So AZ, what's going on over there? (AZ Immigration Bill)

[IBCoupe]

Do you really want to start an internet photo fight? On this subject? "Morans" comes to mind.

Look, oppose the policies all you want, but don't make s*** arguments aiming to score brownie points.

My apologies if that was "only a joke."

[stebo0728]

LOL - Was mostly a joke, but you know what they say, jest is 98% truth?

And I never am one to turn down a good internet photo fight, haha.

[bigbadberry3]

Oh baby baby!

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/11/hispan ... tml?hpt=T2

[wingFeather]

Oh baby baby!

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/11/hispan ... tml?hpt=T2

Possibly more when you consider the number of stolen identities that immigrants purchase. Either way, the statistic is going to grow once those baby dropping tours catch on!

[IBCoupe]

"Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency," says an organization called The American Resistance, which has described itself as "a coalition of immigration crime fighters opposing illegal and undocumented immigration."

I object to that butchering of American law. There's no such mechanism, unless you're willing to wait more than two decades until the child is able to petition for citizenship on your behalf.

The myth of "anchor babies" is one of the foulest in the immigration debate - there's nothing about them that acts as an "anchor" to anything.

[AZhitman]

I object to that butchering of American law. There's no such mechanism, unless you're willing to wait more than two decades until the child is able to petition for citizenship on your behalf.

How is that a "butchering of law"? They're simply exercising their right to be heard. Ah, maybe you're referring to the "myth" as you termed it.

The myth of "anchor babies" is one of the foulest in the immigration debate - there's nothing about them that acts as an "anchor" to anything.

Now, let's look at your next comment. Granted, in a very strict legal sense, you're totally correct. Nothing about having a baby in the US ties any other related people to permanent residency, citizenship, or any other benefit.... or does it?

In actuality, this is where reality trumps law, where the "real world" is much different than the inside of a law book.

You think we're packing those mothers up and deporting them? Can't deport baby, it's a US citizen. What's next? 2 choices: Mama and baby stay, since we can't break up families. It's in the best interest of the US to let daddy stay too, since he's the one who should be putting milk in the bottle, and this opens the flood gates. Other choice? Deport mamacita, baby goes in foster care, where it becomes yet another drain on the system.

Yes, they act as an "anchor" to something, contrary to what the law says.

Don't be so quick to pooh-pooh something just because you're semantically correct. As mama used to say, you can be book-smart and street-stupid, and this is an example of the difference between the two.

[IBCoupe]

We don't deport the children. We deport the parents, and the children follow. This is what actually happens. Just because they're illegal immigrants does not mean that they're not the biological and legal parents. Just because they're here without papers doesn't mean that they're irresponsible parents, willing to leave their children to a system when most would prefer to keep their children with them. The children don't need to go into foster care unless the parents choose to leave them behind.

Just because the child can stay doesn't mean the child will or does stay. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that we actually prevent American citizens from leaving.

[AZhitman]

1st paragraph: Well, duh.

2nd paragraph: Makes sense. Hadn't really thought about it that way

So, then, what's the impetus to actually retain the citizenship status? Does the child then become a "foreigner" in their home country after deportation of Mom?

[IBCoupe]

So, then, what's the impetus to actually retain the citizenship status? Does the child then become a "foreigner" in their home country after deportation of Mom?

I've heard stories of pre-teens winding up in Mexico, not really knowing how to speak Spanish that well, feeling entirely American, culturally. If they are naturalized in that country, however, they lose their American citizenship.

If they aren't naturalized and if that country deports them, though, I guess they come back here.

[wingFeather]

The myth of "anchor babies" is one of the foulest in the immigration debate - there's nothing about them that acts as an "anchor" to anything.

You live in CT. Try living in CA or AZ and you will see that it is indeed a reality. It's no myth.

[WDRacing]

The myth of "anchor babies" is one of the foulest in the immigration debate - there's nothing about them that acts as an "anchor" to anything.

You live in CT. Try living in CA or AZ and you will see that it is indeed a reality. It's no myth.

He's arguing the minutia. Since the Fed Gov could deport them regardless of having having kids in America or not so they are in fact not anchoring anything. However, the Fed Gov does not deport them...

The term anchor baby is just a term. It might not be 100% correct, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist either.

I'm sure there will be examples of people actually being deported, but they are very few and far between on the National scale. So...like IBC usually does, he's found a tiny little loop hole to argue or play devils advocate about. Yay.

[IBCoupe]

The Federal Government doesn't deport a lot of other people, too. The criticism here is that the Federal Government does not fully enforce laws against illegal immigration. That criticism exists regardless of "anchor babies." I wonder: are there that many families deported that don't involve issues of American citizenship that make this a noticeable trend? Or are the people seeking to alter the 14th Amendment talking completely out of their anuses?

And if it bothers you, dude, feel free to skip over my posts.

[wingFeather]

And if it bothers you, dude, feel free to skip over my posts.

If you are going to be making laws or swaying juries, it's in our best interests to NOT skip over your posts, but instead make you a better person... so that when you start working in our world, you are a good person.

[IBCoupe]

If you are going to be making laws or swaying juries, it's in our best interests to NOT skip over your posts, but instead make you a better person... so that when you start working in our world, you are a good person.

Best done by coming up with an adequate rebuttal, rather than a criticism of what you see as my method. I applaud you, wing, for attempting to do the former without the distraction of the latter.

[wingFeather]

Best done by coming up with an adequate rebuttal, rather than a criticism of what you see as my method. I applaud you, wing, for attempting to do the former without the distraction of the latter.

But if you only exist to argue, and you train daily on how to win arguments, then how would someone like me get through to you?

[stebo0728]

Best done by coming up with an adequate rebuttal, rather than a criticism of what you see as my method. I applaud you, wing, for attempting to do the former without the distraction of the latter.

But if you only exist to argue, and you train daily on how to win arguments, then how would someone like me get through to you?

You wont get through to him directly, at least not in the current argument, he will go down in a blaze of glory arguing his side in the given discussion. But you will know if you had an effect in the next subset of related arguments, as some of what you argued before will start to rear its head in his next set of arguments.

[IBCoupe]

I'll admit when I'm presented with a good argument.

And I haven't been trained in how to win an argument; I've been trained in some of the aspects of the public policy behind the design of the Court system. I never took a debate course or any formal training in logic. You're dealing with the same me that I've always been.

[stebo0728]

I'll admit when I'm presented with a good argument.

And I haven't been trained in how to win an argument; I've been trained in some of the aspects of the public policy behind the design of the Court system. I never took a debate course or any formal training in logic. You're dealing with the same me that I've always been.

Let me guess, "Because I said so you little sh*t!" didnt go over so well with you from mommy did it?

[IBCoupe]

Let me guess, "Because I said so you little sh*t!" didnt go over so well with you from mommy did it?

Actually, as my memory recalls and my parents have told me in recent years, I was a remarkably good child. I maybe got a "Because I said so" once or twice in my life.

[AZhitman]

I never took a debate course or any formal training in logic. You're dealing with the same me that I've always been.

Those debate punks forget one thing. You might make me appear wrong on a technicality, but I can also push your pasty a$$ down the stairs on the way out of class.

Nothing more annoying than some academic cretin who won't argue the topic, but is real good at recognizing and naming the various types of rebuttals.

I'd rather go toe-to-toe with someone who doesn't spend all day gazing into their bellybutton.

[IBCoupe]

I'd rather go toe-to-toe with someone who doesn't spend all day gazing into their bellybutton.

But I keep so many interesting things in there! It's worth a look, Greg. I'll set up a webcam for you.

[AZhitman]

Well-played, friend.

[audtatious]

Back on subject.....Reid goes about yapping how GOP immigration reform should lose the immigrant voter......Today, the news is:

"Mr. Reid introduced a bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee as the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993. The bill, which died in committee after it was referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs, includes tough immigration provisions that would make many wonder where Mr. Reid truly stands on the immigration and border debate.

............

Part of the bill:
"the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/wat ... arifying-/

Mr Reid, once again, shows his hypocritical side.

[IBCoupe]

Yes, but what's he advocating 17 years later?

Your counter to Senator Reid's comment is that his actions in 1993 should have lost him the immigrant vote then. I wasn't in Nevada in 1993; I don't know what the immigrant vote thought of him, then.

[AZhitman]

<withholds commentary on the actual influence of immigrant voters>

[wingFeather]

Reid is hopefully a goner.

[IBCoupe]

That withheld comment didn't have to do with not allowing naturalized citizens to vote, did it? I've heard that position from a few coworkers, and I was flabbergasted.

[AZhitman]

You should know me better than that. I'd oppose that all day long.

[audtatious]

Yes, but what's he advocating 17 years later?

Your counter to Senator Reid's comment is that his actions in 1993 should have lost him the immigrant vote then. I wasn't in Nevada in 1993; I don't know what the immigrant vote thought of him, then.

Wow, you like to read s*** into stuff don't you? I simply stated he was a hypocrite. Take it how you want, I don't give a damn.

[audtatious]

That withheld comment didn't have to do with not allowing naturalized citizens to vote, did it? I've heard that position from a few coworkers, and I was flabbergasted.

Did you ask them what they thought "naturalized citizen" meant? You know, most of us common folk are too stupid to understand.