing at the ball that Camus pitched?

What if the license is from a state that doesn’t require proof of legal residency?

“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…”

Because that’s the only way this will work.