Oklahoma et. al. to Follow Arizona

[guido911]

State Rep. Randy Terrill (R), who sponsored the measure, has expressed a desire to go beyond the Arizona law when he introduces a bill next year that would seize property from businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants. Terrill cited the arrest last week of an alleged Mexican drug cartel member in Oklahoma as evidence that an "Arizona-plus" measure is needed urgently. He said the effect of Arizona's law has been to push illegal immigrants "straight down Interstate 40" toward Oklahoma.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070703017.html?hpid=topnews

[SXSW]

How about making it easier for those here illegally to become legal? 

[Hoss]

How about making it easier for those here illegally to become legal? 

Why?  People who take the correct path usually find it difficult.  And it should be.

I know I'm going to be out of lockstep with most of my liberal brethren, but I agree with HB1804, and some parts of the Arizona bill.  Not the profiling, which would have gone on.

We need to quit marginalizing illegal immigration.  It's illegal.  There's a reason it's called that.  I could spend two hours talking about this subject (and have at length to several people, mainly relatives).

No more anchor babies.  Makes it too easy for people to gain citizenship in a back-handed manner.  When you're an American citizen, and you travel abroad, and your wife should deliver your child in, say, Australia, would that make you Australian as well as the baby?  I don't believe it does.  It seems that's what happens here.

[Gaspar]

Why?  People who take the correct path usually find it difficult.  And it should be.

I know I'm going to be out of lockstep with most of my liberal brethren, but I agree with HB1804, and some parts of the Arizona bill.  Not the profiling, which would have gone on.

We need to quit marginalizing illegal immigration.  It's illegal.  There's a reason it's called that.  I could spend two hours talking about this subject (and have at length to several people, mainly relatives).

No more anchor babies.  Makes it too easy for people to gain citizenship in a back-handed manner.  When you're an American citizen, and you travel abroad, and your wife should deliver your child in, say, Australia, would that make you Australian as well as the baby?  I don't believe it does.  It seems that's what happens here.

It's not really a political thing, though this administration is bent on making it so.  Hoss is right, we make it easier to break the law and live here, than to abide by the law and live here.

[dbacks fan]

No more anchor babies.  Makes it too easy for people to gain citizenship in a back-handed manner.  When you're an American citizen, and you travel abroad, and your wife should deliver your child in, say, Australia, would that make you Australian as well as the baby?  I don't believe it does.  It seems that's what happens here.

If you are an American Citizen and your child is born in another coutnry, that child is said to have dual citizenship. In the case you bring up id would be Australian/US. By the same token if you are here in the US from another country and a child is born that child becomes a dual citizen US/insert country here.

From the website: https://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/dual-citizenship.html


"What is Dual Citizenship: Dual citizenship means that an individual is a citizen of two countries at the same time. It is also possible to be a citizen of three or more countries. However, every country has its own laws regarding dual citizenship. Some countries allow it and others do not, while some countries have no particular laws regarding dual citizenship. Dual citizenship is not something that can be applied for. It is a process that happens when a person becomes a citizen of another country, in addition to his or her country of birth. Dual citizenship occurs automatically for some individuals. For example: a child is born in the United States to foreign parents. In this example this child has U.S. Dual Citizenship since the child is automatically a citizen of the United States and a citizen of its parent's home country. The same applies to children of U.S. citizens born abroad where the child is both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth. "

I worked with someone in the mid 90's who's father was French and became a US citizen and his mother was American. He was born in France and was given dual citizenship. IIRC when he reached the age of 21 he had to declare his permanent citizenship, and he went to INS and declared US and he had to surrender his French passport.

I think that if you are in the US from a foreign country, and you have a child, and it is found that you entered the country illegaly, the US Citizenship status of that child should be revoked, and the family put on the next plane, train, bus or boat back to their country of origin. If you came legally and are going through the process to become a US citizen you must complete the process for that child or any other children you have, while in the US, to keep their US Citizenship.

I know this sounds simplistic, but something has got to be done.

[dbacks fan]

From a wiki article:

"In a September 3, 2008, debate in Danville, Virginia, Republican Congressman Virgil Goode declared that the greatest threat to America's national security was "anchor babies". He discussed H.R. 1940, the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007"[18] that would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces. Goode argued that H.R. 1940 would "end the anchor baby situation", and he blamed Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the fact that H.R. 1940 has not gone anywhere; his opponent, Democrat Tom Perriello, noted that similar legislation did not even make it out of committee when the Republicans controlled Congress, and that the Republican leadership, including then-President George W. Bush and then-Republican Presidential nominee John McCain, did not support the bill either.[19]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby



And H.R. 1940:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h1940ih.txt.pdf

[nathanm]

dbacks, you seem to be under the impression that just because a person has a citizen child, that entitles them to remain here. It does not. Anchor babies are the new welfare queens. Makes good copy, but doesn't actually exist.

[dbacks fan]

dbacks, you seem to be under the impression that just because a person has a citizen child, that entitles them to remain here. It does not. Anchor babies are the new welfare queens. Makes good copy, but doesn't actually exist.

No, not under that impression at all. I know that "Anchor Baby" doesen't really exist. I was explaining the process that Hoss brought up with regards to children born in the US to foreign nationals and what the legal process is and was backing it up with facts and ran into more info about this subject. Just trying to support my comments and not get bashed as it being my opinion.

" Dual citizenship occurs automatically for some individuals. For example: a child is born in the United States to foreign parents. In this example this child has U.S. Dual Citizenship since the child is automatically a citizen of the United States and a citizen of its parent's home country. The same applies to children of U.S. citizens born abroad where the child is both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth."

This is the point I was trying to make. It does not make that child an Anchor Baby, it does not give the parents anything. The child has dual citizenship.

[dbacks fan]

The 14th Amendment:
"Section. 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 to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/


Nowhere does it say anything about the parents.

[nathanm]

This is the point I was trying to make. It does not make that child an Anchor Baby, it does not give the parents anything. The child has dual citizenship.

Yes, that is the case. Sorry if I misunderstood your earlier comment.

To be fair, in some cases it gets the parent the benefit of greater use of ICE's discretionary authority to not actually hold them in jail while awaiting deportation, but it doesn't get them out of deportation entirely.

On the overall subject, I'd like to think that if the system were less arbitrary and was more realistic in the numbers of immigrants admitted we might see less illegal crossing by otherwise law-abiding aliens. As it stands, it's an expensive and completely arbitrary process to get a visa, and even then you get harangued at the border and possibly denied entry.

And even if you get a visa to come pick the fields this year, you might well not get one next year. Everything I've heard from people who have immigrated legally is that the process is discouraging at best. If we could entice more people to do it the legal way, at least then we'd know who was coming in the country. Having more definite criteria and a more clear process would help to that end.

There's pretty much nothing that can be reasonably done at the state level to combat the problem that won't make the situation worse. Having police act as immigration enforcement just leads to unreported crime and vigilante justice when people are afraid to call the police. Worse, it makes it harder to solve crime, as illegal immigrants will be less willing to speak to law enforcement. If a person is actually arrested, sure, it's reasonable to investigate their status if there's reason to believe they are an illegal alien. In other situations, not so much.

[Gaspar]

Uh oh!  Turns out Rhode Island has a law similar to Arizona, that has been enforced for years.


In 2008, Governor Donald L. Carcieri, a Republican, issued an executive order mandating immigration checks on all new state workers and ordering State Police to assist federal immigration officials.

Sitting in his office in an old farmhouse off a country highway, Doherty said the State Police had collaborated with federal immigration officials before, but the relationship has become more formal in recent years. In 2007, he said, he trained all state troopers in how to deal with noncitizens because of widespread confusion and because Congress did not resolve the issue of illegal immigration. Troopers learned to notify consulates when noncitizens are arrested, how to recognize different forms of identification, and how to deal with different cultures.

In 2009, Doherty took it a step further and enrolled in the 287(g) program, which designated four troopers as immigration task force agents to assist in investigating drug and human trafficking and other crimes.

They also help regular troopers report illegal immigrants to ICE. Troopers say the issue typically comes up during criminal investigations or when motorists don't have driver's licenses, and police need to verify their identities with the center in Vermont.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2010/07/06/ri_troopers_embrace_firm_immigration_role/

[jamesrage]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070703017.html?hpid=topnews

I think this is a good thing. The assets seizure forfeiture laws that apply drug dealers and other criminals who profit from and or use their funds for illegal activities should apply to those who hire illegals. This is the right step.

[dbacks fan]

I think this is a good thing. The assets seizure forfeiture laws that apply drug dealers and other criminals who profit from and or use their funds for illegal activities should apply to those who hire illegals. This is the right step.

I thought part of the E Verify Law penalized employers who hired illegals? I'll have to look and see, but I thought there a provision for suspendng or revoke a business owners license for not verifying status.

[jamesrage]

I thought part of the E Verify Law penalized employers who hired illegals? I'll have to look and see, but I thought there a provision for suspendng or revoke a business owners license for not verifying status.

I agree with revoking and suspending a business license of someone who deliberately hires illegals, but what would stop that individual from putting that business in someone else name on paper.

[nathanm]

Uh oh!  Turns out Rhode Island has a law similar to Arizona, that has been enforced for years.

Actually, no. Arizona law puts an affirmative duty on the LEO to check immigration status if he believes they might be an illegal alien. Rhode Island law allows a LEO to do that, but does not require it.