Arizona does it again!

Lady Anne wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

4) A bill is currently being drafted in the state legislature to attempt and overturn the 14th Amendment's Naturalization clause by stating that any child born to illegal immigrants is not a citizen of the United States. (Birthright citizenship predates the founding of the USA, and very few Western countries deny citizenship to anyone born on their soil.)

California tried this in the 90's, which immediately made me wonder: what if a child is born to an illegal immigrant and legal immigrant or U.S. citizen? Would the child be a citizen or not?

Not. Under Arizona's proposed law, both parents must be citizens for the child to be a citizen.

Of course, there's that pesky Supremacy Clause and about a century's worth of law that says Arizona can get stuffed...but I think they want to get it before the Supreme Court and get all that overturned.

Seule wrote:

myeerah wrote:

Seule, I love you, but your sig line is stretching the page. (It took me a few threads to realize it was you.)

=O Oh no! I'm sorry! Is this any better? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Seems to be. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Well, if nothing else, it would end the whole "anchor baby" wank.

Spotts1701 wrote:

very few Western countries deny citizenship to anyone born on their soil.)

Really? You mean assuming the parents have residence permits, or just anyone born there? Because I think the US is fairly unique in their "born here = citizen" policy.

grmblfjx wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

very few Western countries deny citizenship to anyone born on their soil.)

Really? You mean assuming the parents have residence permits, or just anyone born there? Because I think the US is fairly unique in their "born here = citizen" policy.

Nope - Canada and Mexico both practice jus soli (citizenship by birthhright) just as the U.S. does, and the U.K., Australia, France, Ireland , New Zealand, and South Africa use a slightly modified form (requiring either one parent be a legal resident or citizen, or granting citizenship upon reaching a certain age). Germany's nationality law is more stringent, but still is based upon jus soli.

Spotts1701 wrote:

a slightly modified form (requiring either one parent be a legal resident or citizen, or granting citizenship upon reaching a certain age).

Yeah, that's what I'm familiar with. Not a whole lot of places do the "if you drop your litter here your litter will be ours" version.
Although you could probably argue that Australia and New Zealand don't quite qualify as "western"

grmblfjx wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

a slightly modified form (requiring either one parent be a legal resident or citizen, or granting citizenship upon reaching a certain age).

Yeah, that's what I'm familiar with. Not a whole lot of places do the "if you drop your litter here your litter will be ours" version.
Although you could probably argue that Australia and New Zealand don't quite qualify as "western"

They're west of us.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

4) A bill is currently being drafted in the state legislature to attempt and overturn the 14th Amendment's Naturalization clause by stating that any child born to illegal immigrants is not a citizen of the United States. (Birthright citizenship predates the founding of the USA, and very few Western countries deny citizenship to anyone born on their soil.)

California tried this in the 90's, which immediately made me wonder: what if a child is born to an illegal immigrant and legal immigrant or U.S. citizen? Would the child be a citizen or not?

Not. Under Arizona's proposed law, both parents must be citizens for the child to be a citizen.

Sounds like ancient Athens. All they have to do after that is remove the mechanisms for non-citizens to become citizens, and we'll have the same social structure.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

4) A bill is currently being drafted in the state legislature to attempt and overturn the 14th Amendment's Naturalization clause by stating that any child born to illegal immigrants is not a citizen of the United States. (Birthright citizenship predates the founding of the USA, and very few Western countries deny citizenship to anyone born on their soil.)

California tried this in the 90's, which immediately made me wonder: what if a child is born to an illegal immigrant and legal immigrant or U.S. citizen? Would the child be a citizen or not?

Not. Under Arizona's proposed law, both parents must be citizens for the child to be a citizen.

Of course, there's that pesky Supremacy Clause and about a century's worth of law that says Arizona can get stuffed...but I think they want to get it before the Supreme Court and get all that overturned.

If such a law was ever passed and permitted by the Supreme Court, it would raise some big questions when a baby was born whose mother didn't know who the father was.

Miss Prince wrote:

They're west of us.

So is Japan. That's the problem with the earth not being a disk!

So...wait....is China still the Far East or the Far West, by that logic? Or is...ummm....

Spotts1701 wrote:

Of course, there's that pesky Supremacy Clause and about a century's worth of law that says Arizona can get stuffed...but I think they want to get it before the Supreme Court and get all that overturned.

Today in a 5-4 decision,

Princess wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Princess wrote:

Can you imagine the public outcry if they had chosen to base the mural on the school with the lowest "Ethnic mix"?

i'm just quoting this because what the hell are you saying here

By making a Conscious decision to choose the most ethnic school they could find, they show that they are racist too. Heavens forfend they choose some school that actually matches local demographics, or even go with a random school (or even a random selection of students). You might say "oh, WAAA, WAA, it's just a mural." but then, the whole gist of this story is people getting their panties in a wad about alterations to a friggin' mural. You want to bring your racial preferences into this, that's cool. Нравится вам или нет, но история на нашей стороне. Мы вас закопаем! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] I agree, shouting racial slurs at children is going too far, but my original point stands.

Are you just trollan'? Or are you actually this moronic IRL? THE PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW!

(my bets on moronic IRL)

Lady Anne wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

4) A bill is currently being drafted in the state legislature to attempt and overturn the 14th Amendment's Naturalization clause by stating that any child born to illegal immigrants is not a citizen of the United States. (Birthright citizenship predates the founding of the USA, and very few Western countries deny citizenship to anyone born on their soil.)

California tried this in the 90's, which immediately made me wonder: what if a child is born to an illegal immigrant and legal immigrant or U.S. citizen? Would the child be a citizen or not?

It means the child is half citizen. Which means we chop off it's legs, put them in a box, and ship them back with their illegal parent to whatever native soil said parent came from.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Are you just trollan'? Or are you actually this moronic IRL?

Nazi. Ken. Avatar.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Are you just trollan'? Or are you actually this moronic IRL?

Nazi. Ken. Avatar.

I know, right?

Cyberwulf wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Are you just trollan'? Or are you actually this moronic IRL?

Nazi. Ken. Avatar.

So I'm guessing, if that means anything, she is a troll. Come to troll us with lame race-baiting.

Why can't any trolls be more subtle?

So what about people with one American parent? Are they going to get thrown out of the country? Will they no longer be citizens and have to leave?

WE GOTTA GET RID OF ALL THOSE EVIL NOT-AMERICANS!!!

backinmydaytrollingmeantsomething.tiff

Just Chipper wrote:

backinmydaytrollingmeantsomething.tiff

Nah. Trolling never meant anything. I've come across about two truly award-winning trolls in my time, a couple just moderate trolls that are obvious but amusing, but for the most part, most trolls just go, "SEE I'M TROLLAN U?!?!?! SEE!?!?!?!? U MAD!?!?!?! U MAD!?!?!?!? PLZ BE MAD! PLZ!!?!?!? LOOKIT ME I'M TROLLAN!!??!?!??!"

It just baffles me how subtlety seems to be such a foreign concept to most of them.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Just Chipper wrote:

backinmydaytrollingmeantsomething.tiff

Nah. Trolling never meant anything. I've come across about two truly award-winning trolls in my time, a couple just moderate trolls that are obvious but amusing, but for the most part, most trolls just go, "SEE I'M TROLLAN U?!?!?! SEE!?!?!?!? U MAD!?!?!?! U MAD!?!?!?!? PLZ BE MAD! PLZ!!?!?!? LOOKIT ME I'M TROLLAN!!??!?!??!"

It just baffles me how subtlety seems to be such a foreign concept to most of them.

Lookit me! Lookit me! Lookit me! Mom, look! Mo-om! You're not paying attention to me! Pay attention to me! Wah! Mo-om, they're ignoring me! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

haha no lie i got a wedding to go to in arizona in october