As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
So, [Arizona] is going crazy again
Lord Yod
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So the Arizona state legislature is up to some wacky antics again.
First there's this whole illegal immigration and anchor baby issue:
Arizona Lawmakers Push New Round of Immigration Restrictions
SB 1070 on Steroids
This is pretty atrocious. Lest any of us forget, here's the 14th amendment:
Seems pretty clear to me that separate birth certificates for children born in the U.S. violates the 14th in a pretty major way. Also seems that Arizona is saying 'fuck the boycott, let's do this.'
And in newer news of their pants-on-head preferences:
Arizona Senate Passes Bill To Let State Nullify Federal Laws
Where will this end up?
First there's this whole illegal immigration and anchor baby issue:
Arizona Lawmakers Push New Round of Immigration Restrictions
PHOENIX — Arizona lawmakers are proposing a sweeping package of immigration restrictions that might make the controversial measures the state approved last year, which the Obama administration went to court to block, look mild.
Illegal immigrants would be barred from driving in the state, enrolling in school or receiving most public benefits. Their children would receive special birth certificates that would make clear that the state does not consider them Arizona citizens.
Some of the bills, like those restricting immigrants’ access to schooling and right to state citizenship, flout current federal law and are being put forward to draw legal challenges in hopes that the Supreme Court might rule in the state’s favor.
SB 1070 on Steroids
Recent legislation introduced in Arizona serves to further amplify the potency of SB 1070 by remedying these precise problems. State Senators have introduced SB 1611, an “Omnibus” immigration bill that would deny illegal immigrants access to taxpayer-funded services to which they — as non-citizens and non-taxpayers — are not legally entitled. The new bill would deny all public benefits to undocumented immigrants in Arizona. It would also make proof of citizenship a requirement for those applying for public housing and vehicle registration as well as for public school enrollment from kindergarten through college. It would also make it illegal for an undocumented immigrant to operate a motor vehicle in the state and make failure to enforce immigration laws a class 2 misdemeanor.
Earlier on Tuesday, the committee also passed SB 1308, which seeks the approval of Congress to create separate birth certificates for children born to at least one parent with legal status and those born to undocumented parents — a system that would be a first nationwide. The aim of the bill, backers have said, is to force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the 14th Amendment, which has been interpreted as granting automatic citizenship to any child born in the country.
This is pretty atrocious. Lest any of us forget, here's the 14th amendment:
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
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.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.
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.
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.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Seems pretty clear to me that separate birth certificates for children born in the U.S. violates the 14th in a pretty major way. Also seems that Arizona is saying 'fuck the boycott, let's do this.'
And in newer news of their pants-on-head preferences:
Arizona Senate Passes Bill To Let State Nullify Federal Laws
After being shot down earlier this week, the Arizona State Senate revived and successfully passed a bill that would create a mechanism for the state to nullify federal laws.
As TPM has reported, Senate Bill 1433 would create a 12-person "Joint Legislative Committee on Nullification of Federal Laws," which would "recommend, propose and call for a vote by simple majority to nullify in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the People to the federal government in the United States Constitution."
The bill passed the Senate 16-11 after three Republicans switched their vote.
Iowa passed a similar bill in its House last month, though that bill specified that the state would not be required to follow the individual mandate in the health care reform law. The Arizona bill gives the committee more broad powers to review "all existing federal statutes, mandates and Executive orders for the purpose of determining their constitutionality."
But State Senate President Russell Pearce (R) -- who introduced the bill, and also sponsored the state's controversial immigration law -- implied that health care reform was at least part of the impetus for the law: "If we don't take back our sovereign ability for the states to control the federal government, I guess we have no right to complain," he said, the Arizona Republic reports. "I guess 'Obamacare' is OK for you."
Nullification laws go against the language of the Constitution, which is pretty clear on the subject:The Arizona bill will now go to the House for a vote.This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Where will this end up?
Lord Yod on
0
Posts
And it might just squeak by unnoticed right now.
But really who the fuck do they figure making them even more of an under class is going to solve their problems?
Yeah, they want the Supreme Court to 'revisit' the 14th amendment. I would hope that that means that they re-read it and say, 'nope, hasn't changed. still says all kiddies born here are citizens'. But knowing Scalia and his weird viewpoint of the fourteenth amendment, who knows what could happen?
Didn't see this. That doesn't even sound legal. You can't take someone's stuff away just because.
And passing laws you know are shitty because you're trying to goad the SC into ruling on them is terrible.
It seems that the good state of Arizona is fighting to take back the "Dumbest shit at the state level" focus away from Wisconsin.
C'MON WISCONSIN, YOU CAN DO IT! I BELIEVE IN YOU!! DON'T LET THOSE SOUTH WESTERNERS TAKE AWAY WHAT YOU'VE ACHIEVED!
yeah, that's the worry.
As for civil forfeiture, it's a pretty big deal when it comes to drugs. You can lose your house because your kid had a pot plant in the closet in some places. (or because your ex-husband stowed coke under the sink without your knowledge. true story!) Also it requires less of a standard than criminal conviction as well, so it is easier to take their car then put them in jail.
according to the linked article.
Scalia has, as far as I know, actually already made this claim in some context (I don't think it was a dissent, but I could be wrong), so that's how he and the conservative bloc of SCOTUS will certainly vote.
I'm just hoping that overturning what's at this point nearly a century of stare decisis will be too crazy for Kennedy to swallow.
There was some crazy interview a month or two ago that made the rounds on the forums. The interviewer asked Scalia if 'equal protection' in the fourteenth amendment applied to gender discrimination, and Scalia said "nope! Because the guys who wrote it didn't mean for it apply to women!"
"Original intent! It's like necromancy, only creepier!"
Fixed.
That could be considered fairly crazy as well.
If Baja Arizona was going to be a conservative state, Republicans in Congress would be all over it. However, seeing as how it most likely won't be (Tucson, which leans liberal, would be the population center), it will be a cold day in hell before Republicans allow any new Democrats to the mix.
At a certain point of crazy you gotta say, "fuck it, time to secede."
Every so often you hear noises of new states wanting to form (Eastern Washington, North/South California, State of Jefferson), but the Constitution forbids it unless the state consents (Maine) or is in open rebellion and therefore no longer a state (West Virginia).
You know this is the same reasoning the right uses, with the thin veneer of "its ok because we're right" over it.
I don't think I'm reading this right, because this alone would kill the bill. Requiring full citizenship for public school and public housing would instantly create a huge class of homeless uneducated immigrants.
Like, imagine a couple immigrating legally from another country, bringing their child with them. Under this bill, their child would be unable to attend public school because they're not a citizen.
I suspect there would be a provision for legal immigration status as most of the law seems to have one.
But yeah, killing the 14th at the Supreme Court level? That's getting close to 'time to bail on this sinking ship' territory.
Well, most bills contain a 'severability' clause which says, "If one part of this bill is declared unconstitutional or repealed, the rest of the bill still remains in effect." So SCOTUS could (and should, obviously) overturn the seperate birth-certificate thing while leaving the other stuff intact.
The states are allowed to refuse to give public benefits to illegal immigrants under 8 USC 1621-4, as long as the restrictions aren't as restrictive as federal ones for comparable programs. Since illegal immigrants are permitted to drive on interstates, perhaps that would forbid Arizona from forbidding illegals from driving on their own roads? I'm not entirely sure. That's a matter for the courts.
"It would also make proof of citizenship a requirement for those applying for public housing and vehicle registration as well as for public school enrollment from kindergarten through college"
that seems like a pretty solid idea to me
Because that's pretty much going to force them into generational poverty and homelessness.
The right doesn't seem to get that you still need to treat people like human beings.
Yes, because it is such a smart idea to create an undereducated underclass with little to no connection with the country they are in. It's worked so well for Europe, right?
It would be nice if the GOP stopped reading from the Grand Moff Tarkin Theory of Dealing With Sociopolitical Change.
Because creating an underclass of uneducated second-class citizens has rarely turned out well? Because the children of immigrants are still people? If treating them badly enough so that they'll go away is your idea of 'pretty solid', that's fair enough, I suppose. But from a public-policy stand point, it doesn't make a ton of sense.
Also, reading the bolded part, "make failure to enforce immigration laws a class 2 misdemeanor." Is also blatantly unconstitutional. First of all, who exactly is failing to enforce them? State police? Teachers? Federal officials? The first two have no authority to enforce immigration laws, and the last category isn't answerable to state power on that issue, since immigration enforcement is solely a federal issue.
How does this help their cause? By rallying the base? By making Arizona unattractive to legal migrants? Because punishing undocumented immigrants also rallies the opposition to the 'let's be dicks to immigrants' platform.
Because they think they can stop the clock by making life harder for minorities. The problem is that this isnt the fictional 50s they want to live in.
How will you enforce it? What is legal proof of citizenship(outside of a passport)? Will you expand the burocracy to deal with it or simply tack it onto the already overburden local goverment? How will you pay for enforcement? Will you require everyone to submit proof or only brown people?
If illegals where not a drain on state finances before, they sure will be now.
if their sole goal is to get rid of the illegal immigrants from AZ, wouldn't this pretty much achieve their goal? It's shitty, etc, etc but if all of a sudden:
- they can't get a license, they don't get a _lot_ of stuff
- their kids can't go to school
- they can't use tax payer stuff
I would imagine they would just pick up their shit and go to a different state, no? That state would most likely get a ton of cheap labor, while AZ prisons would fill up, but it would stem a lot of the illegal immigration, albeit in a super shit way.
That or the whole state would explode into violence/mayhem etc.
they don't it be like it is but it do
Not really, no.
Not having read the phrase in context; I would imagine this is directed at the state/local police forces who might offer leeway to illegals, and such people as those who might approve the school enrollment, vehicle registration, or housing assistance without the required documents, or those who hire illegals, etc.
Basically, any person in a position to subvert the law's intent by turning a blind eye toward a person's immigration status.
Example: A teacher does not process your school registration, but the Superintendent (or their appropriate agent) might be held responsible.
You would see fewer illegal immigrants in Arizona, but it would be a marginal decrease.
-they can't get a liscence
You would see a large section of the population immediately lose the ability to support themselves. This would translate directly to increased crime and reduced GDP, along with indirect erosion of rule-of-law. Losing your right to drive would quickly turn you into a criminal, even if you weren't one beforehand. Plus, if you couldn't afford a car anyway it wouldn't effect you, meaning this does not effect the poorest illegal immigrants. It only punishes the non-poor illegal immigrants, which is who we should be encouraging to stay and become citizens.
-their kids can't go to school
Look at it this way. Each year, Arizona has X+Y people enter the workforce. X is the number of children who grow up with an education (or immigrate with an education), and Y is the number of people who grow up without an education (or immigrate without an education). It is in Arizona's best interest to have X be the largest number possible, and Y be the smallest number possible. Preventing immigration without an education is one way to reduce Y (eg, it's much easier to immigrate if you've got a college degree). Removing benefits from illegals is one very small and indirect way to reduce Y. However, by denying the children of illegal immigrants an education, you're directly pulling people from X and moving them to Y. The end result is Arizona shooting itself in the foot in 12 years.
Yeah, lets keep immigrants out of our school system. 20 year old illiterate Mexicans who can't speak english will improve things.
I'm sorry, but I have to troll these sorts of threads every once and a while. I get reminded just how fucked up the US is. These reminders appear to be occurring more and more frequently.
20-year-old illiterate Mexicans who can't speak English should be rounded up and deported.
Now, 20-year-old illiterate Americans who can't speak English, that's a problem. As long as we're only requiring documentation on the child, and not the parents registering them (and not doing that stupid "special" birth certificate crap), I don't find it to be a fundamentally unreasonable requirement.
I don't think it's worth the effort, and I don't support it. But it's not absurd.
And shit, is this even new? I'm pretty sure we had to show a birth certificate when I enrolled in high school there almost two decades ago.