I followed you all the way up until “or their children,” which is the crux of the issue. Their children are not here illegally. That pesky 14[sup]th[/sup] Amendment again. You can’t just lump them in with illegal aliens. They are here legally, by constitutional definition.
Bingo.
Since the child is born in Arizona, he is a citizen of the United States and of Arizona.
Seriously – this is completely settled law. Why are we still discussing it?
Don’t you know your Republican talking points? The fetus is a person from conception to right before birth, meaning that the fetus did indeed enter the state illegally. Upon birth, the baby is no longer a person until it turns 65, at which point it becomes a person again.
Bricker: Because there’s a proposal to pass an amendment to unsettle it? Is that a trick question?
Um, okay, where do they reside, then?
Citizenship has nothing to do with residence.
I’m sure it does.
Oops - that was supposed to be not under the jurisdiction of the state. :smack:
How did a baby enter the state illegally? Are there border crossing officers in the maternity room in Arizona?
New born baby: Wah! (In Spanish, no doubt)
Arizona Border Patrol: Okay, kid, let’s see your papers.
Baby: Wah!!! Wah!!!
AZ Moron: Don’t got any? You’re going back where you came from.
New Mother: Wah!
Oh. Well then.
Read the first three words of the Amendment. The child was born here. It doesn’t matter what his parents’ status was (provided they’re ‘subject to the laws thereof’, i.e., liable to lawsuit and/or prosecution in US courts). His “residence” is the place he was born in; he has no separate legal existence until birth.
Oddly, you and Bricker are on the same side in this pseudo-debate. The kid’s a citizen by right of birth. In 35 years he’ll be eligible to be elected President.
I don’t see any proposal for an amendment to unsettle it, at least not in this thread. The only thing under discussion is a proposed state law, which its defenders seem to think could pass constitutional muster without the need for any amendment. The case law makes it pretty clear that that isn’t true - unless the Supreme Court overrules its own past decisions.
And of course, they could do that, but there’s absolutely no grounds to suspect that they would. Even the justices who dissented in Plyler v Doe didn’t take issue with the majority’s finding that illegal immigrants were indeed “subject to the jurisdiction” of the state in which they resided. In fact they explicitly agreed with it. It really doesn’t seem to be an ambiguous or complicated legal issue, except among those who want to find some excuse, any excuse, to kick these people out.
Well if they actually think that the Supreme Court is going to find against illegal immigrants on the basis that they are “invaders” in the sense envisaged in Wong, they’re even stupider than I thought. Let’s just see them try that argument in court. They’d be doing the law’s challengers’ work for them.
Are there any jurisdictions which consider doggy style illegal?
Not so long as both participants are actually dogs, no.
There are plenty of laws on the books of cities and even states which technically criminalize various non-missionary sex acts, but they are all almost certainly unconstitutional based on Lawrence v. Texas.
It’s only odd if you think my views are automatically whatever the opposite of whatever he’s saying. Do you?
BTW, he’s wrong about this being settled law and discussion being useless if the very discussion is about whether that law should be changed. Do you disagree with that?
Only if he can produce his US birth certificate.
Yes. Settled law is a term of art; it doesn’t matter what shitkicker congresspeople are saying if the Supreme Court has already ruled. Roe v. Wade is probably argued over more than any other court ruling in US history, but it’s still settled law.
Well then, aside from the color of their skin and their accent, how do you develop reasonable suspicion of illegal status?
So there is no duty (or even ability) for the cop to stroll up to the parking lot of the home depot and ask all the day laborers for proof of legal residency?
Once you are arrested, why do they even need toa sk for your residency status? isn’t there a database with pictures somewhere?
So let me get this straight.
If they get this passed, in 18 years we could see a 18 year old show up at the border saying “let me in, I’m an American citizen” The Border Police says "prove it. The 18 year old says, I can’t I was born in Arizona and my parents being illegal aliens were deported to mexico where I grew up but I was born in the USa so i am an american citizen and I wish to enter and vote in the next election. The border cop says sorry, I can’t let you in.
Is that 18 year old just SOL?