TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Congresswoman Linda Sanchez - IDIOT!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Congresswoman Linda Sanchez - IDIOT!

post #1 of 28
6/4/10 at 11:19am
Thread Starter 
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...ics&id=7477871

So Linda Sanchez, previously unknown to anyone outside her district, apparently seeks news recognition by accusing the authors of the new Arizona Immigration Law of having TIES TO WHITE SUPREMACY ORGANIZATIONS! What a load of crap! Prove it Linda! I hope Az. Gov. Jan Brewer and anyone else associated with authoring that legislation sues her for slander.

I guess the smog and/or water in SoCal has pickled her brain.
Reply
post #2 of 28
6/4/10 at 2:14pm
I've heard this accusation from other media sources. Russell Pearce did forward an e-mail from a white separatist group to his supporters without bothering to read it's content, and that has plagued him ever since.

So does that make Russell Pearce an idiot also?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Pearce
Quote:
In October 2006, Russell Pearce forwarded an email from National Alliance, a white separatist group, to a group of supporters. The email titled "Who Rules America" [9] criticized black and white intermixing and Jews in the media for promoting multiculturalism and racial equality, for depicting "any racially conscious White Person" as a bigot, and for presenting the Holocaust as fact.[10] He quickly apologized. The article reports, "He does not agree with the sentiments in the article, but that the title and the first paragraphs about media bias appealed to him. He said the article had been forwarded to him by someone else and he would not have sent it if he had read it in its entirety."[10]
And btw - he's trying to pass another law to invalidate citizenship of children born in this country to illegal aliens. That's pretty incredible, considering some of these "children" are now adults. Where would they deport them to I wonder? Imagine living in this country all your life and then getting deported to a foreign country because your parents weren't citizens.
Reply
post #3 of 28
6/4/10 at 2:16pm
:I heard my DH laughing from the LR this am when he heard this.

I really am at a loss of words.
Reply
post #4 of 28
6/4/10 at 2:23pm
I don't think it's fair to retroactively invalidate citizenship of people born to illegal aliens in this country for the simple reasons that it's never fair to change a law or rule after the fact, and these people had no say as to the decisions their parents made. Making them stateless is I feel unusually cruel. However moving forward I have no problem with denying citizenship to someone born of parents who are here illegally. Here on a work visa? Fine. Entered legally to go on vacation? Also fine. But if someone entered illegally for the purpose of having an "anchor baby" then it's time to do away with "anchor babies." JMO.
Reply
post #5 of 28
6/4/10 at 2:31pm
Well, seeing as doing away with anchor babies would mean repealing the 14th Amendment...is that somewhere they really want to go?
Reply
post #6 of 28
6/4/10 at 3:09pm
I am about as far from a constitutional scholar as a person can be but it appears that the 14th amendment was crafted to address a specific issue, namely how to bring former slaves into American citizenry. After skimming online information about the 14th amendment I see that it excluded Indians and Eskimos. Our government fiddled with the amendment to give these groups US citizenship as well.

It would appear that the 14th amendment is not that clear cut about granting citizenship automatically to anyone born on US soil - it appears to require a bit more than that. So no need to repeal it, just clarify the interpretation.
Quote:
In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthrig...al_intent.html
Reply
post #7 of 28
6/4/10 at 3:15pm
But if you go by the contemporary definitions and intentions used during the ratification of the 14th Amendment, there is no such thing as "illegal immigration".

So does that mean we change definitions in one place, but leave them "as is" in another?
Reply
post #8 of 28
6/4/10 at 3:37pm
I don't know about Supremest "organizations" in Arizona, but there seem to be a lot of people in Arizona with the attitudes to make up some good one's.

Arizona school mural’s racial themes spark debate
Reply
post #9 of 28
6/4/10 at 5:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
But if you go by the contemporary definitions and intentions used during the ratification of the 14th Amendment, there is no such thing as "illegal immigration".

So does that mean we change definitions in one place, but leave them "as is" in another?
Again, I am not versed in the subtleties of consitutional law. However I cannot believe that our constitution and or its amendments can be invoked for justifying the encouragement of illegal activities. If the 14th amendment in all reasonable and just interpretations provides for anchor babies that give a means for illegal aliens to stay in the US, then by all means repeal it. It wouldn't be the first time we've repealed an amendment that turned out to be a dud.
Reply
post #10 of 28
6/4/10 at 6:45pm
Relax people, there is no way any state in this country is going to pass a law 'to invalidate citizenship of children born in this country to illegal aliens."
Reply
post #11 of 28
6/4/10 at 7:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
Again, I am not versed in the subtleties of consitutional law. However I cannot believe that our constitution and or its amendments can be invoked for justifying the encouragement of illegal activities. If the 14th amendment in all reasonable and just interpretations provides for anchor babies that give a means for illegal aliens to stay in the US, then by all means repeal it. It wouldn't be the first time we've repealed an amendment that turned out to be a dud.
The only issue there is, the 14th Amendment does a great many other things too.
Reply
post #12 of 28
6/4/10 at 7:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Well, seeing as doing away with anchor babies would mean repealing the 14th Amendment...is that somewhere they really want to go?
Actually, it wouldn't. The courts have interpreted that as meaning anyone born in the U.S. can have U.S. citizenship if they want it, but like all court rulings, that COULD be overturned. After all, few other countries have any such law.

From Wikipedia: There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[5] During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[6] Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[6] and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.[7][8][6] Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[9] supported the amendment, believing citizenship should cover all children born in the United States.

I doubt it would ever be done retroactively, however. Can you imagine the legal mess?
Reply
post #13 of 28
6/5/10 at 6:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Actually, it wouldn't. The courts have interpreted that as meaning anyone born in the U.S. can have U.S. citizenship if they want it, but like all court rulings, that COULD be overturned.
But wouldn't overturning a ruling, and therefore the traditional meaning and protections of an Amendment make them some of those evil, wicked, mean and nasty activist judges we've been told dozens of times on this very forum are bad bad people?
Reply
post #14 of 28
6/5/10 at 10:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
But wouldn't overturning a ruling, and therefore the traditional meaning and protections of an Amendment make them some of those evil, wicked, mean and nasty activist judges we've been told dozens of times on this very forum are bad bad people?
You can't be an "activist judge" if you're going with the original intention of the law. Much of the wrangling at the Supreme Court is about trying to determine what that intention was.
Reply
post #15 of 28
6/5/10 at 1:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
You can't be an "activist judge" if you're going with the original intention of the law. Much of the wrangling at the Supreme Court is about trying to determine what that intention was.
Oh, I agree. So then, how could the original drafters and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment intended to exclude illegal immigrants, as some have said, when no such critters existed at the time?
Reply
post #16 of 28
6/5/10 at 1:34pm
We don't know that, but I'll go back to my statement that any amendment or interpretation thereof which provides an incentive to break the law (namely illegal entry into the US for the purpose of giving birth to a US citizen) can't be what anyone had intended.
Reply
post #17 of 28
6/5/10 at 1:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
We don't know that, but I'll go back to my statement that any amendment or interpretation thereof which provides an incentive to break the law (namely illegal entry into the US for the purpose of giving birth to a US citizen) can't be what anyone had intended.
That makes sense. So, what law would a newborn have broken?
Reply
post #18 of 28
6/5/10 at 1:42pm
I thought I made it pretty clear from all of my posts in this thread that the parents are the ones at fault.
If they wish to gain the "right" to remain in the US by virtue of being related to an American citizen (their baby) then clearly the appropriate thing for us to do is remove the right of US citizenship (going forward, NOT retroactively) from children of persons who are not in the US legally.
The baby loses nothing as it would have legally been a citizen of the country that the parents have citizenship in anyway.

Speaking of which I'm curious what happens in the hypothetical situation that a child is born to someone who is in the process of traveling to the US legally but who has not formally entered yet. For example (unlikely I know, but bear with me) after a plane trip from an origin outside the US but before the mother has gone through passport control. Or after debarking a ship. If we can have little islands in the US thaty are legally not US soil, such as consulates of foreign countries, don't we have little no man's land islands at things like airports and other entry points?
Reply
post #19 of 28
6/5/10 at 1:44pm
So you think that reducing the protections of the Constitution is a good thing in specific circumstances?
Reply
post #20 of 28
6/5/10 at 2:49pm
I'm not seeing how this is "reducing the protections of the constitution" unless you mean that we are obligated to protect the right of anyone anywhere in the world who is willing and able to break our laws and enter the US illegally and have a child for the purpose of gaining US permanent residency. if a sufficient numer of judges actually believe that then we deserve the mess we have.

Even US states have minimum residency requirements of parents to grant someone the right to pay a lower in-state tuition at a state college or university. If we can tolerate those kind of restrictions between states for something as insignificant as a tuition rate then we can certainly require that someone be here legally - and even for a specific period of time in order that their child be eligible for US citizenship.
Reply
post #21 of 28
6/5/10 at 3:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
I'm not seeing how this is "reducing the protections of the constitution" unless you mean that we are obligated to protect the right of anyone anywhere in the world who is willing and able to break our laws and enter the US illegally and have a child for the purpose of gaining US permanent residency. if a sufficient numer of judges actually believe that then we deserve the mess we have.

Even US states have minimum residency requirements of parents to grant someone the right to pay a lower in-state tuition at a state college or university. If we can tolerate those kind of restrictions between states for something as insignificant as a tuition rate then we can certainly require that someone be here legally - and even for a specific period of time in order that their child be eligible for US citizenship.
I'm pointing out that monkeying with the Constitution in any capacity is dangerous business. Any time a ruling is made through the courts, a precedent is set...any time an Amendment is made, the "unforseens" will pop up almost immediately.

Suppose the courts rule as you suggest, that the drafters of the 14th Amendment could not have foreseen the potential for abuse or illegal activity of the birth citizenship, and that the tenants of such can be redefined to exclude children of illegal immigrants. All fine and dandy. You have now set a precedent that the meaning of the Constitution is subject to change due to the evolution of the human race and this country beyond what the founding fathers could have imagined, or if such presents a potential for illegal activity.

Then, someone else points out that the founding fathers, when ratifying the 2nd Amendment, had no way of knowing how many guns would be used illegally, and how many law abiding citizens would become criminals instantly by pulling a trigger. Or that hunting would become a pastime, and not a necessity.

That "potential" word itself is incredibly vicious. A renowned world-class sportsman with a fine English drilling and a hacksaw has the "potential" for owning a "sawed-off" rifle or shotgun, which is illegal.

See the direction you'd be headed in?
Reply
post #22 of 28
6/5/10 at 6:34pm
How far back do they plan to go? I think I have a Native American ancestor on my mom's side but I'm not sure I can document that.
Reply
post #23 of 28
6/5/10 at 6:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebrillblaiddes View Post
How far back do they plan to go? I think I have a Native American ancestor on my mom's side but I'm not sure I can document that.
I'm native American myself. Born and raised here.
Reply
post #24 of 28
6/8/10 at 12:47pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
I've heard this accusation from other media sources. Russell Pearce did forward an e-mail from a white separatist group to his supporters without bothering to read it's content, and that has plagued him ever since.

So does that make Russell Pearce an idiot also?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Pearce
Why yes it does! Anyone who forwards an email that he is too lazy to read is a certified IDIOT!
Quote:
And btw - he's trying to pass another law to invalidate citizenship of children born in this country to illegal aliens. That's pretty incredible, considering some of these "children" are now adults. Where would they deport them to I wonder? Imagine living in this country all your life and then getting deported to a foreign country because your parents weren't citizens.
There are many, myself included, who would like to do away with anchor baby citizenship. I don't believe it should be retroactive, but I'm in favor of it going forward.



Proposed New Immigration Laws:

1 There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

3. All government business will be conducted in our language.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Too strict?......

The above laws are the current immigration laws of MEXICO !!!

These sound fine to me, NOW, how can we get these laws to be America's immigration laws??
Reply
post #25 of 28
6/8/10 at 1:32pm
Why pick and choose? Mexico's Constitution has a genuine WEALTH of goodies. If we're going to stoop to using parts of it, we may as well throw out the one we have, and adopt the whole thing.

These are just from the first half. Some of 'em I kinda like.

Quote:
Article 3. Para IV
Religious corporations, ministers of religion, stock companies which exclusively or predominantly engage in educational activities, and associations or companies devoted to propagation of any religious creed shall not in any way participate in institutions giving elementary, secondary and normal education and education for laborers or field workers.

Article 13. No one may be tried by private laws or special tribunals. No person or corporate body shall have privileges or enjoy emoluments other than those given in compensation for public services and which are set by law. Military jurisdiction shall be recognized for the trial of crimes against and violation of military discipline, but the military tribunals shall in no case have jurisdiction over persons who do not belong to the army. Whenever a civilian is implicated in a military crime or violation, the respective civil authority shall deal with the case.

Article 24. Everyone is free to embrace the religion of his choice and to practice all ceremonies, devotions, or observances of his respective faith, either in places of public worship or at home, provided they do not constitute an offense punishable by law.

>>>Every religious act of public worship must be performed strictly inside places of public worship, which shall at all times be under governmental supervision.<<< (good one )

Article 27. Para II
Religious institutions known as churches, regardless of creed, may in no case acquire, hold, or administer real property or hold mortgages thereon; such property held at present either directly or through an intermediary shall revert to the Nation, any person whosoever being authorized to denounce any property so held. Presumptive evidence shall be sufficient to declare the denunciation well founded. Places of public worship are the property of the Nation, as represented by the Federal Government, which shall determine which of them may continue to be devoted to their present purposes. Bishoprics, rectories, seminaries, asylums, and schools belonging to religious orders, convents, or any other buildings built or intended for the administration, propagation, or teaching of a religious creed shall at once become the property of the Nation by inherent right, to be used exclusively for the public services of the Federal or State Governments, within their respective jurisdictions. All places of public worship hereafter erected shall be the property of the Nation.
Reply
post #26 of 28
6/8/10 at 1:38pm
Count me out on 6,7, 8 and 9.

Regarding 6, if we adopt the same stance toward political refugees that we do towards illegal aliens then we have lost our moral compass.

Regarding 7, does this also mean that the married couple where one is a US citizen and one is not cannot buy a house or start a business?

Regarding 8, I guess Arnold Schwarzenegger better not have a house directly overlooking the Pacific, huh?

Regarding 9, either we have free speech or we don't. I guess from now on we'll need to ask for papers at every street demonstration.
Reply
post #27 of 28
6/8/10 at 1:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
Count me out on 6,7, 8 and 9.

Regarding 6, if we adopt the same stance toward political refugees that we do towards illegal aliens then we have lost our moral compass.

Regarding 7, does this also mean that the married couple where one is a US citizen and one is not cannot buy a house or start a business?

Regarding 8, I guess Arnold Schwarzenegger better not have a house directly overlooking the Pacific, huh?

Regarding 9, either we have free speech or we don't. I guess from now on we'll need to ask for papers at every street demonstration.
Number 9 isn't limited to foreigners. Mexican citizens have the right to free speech, as long as they stop before insulting the President, his policies, or any elected officials. Oh, and they can't carry guns at any political gathering, either. So much for Tea Partying.
Reply
post #28 of 28
6/8/10 at 2:01pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
Count me out on 6,7, 8 and 9.

Regarding 6, if we adopt the same stance toward political refugees that we do towards illegal aliens then we have lost our moral compass.

Regarding 7, does this also mean that the married couple where one is a US citizen and one is not cannot buy a house or start a business?

Regarding 8, I guess Arnold Schwarzenegger better not have a house directly overlooking the Pacific, huh?

Regarding 9, either we have free speech or we don't. I guess from now on we'll need to ask for papers at every street demonstration.
The purpose of writing that is part tongue in cheek, but what right does the President of Mexico, Calderone, or any other Mexican national, have in criticizing our immigration laws and policies, when there own is much more restrictive than ours? They don't like our laws and our right to enforce our laws, then let them go back to their own country. I'm not saying we should adopt their laws, but our are much less restrictive, and we have every right, and duty, to enforce them!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Congresswoman Linda Sanchez - IDIOT!