CornSnakes.com Forums  
  Tired of those Google and InfoLinks ads? Register and log in!

Go Back   CornSnakes.com Forums > The CornSnake Forums > General Chit-Chat Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

General Chit-Chat Forum Discussion about general topics that are really off topic concerning corn snakes, or just about any old chit at all.

Calls to boycott Arizona are spreading like a virus
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-29-2010, 01:13 PM   #841
tsst
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpccusa View Post
I don't understand the question.
Why free/open trade and not fair trade?
 
Old 01-05-2011, 05:39 PM   #842
jpccusa
Birthright Citizenship Looms as Next Immigration Battle

Another challenge to the US Constitution

Quote:
NOGALES, Ariz. — Of the 50 or so women bused to this border town on a recent morning to be deported back to Mexico, Inez Vasquez stood out. Eight months pregnant, she had tried to trudge north in her fragile state, even carrying scissors with her in case she gave birth in the desert and had to cut the umbilical cord.

“All I want is a better life,” she said after the Border Patrol found her hiding in bushes on the Arizona side of the border with her husband, her young son and her very pronounced abdomen.

The next big immigration battle centers on illegal immigrants’ offspring, who are granted automatic citizenship like all other babies born on American soil. Arguing for an end to the policy, which is rooted in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, immigration hard-liners describe a wave of migrants like Ms. Vasquez stepping across the border in the advanced stages of pregnancy to have what are dismissively called “anchor babies.”

The reality at this stretch of the border is more complex, with hospitals reporting some immigrants arriving to give birth in the United States but many of them frequent border crossers with valid visas who have crossed the border legally to take advantage of better medical care. Some are even attracted by an electronic billboard on the Mexican side that advertises the services of an American doctor and says bluntly, “Do you want to have your baby in the U.S.?”

Women like Ms. Vasquez, who was preparing for a desert delivery, are rare.

Still, Arizona — whose tough law granting the police the power to detain illegal immigrants is tied up in the courts — may again take the lead in what is essentially an effort to redefine what it means to be an American. This time, though, Arizona lawmakers intend to join with legislators from other states to force the issue before the Supreme Court.

This coalition of lawmakers will unveil its exact plans on Wednesday in Washington (they did), but people involved in drafting the legislation say they have decided against the painstaking process of amending the Constitution. Since the federal government decides who is to be deemed a citizen, the lawmakers are considering instead a move to create two kinds of birth certificates in their states, one for the children of citizens and another for the children of illegal immigrants.

The theory is that this could spark a flurry of lawsuits that might resolve the legal conflict in their favor.

“This is not a far-out, extremist position,” said John Kavanagh, one of the Arizona legislators who is leading an effort that has been called just that. “Only a handful of countries in the world grant citizenship based on the GPS location of the birth.”

Most scholars of the Constitution consider the states’ effort to restrict birth certificates patently unconstitutional. “This is political theater, not a serious effort to create a legal test,” said Gabriel J. Chin, a law professor at the University of Arizona whose grandfather immigrated to the United States from China at a time when ethnic Chinese were excluded from the country. “It strikes me as unwise, un-American and unconstitutional.”

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, was a repudiation of the Supreme Court’s 1857 ruling, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, that people of African descent could never be American citizens. The amendment said citizenship applied to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

In 1898, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, interpreted the citizenship provision as applying to a child born in the United States to a Chinese immigrant couple.

Still, some conservatives contend that the issue is unsettled. Kris Kobach, the incoming secretary of state in Kansas and a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who has helped draft many of the tough immigration regulations across the country, argued that the approach the states were planning would hold up to scrutiny.

“I can’t really say much more without showing my hand,” Mr. Kobach said in an e-mail. “But, yes, I am confident that the law will stand up in court.”

The legal theories are lost on Laura Gomez, 24, who crossed into Arizona from Mexico five years ago while expecting and is now pregnant with her second child. But like many other pregnant women in Arizona who are without papers, she has been following the issue with anxiety.

“It doesn’t seem fair to just change the rules like that,” Ms. Gomez said.

Despite being called “anchor babies,” the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States cannot actually prevent deportation of their parents. It is not until they reach the age of 21 that the children are able to file paperwork to sponsor their parents for legal immigration status. The parents remain vulnerable until that point.

Maria Ledezma knows as much. Just off a bus that deported her from Phoenix to the Mexico border town of Nogales, she was sobbing as she explained the series of events that led her to be separated from her three daughters, ages 4, 7 and 9, all American citizens.

“I never imagined being here,” said Ms. Ledezma, 25, who was brought to Phoenix from Mexico as a toddler. “I’ll bet right now that my girls are asking, ‘Where’s Mom?’ ”

Blended families like hers are a reality across the United States. A studyreleased in August by the Pew Hispanic Center found that about 340,000 children were born to illegal immigrants in the United States in 2008 and became instant citizens.

In April, Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California, one of those pushing for Congressional action on the issue, stirred controversy when he suggested that children born in the United States to illegal immigrants should be deported with their parents until the birthright citizenship policy was changed.

“And we’re not being mean,” Mr. Hunter told a Tea Party rally in Southern California. “We’re just saying it takes more than walking across the border to become an American citizen. It’s what’s in our souls.”

Immigrant advocates say intolerance is driving the measure. “They call themselves patriots, but they pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they support,” said Lydia Guzman, a Latino activist in Phoenix. “They’re fear-mongerers. They’re clowns.”

Like many states, Arizona is suffering a severe budget crisis, prompting even some lawmakers who have supported immigration restrictions in the past to question whether it is the right time for another divisive immigration bill. They say the state’s fiscal issues need to be resolved before Arizona jumps back into a controversial immigration debate.

“I was born and raised in New York,” responded Mr. Kavanagh, who is chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the Arizona House. “I can ride a subway, drink coffee, read the newspaper and make sure my pockets are not picked all at the same time.”

Scholars who have studied migration say it is the desire for better-paying jobs, not a passport for their children, that is the main motivator for people to leave their homes for the United States.

Even Ms. Vasquez, who was preparing for a desert delivery, agrees with that. While she preferred to have her child be born in the United States, she said, it was the prospect of a better economic future, with or without papers, that had prompted her and her family to cross when they did. “I’ll try again — but once the baby’s born,” she said.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us...ef=todayspaper
 
Old 01-05-2011, 05:45 PM   #843
jpccusa
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsst View Post
Why free/open trade and not fair trade?
Fair and free trade would be great.

Countries don't enter in this type of agreements to be exploited. Obviously each country wants to receive their "fair share" of benefits.
 
Old 01-05-2011, 06:34 PM   #844
tsst
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpccusa View Post
Fair and free trade would be great.

Countries don't enter in this type of agreements to be exploited. Obviously each country wants to receive their "fair share" of benefits.
By fair I mean enforcing US standards for foreign countries importing into the USA. ie require those sweat shops in China and elsewhere to meet EPA, labor, safety, quality, etc standards that companies here are required to meet to manufacture and sell in the US. Companies usually move outside the US to circumvent those standards. Having far far far lower standards to meet in China or Mexico or the like gives them an unfair trade advantage for companies here to compete against.
 
Old 01-27-2011, 05:54 PM   #845
jpccusa
And here we go again

Quote:
Arizona legislation targets automatic citizenship
By JACQUES BILLEAUD
The Associated Press
Thursday, January 27, 2011; 5:02 PM

PHOENIX -- Arizona lawmakers are again diving into the national debate over illegal immigration by proposing a bill that challenges automatic U.S. citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.

The proposal Thursday comes after Arizona last year enacted one of the nation's toughest local laws targeting illegal immigration.

Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, who filed the latest proposal, said the goal isn't to get every state in the union to enact such a law, but rather to bring the dispute to the courts in hopes of reducing the costs associated with granting automatic citizenship.

"The result of that is they immediately acquire the right to full benefits, everything from welfare to cheese, which increases the costs to the states," Kavanagh said. "And beyond that, it's irresponsible and foolish to bestow citizenship based upon one's GPS location at birth."

This is the second time this year that lawmakers in a state have targeted the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.

A similar proposal was filed last week in the Indiana General Assembly by Republican Rep. Eric Koch. Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, who is leading the effort to get the measure considered across the country, said he hopes that lawmakers in 10 to 15 states will file similar proposals this year.

Supporters of the proposal argue that the wording of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to people born in the U.S. who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of this country, doesn't apply to the children of illegal immigrants because such families don't owe sole allegiance to the U.S.

Opponents say the proposal is mean-spirited toward immigrants, won't make a dent in the state's immigration woes, and will be declared unconstitutional by the courts.

Democratic Rep. Daniel Patterson of Tucson, an opponent of the bill, said the measure will result in lawsuits and distract the state from focusing on improvements to its hard-hit economy. And, Patterson said, it won't do anything to repair Arizona's image.

"Bills like this that really aren't going to go anywhere," Patterson said, "they are really only going to end up in court and drive up litigation costs and give us more of a bad reputation as kind of a crazy state that I don't think that most of the people in this state agree with. It's just a waste of time."

Gov. Jan Brewer, who rose to national prominence after signing Arizona's new immigration law last spring, hasn't taken a position on the 14th Amendment legislation.

"It's certainly an issue that we are following and something that deserves to be studied, but she is not offering a position yet," said Matt Benson, a spokesman for the Republican governor.

Some legal scholars have predicted that the proposal will be struck down by the courts.

Kevin Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Davis who specializes in immigration law, said the 14th Amendment is a settled area of law.

"I don't see how a state can curtail something guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It's very unlikely that that any effort to curtail birthright citizenship can prevail in the courts," Johnson said.

Republican Sen. John McComish of Phoenix voiced reservations about the bill, saying Arizona has spent enough time and energy trying to confront its immigration woes.

Last year, lawmakers passed a bill to draw local police deeper into the fight against illegal immigration. The most controversial parts of that law were put on hold by a federal judge. In previous years, the state has passed laws denying government benefits to illegal immigrants, denying bail to immigrants arrested for serious crimes, and creating the state crime of immigration smuggling.

"There is some evidence that our preoccupation with these issues has hurt our tourism industry in particular," McComish said.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012704918.html
 
Old 01-27-2011, 09:32 PM   #846
tsst
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpccusa View Post
They could just cite the commerce clause when referencing their new law. After all that's what the fedgov does when it wants to violate the US Constitution.
 
Old 03-28-2011, 02:00 AM   #847
jpccusa
Hello everyone,

I just wanted to drop by, say hello, and share this report.
 
Old 04-26-2011, 12:34 PM   #848
jpccusa
Special report on the controversial immigration law SB1070 - A Year Later
 
Old 09-13-2011, 11:09 AM   #849
jpccusa
The boycott is over...

Quote:
A national Latino rights and advocacy group has called off its boycott of Arizona, which began in May 2010 after the state enacted anti-illegal immigration Senate Bill 1070, according to news reports.

The anti-illegal immigration law reignited the illegal immigration debate. The most controversial portion of SB1070 gave law enforcement the authority to check immigration status of anyone detained by police.

The National Council of La Raza announced Friday that it had ended the boycott, saying they had successfully discouraged other states from enacting similar immigration laws, according to The Arizona Republic.

Another reason to cancel the boycott, group officials said, was that it had imposed hardships on workers, businesses and organizations it sought to help.

Group officials said the boycott sparked political results in Arizona, including an increase in Latino voters and defeat of a measure that would have changed how U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are given citizenship, according to FoxNews.com.

The Greater Phoenix Convention and Visitors Bureau issued a statement about the boycott’s cancellation.

“The lifting of the boycott is clearly a step in the right direction. It acknowledges that illegal immigration is not just an Arizona issue but a national one, and it makes it easier for the community to get back to the business of booking conventions,” the organization officials stated in the Arizona Republic.

The boycott hurt the state’s economy, The Arizona Republic reported. It led other groups to vow not to hold conferences, major conventions or special events in Arizona until the law was overturned.

The Center for American Progress – critical of SB1070 – estimates the boycotts cost the state at last $140 million over a three-year period from cancelled conventions and potentially up to $750 million in total economic loss, The Arizona Republic reports.

Others say the financial impact of the boycott is unclear.

SB1070 is currently tied up in federal court. Orange County activists traveled to Arizona last summer to boycott the law while others caravaned to the state capital to support it.
http://www.ocregister.com/news/arizo...b-61ee39bac3fd
 

Join now to reply to this thread or open new ones for your questions & comments! Cornsnakes.com is the largest online community dedicated to cornsnakes . Registration is open to everyone and FREE. Click Here to Register!

Google
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:33 AM.





Fauna Top Sites
 

Powered by vBulletin® Version
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.09439301 seconds with 12 queries
Copyright Rich Zuchowski/SerpenCo