I find your answers and reasoning as simply and only your limited views of your own opinion. According to your own words you only wrote a blog, so I don't really see how you were "intimately invovled in activism". Your put together "Rally", seems you failed in reviewing your speakers positions and or speeches. You don't seem very "cognizant" of anything other than your own failings.

Here's something for you to ponder:

Consider what the world would be like if there were no traffic rules at all.  Would people be able to travel by automobiles, buses and other vehicles on the roadways if there were no traffic regulations?  The answer should be obvious to all rational members of the human species.  Without basic rules, no matter how much some would like to avoid them or break them, there would be chaos.  The fact that some people break the rules is quite clearly and obviously not sufficient to do away with the rules.  The rules are needed for transportation to take place.

Why are moral rules needed?  For example, why do humans need rules about keeping promises, telling the truth and private property?  This answer should be fairly obvious.  Without such rules people would not be able to live amongst other humans.  People could not make plans, could not leave their belongings behind them wherever they went.  We would not know who to trust and what to expect from others.  Civilized, social life would not be possible.  So, the question is:   Why should humans care about being moral?  

Morality- rules of right conduct concerning matters of greater importance.  Violations of such can bring disturbance to individual conscience and social sanctions. 

Law- rules which are enforced by society.  Violations may bring a loss of or reduction in freedom and possessions.

What is the relation of law to morality?  They are NOT the same.  You can NOT equate the two.  Just because something is immoral does not make it illegal and just because something is illegal it does not make it immoral. 

Things that are illegal but are thought to be moral (for many)! 

Drinking under age.

Driving over the speed limit.

Smoking marijuana.

Cheating on a tax return.

Splitting a cable signal to send it to more than one television. 

People do not think of themselves or of others as being immoral for breaking these laws.

Things that are immoral (for many) but are not illegal. 

Cheating on your spouse.

Breaking a promise to a friend.

Using abortion as a birth control measure.

People can not be arrested or punished with imprisonment or fines for doing these things.

What is the relation of morality to law?  Well, when enough people think that something is immoral (Illegally entering a Soveriegn Nation or Over satying a Visa) they will work to have a law that will forbid it and punish those that do it (obviously Congress has felt it immoral to violate our immigration laws).

When enough people think that something is moral, they will work to have a law that forbids it and punishes those that do it repealed or, in other words, if there is a law that says doing X is wrong and illegal and enough people no longer agree with that then those people will work to change that law (you advocates).

Ethics to establish principles of the GOOD and those of right behavior Ethics deals with the basic principles that serve as the basis for moral rules.  Different principles will produce different rules.

So, ethics and morality are not the same things!  A person is moral if that person follows the moral rules.  A person is immoral if that person breaks the moral rules.   A person is amoral if that person does not know about or care about the moral rules. 

A person is ethical if that person is aware of the basic principles governing moral conduct and acts in a manner consistent with those principles.  If the person does not do so they are unethical.

The law governs us all as human beings who live in human communities (every nation has their own version of law). So, it is only our common humanity that must come into play as far as the law is concerned, nothing special about us. If one must not kill, assault, kidnap or rob others, that applies simply by virtue of being human not because one hails from Ukraine or has dark skin pigmentation. That is why sexual or ethnic discrimination by governments is to be forbidden.

But there is a conflict between this unexceptional idea and the widening of the scope of government power. When we get away from the simple negative principles of a just human community -- don't kill, don't assault, don't rob, don't rape and such, meaning, basically, that we should all live together peacefully -- and start regimenting the details of human life, people are no longer similar at all, quite the contrary. Maybe some should and some should not smoke. Maybe some should and some should not go to church. Maybe some should and others should not paint certain kinds of pictures or play certain sports or purchase SUVs or talk with the animals. Only at some very basic level are we all -- or virtually all of us -- alike. We become differentiated rather quickly as it concerns the details of our lives -- some are parents, some teachers, some tall, some women, some young, some athletes, some Roman Catholics, some Jews, some Moonies and some even agnostics or atheists.

If, as you say, all I am cognizant of are my failings, then I accept that with all due pleasure.  For I find that being cognizant of my failings is a strength, not a weakness.  It is part of the measure by which I have improved my life, and evolved my capacity for compassion.

Of course, though to be true, my failings are not all I am cognizant of.

I am absolutely all for order and structure which brings about harmony and Oneness in human community and society.  I simply find compassion and mercy to be far better foundations for such order than cold legalism.  As is stated in the Pathforgers Ninth Affirmation:  "Authentic justice is based upon mercy, grace, and redemptive reconciliation, never upon fear, hatred, and devotion to cold and heartless legalism."

I stand by that.  And, as I mentioned in a reply to another commentor, I would rather err on the side of broad compassion than on the side of narrow "us-them" nationalism.

Law is not and end unto itself, nor are its dictates always just or absolute.

I simply find compassion and mercy to be far better foundations for such order than cold legalism.

And yet you do not state what exactly in our laws is "cold legalism". I have argued as to why our laws are "moral" you have yet to argue as to why you consider them immoral or amoral. I have noticed that about you in your many comment on other blogs. You make radical statements, project guilt by association, yet are not cognizant of yourself.

You claim to be non-religious yet bring up verse? Please explain your virtuous moral superiority.

An example of cold legalism:  misapplication and abuse of 287(g) by local law enforcement agencies by means of engaging in racial profiling.  Prince William County, Virginia had this problem last year and their Board of County Supervisors had to pass a resolution to remedy the situation.

A law -- or any policy -- is immoral if its purpose (direct or indirect) is to promote one's own sovereignty at the expense of other human beings.  American history is filled with numerous such examples.

There are those who would see an inoffensive woman from, say, Colombia here without documentation and regard her primarily as a violator of law.  Such regard is a hallmark of "anti-illegal immigration" activism (where the woman would be instantly tagged "illegal alien").  Then there are others who would see the same woman and regard her as a human being in need.

There is the fanatical worship of law, then there is the magnification of people's humanity.  I choose the latter, and advocate policies which do the same.  In the case of immigrants already here without documentation, I support amnesty.

As to what you refer to as my "virtuous moral superiority" . . . well, since I don't accept the premise of your assertion, I'll give you this:  compassion is superior to indifference; kindness is superior to unkindness; humility is superior to arrogance; selflessness is superior to selfishness; love is superior to law.

Ah, the "racial profiling" of 287(g). Simply your opinion of it, and like I said you are making "guilty by association" all who are involved in it. Please cite a case where racial profiling has been 'proven' in the 287(g) program. You seem to be making your whole argument based on the color of ones skin, while "Illegal Entrants and Visa Violators" come in all colors.

So promoting our nation as a sovereign nation is immoral to you? We should not have borders? We should allow the world to come here and burden our environment even further, that can't be good for "global warming", can it? Or do you also want to limit what we can use, i.e. energy, cars, buildings, etc.

I applaud you in your "change" but your ignorance in the assertions and assumptions you claim is your weakness. Might I suggest you change some of the words you use and re-evaluate your claims of the "rule of law" crowd and that of those against "Illegal Immigration".

As for PWC, you surely aren't thinking that WHEREAS to mitigate the risk of false allegations of "racial profiling" against police officers carrying out the Board's policy, it was proposed that appropriate video cameras be placed in police vehicles, and is admitting to racial profiling, do you? Its all about the $$$. And if I'm not mistaken cameras were proposed back in 2006 - 2007 and were denied due to cost. So, if you actually read what the Resolution actually says, it really didn't change anything other than the wording, which doesn't clarify anything other than attempting to relieve the Board of any liability and placing it onto the shoulders of each officer.

http://www.gainesvillesupervisor.com/4-29-08%20Immigration%20Resolution.pdf

And from the original Resolution, 08-500:

Racial Profiling - The Police Department will investigate the citizenship or immigration status of any person who is lawfully detained for a violation of a state law or county ordinance, if there is probable cause to believe such person is in violation of federal immigration law and when such
inquiry will not expand the duration of the detention. Racial profiling is expressly prohibited, as emphasized in existing General Order 2.01, Section C, 56: “Race, color, ethnicity, or other non-criminal traits is not, in and of itself, sufficient
to constitute reasonable suspicion or probable cause to justify stopping, detaining, or searching a person.”

http://www.pwcgov.org/docLibrary/PDF/006888.pdf

I see it failed to print the entire copy of Resolution 07-609, page 2. What it clarifies is that police officers shall inquire into citizenship status only after a violation has been ensued.

This means exactly what it states, if an officer stops a person for jaywalking, the officer can inquire into "status of the person", and if found to be in the country "illegally" they can be arrested, turned over to ICE, and deported. Here's a good read for you:

http://www.projo.com/news/courts/content/LAWSUIT_DISMISSED_01-01-09_D7CQK9I_v11.37578a2.html

The new PWC resolution supersedes the "probable cause" provision of the original resolution.  The new resolution now requires that inquiries into citizenship status be made AFTER arrests, not before.

The potential for racial profiling was the core reason for the change in policy in PWC.

Other pertinent documents from the PWC Police Dept.:

http://www.pwcgov.org/docLibrary/PDF/007945.pdf

http://www.pwcgov.org/docLibrary/PDF/008420.pdf

http://www.pwcgov.org/docLibrary/PDF/008333.pdf

While the "policy change" may implement only after arrest, an officer still has legal right to inquire based on probable cause. I gave you a link to a court ruling. PWC simply diverted the PRLDEF law suit threat by changing the wording. Your first link tells you exactly what I have stated, question 2:

Q2 If a police officer gives me a summons (ticket), can that officer question my
immigration status?
A2 The requirement of asking about immigration status applies to all persons after they
are under physical custodial arrest. However, police officers retain the discretion to inquire into immigration status prior to arrest, as appropriate under law. This could include a summons situation. It is also important to note that if a person presents false identification to the police officer, that person may be arrested.

Your second and third links, again state exactly what I have stated and again reverts back to the link I have provided in the court ruling.

You seem to also have changed your position as previously you stated: An example of cold legalism:  misapplication and abuse of 287(g) by local law enforcement agencies by means of engaging in racial profiling. Yet you haven't proven any "racial profiling" has existed. You now state: The potential for racial profiling was the core reason for the change in policy in PWC. While the lawsuit from PRLDEF probably had more to do with the clarification of the Resolution than anything, if you actually read the resolution and your links you will note nothing has actually changed in the way an officer can retain discretion.

So I still ask, what makes our laws either immoral or amoral?

Your argument suggests that racial profiling does not exist unless a case has been brought to bar to prove it.  This, of course, is absurd.

But, staying on point . . .

The details of the PWC policies are of no interest to me where this conversation is concerned.  The ultimate point I made, and before you began engaging in tangential diversions over particulars, remains the same:  it is a fact that the reason policy changes were made in PWC were in order to prevent racial profiling by police.  Was money an issue?  Absolutely.  But only insofar as the primal spark which gave rise to those monetary concerns was the potential for legal complaints over racial profiling.

I also refer you to the GAO report linked in the main post's third question.  It acknowledges that racial profiling is a legitimate concern in terms of how 287(g) is implemented by participating law enforcement agencies.

You may also wish to view the following video for reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kunE36JmskM
(the 5:25 mark is key)

As to your question regarding "what makes our laws immoral or amoral", I already answered that yesterday (1:16AM PT).

And your argument suggests that "racial profiling" is implemented at every action. Which is even more absurd. So far you have made many assertions, based on your beliefs, and in so doing have become hypocritical to those who do not believe as you do.

While "Racial Profiling" allegations are a legitimate concern, they have yet to be shown in actual use for which you have implied. Your own link @5:25 again clarifies my statement. Like I have previously shown, you come out with 2 different statements, which one is it you wish to cling to?

Now, as for your answer @ 1:16, you gave your beliefs as an answer. You did not justify why our laws are either immoral or amoral based on our laws, you justify them based on your Unitarian-Universalists beliefs. As our laws are all based on moral and ethical equality, what do your beliefs have to actually do with it?

You've made general mention about morality, ethics, law, and rules in terms of how a society should govern itself.  And you've asked me what makes a law immoral or amoral.  However, while you clearly place law on a pedestal, you have thus far not identified the source which informs your perspective and from which you derive your inquiries to me.

So answer me these questions:  What is the foundation of law?  What is the foundation for determining what is or is not ethical?  What is the source for determining what is or is not moral?

We should allow the world to come here and burden our environment even further, that can't be good for "global warming", can it? Or do you also want to limit what we can use, i.e. energy, cars, buildings, etc.

The restrictionist commitment to the environment is superficial at best:

http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/immigration_restrictionists_make_bad_environmentalists

Also scapegoating immigrants for environmental problems is morally bankrupt and irresponsible: http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/deconstructing_the_pseudo-environmental_objection_to_immigration

The problem with your blog topics that you link to Dave, is you look to what Immigration Groups are saying, instead you should be looking at what Environmental Groups are saying and have been saying. If you quit obfuscating the groups, i.e. Environmental vs Immigration, or "Illegal Entrant and Visa Violator" vs Immigrant, you just might get a clearer picture than the foggy one you have.

Robb, your questions are open ended. Laws/rules/instructions are all put in place for the prevention of Chaos. If you are a creationist, God told Adam and Eve to not partake of the Apple Tree. If you go the route of science and the study of humans, then you will come to the conclusion that groups of people dating back to the earliest known times had a hierarchy and set of rules in order to be within that group. Morals and ethics have become due to religious beliefs and interpretation of right from wrong.

Liquids Reign, thanks for that total non-answer.

My questions are not at all open ended.  Unlike your answer, they are direct and substantive, and have in fact been fundamental to legal philosophy for thousands of years.

Key to my question was where I stated (and I repeat):  "you have thus far not identified the source which informs your perspective."

And so in that vein, I repeat my questions:  What is the foundation of law?  What is the foundation for determining what is or is not ethical?  What is the source for determining what is or is not moral?

Clearly, per your assertions to date, you have very fervent opinions on the immigration issue as it relates to law.  What informs your opinions?  Upon what basis do you derive your understanding of law?

C'mon Robb, I simply answered the same way you do. I gave you 2 options to choose from, God or Science, but keep in mind they both come down to the same conclusions when it comes to society. Now, the simple answer is "beliefs" same as yours.

"I simply answered the same way you do."

Well then, Liquids Reign, this is your opportunity to up the bar and, oh I don't know, teach me a thing or two; an opportunity for you demonstrate how to answer a question in the realm of higher discourse.  Perhaps I'll learn from you.

But truly, though, you obviously can't answer three simple questions because you have no foundation from which your insights proceed, nor any knowledge of the subject matter you have thus far opined upon without qualification.  In other words, you deliver empty (and therefore likely borrowed) rhetoric.

And that's okay, I had assumed as much anyway.  At least now you've demonstrated what I suspected to be true.

Anyway, feel free at any time to answer the three questions about the foundation of law, the foundation of ethics, and the source of morality.  If you are able to do so.

Oh, Robb, your assumptions are quite hilarious. I gave you the answers to your questions, its just you fail to comprehend what it is I have said, or they weren't the answers you were expecting. Since you wish to impose your virtoues moral superiority over me, then feel free to answer your own questions. Maybe you could shed light upon yourself.

The reason I raised my three questions about the foundation of law, ethics, and the source of morality, is because of your statement a couple days ago, as follows:  What is the relation of law to morality?  They are NOT the same.  You can NOT equate the two.  Just because something is immoral does not make it illegal and just because something is illegal it does not make it immoral. [...] The law governs us all as human beings who live in human communities (every nation has their own version of law). So, it is only our common humanity that must come into play as far as the law is concerned...

You obviously have an idea of the purpose of law in relation to morality and ethics, but fail to identify the foundation from which your idea is derived.  In other words, you do not give any credence to your argument.  As such, you cannot presume that the validity of your arguments are self-evident.  They certainly are not.

And it's all I was asking.  Back up your arguments with some substantive credentials.

"Obfuscating" ... I can't even tell what it is that you said, but you certainly didn't address any of the points I made in either of the posts I linked to on the demonstrable failure of restrictionists to support real environmentalism.  I think you are obfuscating.

David,

Some people believe assignment of blame is a solution.  It isn't.  I learned that one the hard way.

If Tanton's position is based on the notion that more people increase the negative impact on the environment, then his campaign should be about promoting birth control rather than seeking to control immigration.

Here's why:

According to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.  That's ten times as many "illegal immigrants" who enter the United States each year.  This means that the number of children born in the U.S. in the past four years alone exceeds the total number of "illegal immigrants" who are here, and whose population took decades to form.

Over the next several years 4 million babies who were born last year alone will become children, then teens, then adults who will acquire American consumption habits that, according to Tanton, will negatively impact the environment.  Ten times more than "illegal immigrants" entering the country.

So I suppose that I find it odd (though honestly not surprising) that an outfit called "NumbersUSA" would fail to consider the bigger numbers in determining statistical data on the negative imact to the environment in relation to population growth.

Though of course I think we all know that Tanton's and NumberUSA's objective is not entirely objective.

Of course, one wonders if Tanton advocates for the real solution to decreasing the negative impact on the environment:  altering American consumption habits.

Lets clear up your inability to understand Dave, FAIR is an immigration control group, it is not an environmental group. Tanton did start out with a zero population growth and environment concern, however that evolved for him into controlling immigration into the USA. He had friends in environmental groups but he never started an environmental group. The groups he started, FAIR, etc. may use some of the environmental information to make their case, but again they are, in their minds by controlling immigration and limiting it, having a lesser impact on the environment, which is true to a degree.

The foundation for which ideals are applied are from "beliefs" as I have stated earlier in response to your questions. Our Society and Constitution is based on Christian religious beliefs, and other societies laws are based on their religious beliefs. The difference is in the interpretation you have of your beliefs and the interpretation I have in my beliefs and the fact that I agree more with the Christian beliefs used in our laws than you do.

I would at least credit the author(s) who actually came up with this "Basics for Ethics:  "What is the relation of law to morality?..." (go to "Law and Morality: The Relationship.")  It appears to come from this site word for word:

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/pPecorino/Profession-Education-ch-6-The%20Basics-for-Ethics.html

Good catch, analisa!

On July 30 at 12:30pm I stated to Liquid Reigns:  You deliver empty (and therefore likely borrowed) rhetoric.

To which he replied:  Oh, Robb, your assumptions are quite hilarious.

And as it turns out my "assumptions" were actually fact:  His statements weren't his own, and were -- as I stated -- borrowed from an obscure university website, and pretty much verbatim.

And without attribution/credit to where he retrieved the words.  Which is really pathetic.

And it all explains why he was unable to answer my questions about the foundation of law, the foundation of ethics, and the source of morality.  Because the words on he wrote (on 7/28 at 4:40pm) to establish the basis of his argument are completely borrowed, and not his own.

It explains much.

But, I say we give him a chance to redeem himself and offer some self-developed insight and make an honest attempt at intelligent and informed discourse.

Yea, real good catch Analisa, but it is not ver batim. There are a couple paragraphs that match what I have said, but that is the extent of it. Actually that comment was a compilation of different articles of which I have put together over the past year or 2. And, yes, I found it easier to copy my word file vs typing out a 30 - 40 minute response. But like you said , the point is what matters.

You have yet to explain why our laws are either immoral or amoral. You have only stated your beliefs as a Humanist.

As for a "chance" to re-deem myself, you are a joke. You want intelligent and informed discourse, yet you keep changing your statements.

Your perceived perceptions are just that, yours. You can advocate all you want to have our laws changed (good luck with that), as the laws are on the books and it is your (advocates) responsibilities to prove the laws need changed or that they are in some way either immoral or amoral, and since only your beliefs seem to be your guiding factor, again, good luck with that.

I say this as one with intimate experience -- those engaged on the "anti-illegal immigration" side of the debate are not as concerned about violations of "rule of law" as they are inordinately focused on despising those whom they perceive to be its violators.

If you are using the 287(g) argument to provide proof of this statement, then your ignorance truly shines. The "Diefication of law", thats priceless. Yet you would diefy yourself to be like your idol.

I say again, your beliefs and interpretation are much different than mine.

Oh so you only plagiarized somewhat from Professor Pecorino's work.  Well I guess that makes it all okay then.  (No one is knocking you for what you said . . . well, okay maybe we are . . . but for the fact that you did not give credit to your source.  Very poor form.)

Okay, first you claimed I was a Unitarian Universalist.  Now you are claiming I am a Humanist.  Which is it, dear?

My "perceived perceptions"?  Okay, we'll just let that poor English stand in the corner for a while.

You are majoring in the minors (i.e., you are "straining the gnat and swallowing the camel", as Jesus of Nazareth is reported to have once said).  My overall sentiments have not changed on the issue of racial profiling as it relates to 287(g), per the GAO report.

If you think there has been some inconsistency in my words, then allow me to offer clarity by stating that my sentiments are accurately reflected in my answers to the questions in this topic's main body.  Refer to that as the "canon" of my insights on this matter.

Let me see, what more can I offer you in regards to when law is immoral/amoral?  Fundamentally, law is immoral when it violates "unalianble rights" inherent to us as human beings.  This much America's Founders acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence.

Furthermore, one maxim I would offer for how to gauge the morality of a law is this statement from Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address in 1801:  "Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

Equality, therefore, is key to a law's morality.  An example of an immoral law:  denying gay men/gay women from enjoying the legal recognition and benefits of marriage.  Another example as it relates to immigration:  deporting undocumented immigrant parents when their dependent children are American citizens.  This is one of the reasons why I support amnesty.

A law is immoral when it supports one nation's own sovereignty to the detriment of another's.  Example:  George Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003.  In that circumstance the ends do not justify the means, and it is immoral to wield the broadsword of a military killing machine for the purpose of humanitarian relief.

The question for you remains, however:  what determines what is right/wrong?  What determines what is immoral/amoral?

Put another way:  where American law is concerned, upon what basis did the Founders establish "rule of law", and what did they acknowledge as the foundation of law?  By what measure did they determine rightness and wrongness to which law was to bear witness?

That's right, you only occasionally fellowship with the Unitarian Universalist. Don't call me dear.

Your insights are all based on accusations and allegations, nothing more than he said she said.

As for "Unalienable Rights" in the Declaration, the piece of paper declaring the original 13 colonies independent from Great Britain. In it, it declares to the world that the colonies in America were declaring independence from Great Britain and to explain as to why they were doing so. The entire phrase, as written by Jefferson, were taken from Hutcheson (1755), based on the Reformation principle of the liberty of conscience. One could not in fact give up the capacity for private judgment (e.g., about religious questions) regardless of any external contracts or oaths to religious or secular authorities so that right is "unalienable." As Hutcheson wrote, "Thus no man can really change his sentiments, judgments, and inward affections, at the pleasure of another; nor can it tend to any good to make him profess what is contrary to his heart. The right of private judgment is therefore unalienable." Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the sovereignty of a nation and its rights to govern their societies. It does in no way grant freedom of movement by peoples without first obtaining permission from the receiving nation.

Equality is key, that is why if you defy our immigration laws the penalty is deportation. It is also why "Illegal Entrants" have limited civil rights.

As for the parents of "citizen" children.. Foreign dignitaries, if they happen to have children born on US soil, are not granted US citizenship. The Federal Government may determine that by being born on US soil allows for citizenship, ultimately it is up to the states to determine if birth recognition is granted. California has this happening right now, and so does Arizona, a law that can require County Recorder offices to require proof of legal status in order to issue a Certificate of Birth, instead they would be issued a different document altogether. Without a Certificate of Birth, they have no viable claim and are granted citizenship of the parents from the country of which they come from.

As for the minority of which you speak, please show where it is intended for "Illegal Entrants and Visa Violators" as Jefferson was stating it based on the citizenry of the US and its "Melting Pot" of different classes of people, i.e. rich vs. poor, not ethnicity's, as the diversity of ethnic peoples was rather lacking at the time.

Yes, I do occasionally fellowship with my Unitarian friends.  But make up your mind, dear sweetie, am I Unitarian or Humanist?

Actually, although he read Francis Hutcheson's works, Jefferson's phrasing in the Declaration regarding "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"  was inspired from John Locke's Second Treatise on Government, as was the phrasing regarding the demands of liberty and the purpose of government, as follows (from Chapter 19, section 225 of Locke's Second Treatise):  "But if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going; it is not to be wondered, that they should then rouze themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected."

And I don't argue about the right to regulate movement.  I do, however, argue for more inclusive policies (i.e., amnesty) within such regulations for the many millions of undocumented people already resident in the United States.

As for your mention of foreign dignitaries, total non sequitur.

Moving along . . .

No.  The 14th amendment's "all persons born" provision doesn't "allow for" citizenship, it outright grants it.  Period.  As for states wanting to certify birth certificates based on immigration status, it is highly foreseeable that such measures will ultimately fail tests of constitutionality since states cannot trump federal law which has sole jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to immigration.

And you actually believe that there was a lack of ethnic diversity in 18th century America?  I recommend you pick up an eighth grade social studies book, sweetie.  You have much to learn.

Dear sweetie??? Sorry, I'm just not into you that way.

As for the 14th, No, it does not outright grant or bestow citizenship upon those born here. Now I defer to the pre-amble, the part that specifies as to whom the Constitution describes: See, e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 410–11 (1857) ("The brief preamble sets forth by whom [the Constitution] was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection. It declares that [the Constitution] [was] formed by the people of the United States; that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several States; and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. It speaks in general terms of the people of the United States, and of citizens of the several States, when it is providing for the exercise of the powers granted or the privileges secured to the citizen.

As for the ethnic diversity of the 18th century, all of which was from that of Europe. Quit trying to blur the conversation, as you implied that the etnicities of today were the same as then, when clearly they are not. Todays diversity makes up much more of the population of the earth than it did back then. Todays "melting pot" is much more colorful.

As for the ethnic diversity of the 18th century, all of which was from that of Europe.

You're saying there were no people of indigenous or African descent in the U.S. in the 18th century?  I'd refer you back to the eighth grade social studies text you seem to have missed.

Your interpretation of the 14th Amendment has not been shared by any federal court.  This is restrictionist pie in the sky.

Umm, honey (yes, Liquid Reigns dear, you) . . . you shouldn't reference vile and disastrous Supreme Court decisions like Dred Scott v. Sanford which mandated that black slaves were to be considered property, not citizens.  Furthermore, um, in addition to being one of the sparks for the Civil War, Dred Scott v. Sanford was decided before the 14th amendment was added to the Constitution and which, um, per its "all persons born" provision essentially rendered Dred Scott void.

Which renders your reference to Dred Scott v. Sanford monumentally bogus.

Allow me to quote from page 384 of The Heritage Guide to the Constitution:  "Before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens of the states were automatically considered citizens of the United States.  In 1857, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision had held that no black of African descent (even a freed black) could be a citizen of the United States.  The Fourteenth Amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott v. Sanford and to settle the question of the citizenship of the newly freed slaves.  The Fourteenth Amendment made United States citizenship primary and state citizenship derivative."

Bringing this all back to the originating point of discussion, I mention all of this to reinforce the fact that "all persons born" includes the children of undocumented immigrants born on American soil.  No matter how hard you want to spin to the contrary.

And I'm not even going to say anything about the fact that you actually link-referenced a Wikipedia article of all things.

Since you provide the link to Heritage, this particular paragraph stands out:

In 1898, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark declared that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common-law definition of birthright citizenship. Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller’s dissenting opinion, however, argued that birthright citizenship had been repealed by the principles of the American Revolution and rejected by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nonetheless, the decision conferred birthright citizenship on a child of legal residents of the United States. Although the language of the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark is certainly broad enough to include the children born in the United States of illegal as well as legal immigrants, there is no case in which the Supreme Court has explicitly held that this is the unambiguous command of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As for wiki reference of a paragraph, I get scoffed at while Dave and others get a free pass, Oh that's right, they agree with you so its OK.

Spin?? nothing like a good bout of being dizzy. Like I said, there are states right now attempting to clarify the 14th Amendment by denying birth certificates to children born of "Illegal Entrants and Visa Violators". Maybe we should just label them all as Foreign Dignitaries, it would solve the problem immediately.

Well let's be very, very accurate here:  the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark didn'tconfer birthright citizenship.  Only legislation can confer citizenship rights (unless you believe in an activist judiciary).  No, instead the decision interpreted (and correctly so) that the Fourteenth Amendment confers birthright citizenship.

From the Supreme Court's decision on the case (text here): "The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

Irregardless of Heritage's contention that "there is no case in which the Supreme Court has explicitly held that this is the unambiguous command of the Fourteenth Amendment, this case is nonetheless a standing one hundred and eleven year legal precedent, its dissenting opinion(s) notwithstanding.

States by themselves cannot "clarify" the Fourteenth Amendment as it is not in their authority to do so.  Fourteenth Amendment "clarification" and enforcement is the purview of federal authority alone.

Then why is it that it is the States, or should I say the local Counties, that issue the certificate only after the hospital sends a certificate to them? Why does the Federal Government then not issue the document? Why does the Federal government only recognize the document?

So you play semantics.. clarification.. lets use a different word than, how about the states interpretation of the 14th instead, which will then bring up a situation in court to clearly define the 14th at the state level.

The Tenth Amendment states the following:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution empowers the federal government with authority over matters of citizenship and immigration.  This means states have no enforcement authority over such matters.  However the Constitution does not empower the federal government with the power to issue birth certificates.  Therefore, per the Tenth Amendment, that authority is left to the states.

So if states try to issue birth certificates in such a way that intrudes upon federal authority (i.e., immigration), it is foreseeable that they will get utterly shot down.

Such is the way of federalism, for better or for worse.

Regarding your upset about "semantics", if you want to use "interpretation" that's fine.  It works all the same.  States do not have the authority to interpret federal law for state purposes.  Interpretation of federal law is the purview of federal courts, ultimately the Supreme Court.

Finally, the Fourteenth Amendment itself prohibits certain state action against American citizens:  "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."  And do not forget that the Fourteenth Amendment grants birthright citizenship.  States can do nothing to attempt circumventing this.

Please let us know which counties are engaging in this practice so we can mobilize the appropriate national orgs to sue them for violating the constitutional rights of the citizen children. 

Personally I don't think it's happening but if you have evidence, do share.

One of the seminal developments in immigration law between the 19th and 20th centuries was the shift from immigration regulated by the states to immigration regulated almost exclusively by the federal government.  This was a major goal of 19th century nativists and they largely succeeded.  A unified federal policy is much better at keeping people out than a disjointed state-by-state patchwork of policies.  So to any purported restrictionist libertarians, classical liberals, or advocates of states' rights (I'm looking at you, white Dixie), how do you defend states' rights while also defending a strong federal immigration policy?  Individual liberty for me but not for thee?

Do not forget it is the states that issue the "vital record" of which the Federal Government deems proof of Citizenship. The Feds only issue suggestions as to the form used, it does not make mandatory as to whom is responsible for the submission to the Clerk Recorder of the County.

Individual States have individual laws in relation to the issuing of vital records and as to whom is to submit them, i.e., the doctor, the parent, the hospital, etc. Almost all hospitals issue a souvenir record of birth with footprints and/or hand prints, however it is not an official record of Birth. Not all hospitals or doctors are responsible for the issuing of the "birth registration". The parent must fill out the form and then have it notarized, they can do this in the hospital or they can do this at the Clerk Recorders Office.

What California and Arizona are issuing from the County Recorders Office to parents who can not provide proof of legality in the USA (the notarized Certificate of Identity) is an INFORMATIONAL CERTIFIED COPY with the words “INFORMATIONAL, NOT A VALID DOCUMENT TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY” imprinted across the face of the copy and the parents must also submit at the time of Recording a notarized Certificate of Identity as to whom they are, and to the person as to whom is responsible for submitting the "birth registration" which is what is recognized as "granting citizenship".

This may end up in court, or it may not. If it does, it will clarify what confers citizenship and to whom.

David:

What I believe Liquids Reign is referring to is the "California Taxpayer Protection Act of 2010", a ballot measure being organized and run via a website "TaxpayerRevolution".

See the following links:

Summary from CA Legislative Analysts Office

Article From Santa Cruz Sentinel

TaxpayerRevolution.org
(Official sponsor of the measure)

Overall it's clearly a curveball attempt on a state level at specially classifying the citizenship of children born on American soil based on the citizenship of the parents.

It is clearly discriminatory, to say nothing of unconstitutional, and it is foreseeable that the courts will strike it down if passed.

I should strongly note that, above all, the measure's intent is ultimately harmful to children.  As such, the measure is simply immoral.

All the taxpayer act is doing is requiring anybody requesting the vital record to prove whom they are with an notarized affidavite of identity. Its also adding a field to the vital record of the identification of the parents nationality and requiring the local registrar to verify their status with USCIS. The rest has been in compliance since 2003.

Again, your morals are much different than mine. As for a curve ball, it does not deny the citizenship of the child, as the birth is registered. And when the child grows, becomes of age, he/she can obtain their own "vital record" to obtain their own SS card.

So exactly what is discriminatory? Unconstitutional? What is ultimately harmful to children?

How is the measure discriminatory, unconstitutional, and harmful to children?  Oh, do let me count the ways:

The measure, if enacted, would be harmful to children because the immigration status of the parent or filer would be a determining factor on whether the eligible child (i.e., citizen) receives state or local assistance (see section 4/10003 of the proposed legislation).  You don't withhold assistance from children.  It is abundantly immoral.

Together, these two provision compositely are foreseeably unconstitutional because it violates both the "privileges and immunities" and "equal protection" clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protect US citizens from adverse and unlawful state action.

The fact that the measure proposes a line on birth certificates that reads "Foregin Parent" is clearly discriminatory (toward the child as well as the parent).  Furthermore, requiring the birth certificate of a child born on American soil to show the immigration status of his/her parent(s) is wholly immaterial to the fact of the child's birth and citizenship.

All of the measure's provisions beg the question "why".  It is clearly a political maneuver designed by those who object to "anchor babies" (a disgusting and hateful term).  It's eerily reminiscent of Ron Paul's proposed "American Citizenship Amendment" (HJ Res. 46, 110th Congress) a couple years ago.

Overall, it is a measure founded upon bigotry and designed to foment it.

Furthermore . . .

The provisions of this "California Taxpayer Protection" measure also conflict severely with California's established government code.  For example:

CA Government Code Section 270-275.2
270.  Every person while within the State is subject to its jurisdiction and entitled to its protection.

CA Government Code Section 1135-11139.7
11135.  (a) No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, or disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state.

11139.  The prohibitions and sanctions imposed by this article are in addition to any other prohibitions and sanctions imposed by law.  This article shall not be interpreted in a manner that would frustrate its purpose.  This article shall not be interpreted in a manner that would adversely affect lawful programs which benefit the disabled, the aged, minorities, and women.

This speaks to the fact that measure wants to add a section 10003 to California's Welfare and Institutions Code.  Here is section 10000 of that code:

CA Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10000 - 10002
10000.  The purpose of this division is to provide for protection, care, and assistance to the people of the state in need thereof, and to promote the welfare and happiness of all of the people of the state by providing appropriate aid and services to all of its needy and distressed.  It is the legislative intent that aid shall be administered and services provided promptly and humanely, with due regard for the preservation of family life, and without discrimination on account of ancestry, marital status, political affiliation, or any characteristic listed or defined in Section 11135 of the Government Code.

The conflict is clear, and by adding section 10003 it would "frustrate the purpose" of the anti-discrimination provisions of California law.

If you read through sections 10000 - 10002 you will note 10001.5:

10001.5. (a) In order to carry out the intention of the People of
California that only citizens of the United States and aliens
lawfully admitted to the United States may receive the benefits of
public social services and to ensure that all persons employed in the
providing of those services shall diligently protect public funds
from misuse, the provisions of this section are adopted.
(b) A person shall not receive any public social services to which
he or she may be otherwise entitled until the legal status of that
person has been verified as one of the following:
(1) A citizen of the United States.
(2) An alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident.
(3) An alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time.
(c) If any public entity in this state to whom a person has
applied for public social services determines or reasonably suspects,
based upon the information provided to it, that the person is an
alien in the United States in violation of federal law, the following
procedures shall be followed by the public entity:
(1) The entity shall not provide the person with benefits or
services.
(2) The entity shall, in writing, notify the person of his or her
apparent illegal immigration status, and that the person must either
obtain legal status or leave the United States.
(3) The entity shall also notify the State Director of Social
Services, the Attorney General of California, and the United States
Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal
status, and shall provide any additional information that may be
requested by any other public entity.

This seems to be an amendment that was passed in the past, same as what 10003 would become. The question then becomes is it in violation of Federal Law to deny "vital records" to foreigners not lawfully admitted to the USA. It would allow Foreign Nationals to obtain the certificate through their nations consular office .

This is exactly what I'd hope you'd pick up on, and for that I thank you exceedingly!!!  You are once again demonstrating my very point (but don't worry, I won't call you predictable just yet).

This isn't about non-citizen parents.  It is about citizen children.

Children of undocumented immigrants who are born on American soil are American citizens.  Therefore they cannot be denied benefits rightfully available to them.

The "California Taxpayer Protection" measure, per its seeking to add a section 10003 to the CA Welfare and Institutions Code, would operate in such a way as to deny benefits to a child who is a citizen of the United States.

And you also demonstrate how you are missing the central reality of the issue:  you are seeing the immigration status of the parents as a factor of the child's identity, not the true citizenship of the child.

Another reason why the measure discriminates, as it classifies how children are perceived (i.e., by virtue of the citizenship of the parents).

More to the point . . . classifying children based on the citizenship of the parents is the same as classifying them according to their parents' national origin.  Which is essentially to classify the child according to its national origin, and then determining eligibility for benefits thereto.  Which is in turn a violation of law.

Upon deeper reflection . . .

Far more pernicious of the "California Taxpayer Protection" measure is that it goes beyond classifying citizen children according to national origin, particularly when taking into account that their national origin is actually American (by virtue of their birth on this nation's soil).  No, what it truly does is classify children according to their race.  And then determining eligibility for benefits thereto.

Initiative Feb 14, 2009

This does nothing to prohibit the children from receiving benefits. What it does do is conform to Federal Law in regards to "vital records".

Better yet, sign the letter that is here on Change.org in regards to The Califorrnia Taxpayer Protection Act.

This does nothing to prohibit the children from receiving benefits. What it does do is conform to Federal Law in regards to "vital records".

How can a child receive benefits without any identity documents or proof of citizenship?  This is like the feds arguing the states don't have to make 21 the drinking age, they can "choose" to lose all their federal highway funding instead.  It's a weasely argument.

R. Jay @ 05:34AM PT

Wow.  Nail on the head.

Liquid said: Better yet, sign the letter that is here on Change.org in regards to The Califorrnia Taxpayer Protection Act.

What is this bit here ... is this in the proposed bill?

REQUIRE issuance of the official "CALIFORNIA BIRTH CERTIFICATE" for births to ONLY baptized Christian, Jew, or both, citizens and legal permanent residents. Birth to Foreign Parent document issued to all others.

Ok, I don't think so.  If this is the future of restrictionism, it's going to be a lonely party.

Oh yes.  The California Taxpayer Protection Act on Change.org.  WOW!!  Liquid Reigns did you even read it before recommending it?  Are you absolutely joking???!!!   . . . REQUIRE issuance of the official "CALIFORNIA BIRTH CERTIFICATE" for births to ONLY baptized Christian, Jew, or both, citizens and legal permanent residents. Birth to Foreign Parent document issued to all others.

(Forgive me, I'm not really laughing AT you.  I think it's the picture of the dune buggy that tipped me over the edge.  Seriously.)

You stated:  This does nothing to prohibit the children from receiving benefits.

Absolutely it does!!!   Read Section 4 of the measure, and the proposed Section 10003 to the CA Welfare and Institutions Code.  And when I say read I mean read!

(MANTRA:  This is an educating opportunity.  This is an educating opportunity.  This is an educating opportunity.)

OMG!

And by the way, most revealing . . . Liquid Reigns herself hasn't even signed The California Taxpayer Protection Act on Change.org.  Most revealing indeed.  (FYI, you can see who signed it at the bottom of the petition.)

Liquid Reigns, little engine, you can "think I can" all you want, but honey you aint even on the right track.

Oh, Lord, suffer the little children.

Talk about predictable, both of you. Yes I read the Change.org link, I don't agree with the way it was presented, but the letter that was signed is exactly what my first link shows.

Section 4 refers to unqualified aliens or non-immigrant aliens receiving welfare benefits as to USC, Title 8, Sec. 1621. This section also refers back to Section 2, which states every agency or a political subdivision of this state shall verify the lawful presence in the United States of any natural person fourteen (14) years of age or older who has applied for state or local benefits,

Again, this is complying with Federal Law. It does not deny benefits to children under 14.

And by the way, if you look to the bottom of the page you will see that Liquid HIMSELF did sign the letter. Now as for all your dear, honey, sweetie crap, I told you I'm not into you that way. You can keep your sexual innuendos to yourself.

Hmm.  Liquid Reigns, even in your profile it doesn't show that you've taken action on ANYTHING.  It does not show that you've signed the California Taxpayer Protection Act petition on Change.org.  In fact the only thing it shows you supporting is the "Fair Trade White House".  That's it.  Unless you have another Change.org profile.

Once again you demonstrate my point . . . the fact of a child (regardless of age) having been born on American soil negates the requirement to verify lawful presence per the section of the proposed measure that you referenced.  Yet the proposed measure per its section 4 would make the immigration status of the American child's parents a condition for whether that child receives benefits.

Read it again.  And then read it again.

You are seriously not getting it, Liquid Reigns.

The CTPA page shows that 6 people have signed the petition, yet it only shows 5 people under the signatures. I sign in and my signature does come up as the 6th person. If you can't see it or figure that out, who really has the problem?

As for demonstrating your point?? I see you believe in fallacy. What it actually does is mandate that the parents receive the birth certificate through their consul as required by Federal Law, and requires the child at age 14 to obtain his/her SS#, if the parent has failed to obtain the required documents by then, to further any participation in any welfare for all children enrolled. Section 4 does not make the immigration status of the parents a condition fo receiving benefits. What section 4 does is prevent the children who were brought here illegally from receiving benefits.

I get it quite easily, seems you wish to make it more than what it is with deceit and obfuscation, again good luck with that court case you think will come up over it.

One again, dear, you're wrong.  The immigration status of the parents is a condition for a child citizen receiving benefits according to the proposed measure.

And since I'm not able to draw you a picture (which I think I'm going to have to start doing soon) I guess I'll just have to post Section 4 of the proposed California Taxpayer Protection measure to illustrate.

As follows (and please pay attention):

SECTION 4. Section 10003 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:

10003. To the extent permitted under federal law, an ineligible applicant, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 27 of the Government Code, who files an application on behalf of an eligible recipient for publicly funded social services that constitute a state or local benefit as defined in subsection (c) of Section 1621 of Title 8 of the United States Code on June 1, 2010, that are funded by state block grants, or other state or local funds, shall be subject to the verification requirements under subdivision (b) of Section 27 of the Government Code as a condition of establishing the recipient's initial eligibility, or upon re-determination of eligibility, as a condition of the eligible recipient receiving the state or local benefit.

Key words to pay attention to, dear:
ineligible applicant
eligible recipient
condition

NOTE:  "applicant" is different than "recipient".  I just wanted to make that clear in case you were confused.

An "ineligible applicant" would be someone who is an undocumented non-citizen, according to Section 2 of the proposed measure.  As the term "applicant" indicates, they apply for benefits on someone's behalf.

An "eligible recipient for publicly funded social services" is, obviously, a U.S. citizen or documented non-citizen.  Why?  Because according to California law only U.S. citizens or documented non-citizens are eligible for state social service benefits.

A "condition" is a prerequisite, i.e., something required before something can occur.

Now look back up at the section of the measure I quoted, and read the underlined and bolded parts.

The "eligible recipient" (i.e., the American child) cannot receive benefits unless the immigration status of the "ineligible applicant" has been verified.

Any other way you think you can spin this to mean the exact opposite of what it actually states?

Let's play some more pick and choose, shall we:

Section 2; 27, (3) The California Health and Human Services Agency shall adopt regulations to provide for the adjudication of extraordinary individual circumstances under which the verification procedures imposed by this section would impose undue hardship on a legal resident of California.

For which now I would reference Section 3.

(c)(1) If neither parent has provided the documentation required under subdivision (b), a certificate of live birth as described in Section 102425 shall be registered for a birth that occurs on or after July 1, 2010, only after the birth mother appears in person before the local registrar and provides the local registrar with all of the following:

(A)(ii) An official foreign government-issued identification document with photograph.

adjudication: generally refers to processes of decision making that involves a neutral third party with the authority to determine a binding resolution through some form of judgment or award.

Still with your perverted sexual innendos, I don't care that you seem to be a homosexual, I am not and do not appreciate the relentless advances you seem to be making towards me. I have asked that you quit, now I am telling you to quit.

Now, in no way does this disallow a child born here to not receive benefits. The "birth certificate" is still accepted by the local or state benefit provider.

R Jay,

Liquid has called me "sweetie" before...I recall some "oh sweetie" comments on Dee's blog (Immigration Talk).  It's interesting.  He was telling Dave to "get a pair" at one point.  I guess that's supposed to prove he's a man, but why does he use such graphic sexual terminology (referring to another man's genitals)?  I'm working on a theory that all racism, sexism, anti-semitism and homophobia has its roots in the macho fear of tenderness between men or repressed desire (i.e. taboo homosexual feelings).  By calling him "dear" and "sweetie", you are probably just reminding him of this uncomfortable feelings and fears about himself.  Well, I confess to a bit of shadenfreude, but I am enjoying myself immensely, especially when I think of all the bullying he has subjected me, Pete and Dee to....not to mention all the cruel names and slurs he has subjected undocumented immigrants to time and again.  Ay, I just love it when you when you call him "dear"!   If Liquid was secure in his manhood, he would just laugh it off...maybe even call you "sweet thang" in jest and leave it at that.  But he takes himself a little too seriously, doesn't he?  Well, I can tell you this: he's not one to talk when it comes to "relentless advances."

You're surely not talking about this topic, are you Analisa (where you are Pro Person), where I was responding to your sweetie comment:

Immigration Reform 2008 & the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s: Why I Write My Blog

Whatever you do, don't go into law, sweetie.

Now since you say there are more, please provide the link to them, but somehow I highly doubt that you can.

As for me subjecting "undocumented immigrants" to cruel names, please provide links to your allegations. And please show the "relentless advances" I have made towards you, again I highly doubt you can, you seem to be nothing more than grandstanding in an unbecoming way.

Please Analisa, I don't wish to put you in your place as I did once before on here, but if you keep putting in your 2 cents without the links, I will again make you look foolish.

I'm not about to get into a war of words over this, but the fact is that you have.  There's just one example is right there on the blog you site:

"Oh sweetie, you're in for a treat..."

(okay, I did start that one.)

You have also followed me to me blog after I told you that your efforts were making me afraid.  I did not relish the idea of having white supremacists finding out about my identity and visiting my (non-immigration related) blog.  As I said, I started getting hits from ALIPAC and your friend Ultima showed up after your visit.  Moreover, you exposed Mary's place of employment on this blog.  You are very good at ferreting out personal information about people.  You googled the name of a friend of mine 76 times after he called you 'Incontinence Rains'...and he's a man!  Again, you have no call for complaint when it comes to "relentless advances."  And this is the tip of the ice berg. I was just sticking up for R Jay, so this is the last time I am going respond to you...and I suggest you do the same. 

You googled the name of a friend of mine 76 times after he called you 'Incontinence Rains'...and he's a man!

You can't get anything right, can you? I visited his blog 75 times, according to him, in one day. I asked him to provide the proof, that never happened, and I truly doubt he could ever provide the proof. I mean really, I would have to click on his web site once every 20 minutes throughout the entire day to make 75 times in one day.

Robb can stick up for himself, just as I can.

You give "obtuse" an entirely new meaning, Liquid Reigns darling.  And I'm not sure what's funnier, that you actually think I'm engaging in "perverted sexual innuendos" or that you believe I'm making "relentless advances" toward you.  Absolutely hilarious.  You could've been a wealthy girl, y'know.  You're so uptight that if you stuck some coal up your tuckus you could yank out a diamond in three seconds.

As if it matters.  Just remember this: big girls don't cry.

On to the adult's table (I invite you to pull up a high-chair) . . .

Your quoting of the verification requirement sections of the "California Taxpayer Protection" proposal only reinforces the facts as I have already laid them out.

The key phrase in the part you quoted is "only after" . . .

a certificate of live birth ... shall be registered for a birth that occurs on or after July 1, 2010, only after the birth mother appears in person before the local registrar and provides the local registrar with all of the following . . .

The birth mother must then provide all of the following:  (1) documents verifying her status in the United States or official identification from her home government; (2) documentation of all hospital birth delivery costs paid with public funds; (3) a fingerprint; (4) a fee.

These requirements compositely are excessive and extraordinary, to say nothing of the fact that a copy of it all gets forwarded to the Department of Homeland Security.  Failure (or inability) to provide any of this information means a birth certificate would not be issued.  This ultimately would constitute a failure of verification of lawful status in the United States.

And what do you think the result is after that?  Exactly what I have been consistently explaining to you over the past several posts: benefits would be denied to a child.

The drafters of this "California Taxpayer Protection" measure knew full well that undocumented immigrants in this country (1) won't have a U.S.-issued document proving lawful status, or (2) will likely not be able or willing to provide identification issued by their home government.  Nor would they likely be able to provide "documentation of all hospital birth delivery costs paid with public funds."  As a result, thousands would fail the verification requirements and, according to the proposed provisions of the measure, they would be reported to the Department of Homeland Security.

Ultimately -- and this was the entire point of this part of the discussion -- children would be harmed.  How?  Because, in addition to the other reasons that have been discussed, out of fear of being deported and their families divided, undocumented immigrant parents would not apply for benefits for their children born on American soil.  And by mere virtue of being afraid to seek benefits, the harm to the children is obvious.

The measure is a massive set-up at least, and a malicious trap at worst.  It does not advocate the welfare of children, but is a twisted maneuver to root out undocumented immigrants.  Worst of all, the measure uses children to do it.  And when children are objectified for a political purpose, that is immoral.

It's okay, Analisa.  The puerile antics and sensitivities of Liquid Reigns are of no concern to me.  As I see it this is an exercise at bearing steadfast witness to the facts, and educating the clueless.  And I think it's okay to be playful while doing it.  If Liquid Reigns can't handle the playfulness, well then that's her problem.

But, so as not to divert away from the discussion . . .

I have made the case about how the "California Taxpayer Protection" measure is ultimately harmful to children, on multiple levels.

So Liquid Reigns, what is your case?  Why do you support the "California Taxpayer Protection" measure?

You would never get the coal up my tuckus to begin with. So in the end you would be left holding a lump of coal.

Your "intellect" kills me, ROFLMAO (sarcasm intended).

Continuing on with your paragrapha certificate of live birth ... shall be registered for a birth that occurs on or after July 1, 2010, only after the birth mother appears in person before the local registrar and provides the local registrar with all of the following . . .:

(A) Either of the following documents, which shall be photocopied by the local registrar:

Something about the word Either that stands out. Lets continue;

(i) A United States-issued document with photograph proving lawful status in the United States.

(ii) An official foreign government-issued identification document with photograph.

Could (ii) mean a Matricular Consular card? But wait, that would mean the opposite of what you have stated. Please don't be so butt hurt with your clueless education. You have made the case?? And here I thought you've only been able to state your opinion of it.

It's not "Matricular".  It's "Matricula".  If you're going to attempt to appear intelligent you should at least try doing it intelligently.

But . . . your response is (not surprisingly) a complete non sequitur to this tangent of the discussion, i.e., that it has been demonstrated that the "California Taxpayer Protection" measure is harmful to children.

You have absolutely failed to make your case that the measure would not be harmful to children, especially when the contents of the proposed legislation make it clear that it would be.

And any further denial on your part to the truth of the matter is evidence merely of willful and obstinate unreasonableness.

Now, if you're up to it (which I highly doubt you are), answer the following:  Why do you support the "California Taxpayer Protection" measure?

All you can point out is an added letter to a word, simply pathetic. Do I need to point out your misspelled words now?

I have failed to make my case?? Only in your feeble mind. You have only made the claim it would be harmful to children, I have countered each claim.

Why do I support the passage of the CTPA? Simply because it is in compliance with what Federal Law mandates.

What I do find quite hilarious is, each time I counter your pathetic argument all you can do is come back with some kind of insult. Typical. It's even funnier when you have to have a girl stick up for you and make allegations that she can't substantiate. So, go put your dress on, sit at your little girls table and play dollies like your were taught to do.

Well, sure you countered each claim.  But you never did it successfully.

You support the "California Taxpayer Protection" measure because it is in compliance with what Federal law mandates?  Well first of all, WOW, what a total cop-out answer.  Secondly, if it's merely a measure of compliance (as you say), why the need for it in the first place?

Actually honey, it isn't a "dress" I'm wearing.  It's a cotillion gown.  Pearl white with egg-shell highlights.  I mean, come on.  It is Friday, after all.

"Dollies"?

And finally . . . and it's important I tell you this . . . hating me won't make you prettier.

Hey there Arcadia.

I appreciate your kind words.

You hit the nail on the head when you stated "the immigration debate is a visible symptom of a larger mailaise that grips us as a country."

Pathforgers agree with your sentiment.  In our declaration (part 1.3) it states: "Humanity's surrendering to fear has resulted in a dark history of vain and illusory pursuits to create significance, relevance, and a sense of immortality at any cost, with the sad consequence of an addiction to self-worship and tremendous destruction being leveled upon ourselves, one another, and the very world which sustains us. In the end it is an irony that in the chasing of illusions we have only magnified the very fear we have sought in all our desperation to vanquish, passing on to successive generations a sad heritage of relationship systems - interpersonal, political, secular, and religious - which serve and perpetuate that fear, ultimately creating immense barriers to the Oneness which is our true and natural human destiny."

One of the foremost identifying marks of the fanatics in the "anti-illegal immigration" movement is their penchant for depricating others.  For example, puerile attempts at diminishing those whom they disagree with by stating their heads had been screwed with by "far left body snatchers" (very colorful, by the way, if not original).

People devoted to Reason and possessed of valid arguments do not need to knock others down in order to feel tall.

And, in the time-honored tradition of Jesus of Nazareth, I will not "cast my pearls before swine."

Though I will say that I would rather err on the side of broad compassion than on the side of narrow "us-them" nationalism.

One of the foremost identifying marks of the fanatics in the "anti-illegal immigration" movement is their penchant for depricating others.

And the same can be said of you, just look at your deprication above in your comments towards me, along with your sexual inneundos. The rest of your diatribe is rather hilarious and only shows yourself as the swine.

Mark, you can make noise or you can make music.  Right now you are simply making noise.

Since when is nationalism a bad thing?  Oh gee, I don't know, when it gives rise to ultra-nationalist white-supremecist hate groups, some of whose members want to kill a certain well-known black man because he now sits in the Oval Office.  As if his job title matters, they'd want him dead just for being alive while black.  All in the name of nationalism.

Your viewpoint is remarkably two-dimensional, whereby you adopt an either/or approach to what you perceive as a problem.  The reality is that the immigration issue is multi-dimensional in its scope, and we need to engage fresh and counter-ordinary opportunities which align with that scope so as to create policies that achieve healthy and creative balance.

Hello analisa.

Thanks for your message, and I'm glad to learn you have found value in my story.

Whether people can be reached or not is entirely up to them.  They must choose to acknowledge the failure of "us-them" thinking and then choose to change it.  Without the will to take the steps -- which requires genuine humility and a large sacrifice of ego -- then the prospects for authentic transformation are low.

You asked, When you were making the transition in your beliefs, did anyone say anything to influence you, or was it more of an inner process of self-reflection?

For the most part it was a process of self-reflection inspired by circumstance.  But at one point two key friends of mine were integral to helping me cross the threshold from reflection to actually living out my new vision of life.  As an analogy, it is like forming clay into a bowl or other shape, and then putting it in the kiln to complete.  For me, my self-reflection was the forming of the clay, and the words from friends were my kiln.

You asked, Is there some way that we could frame our message so that the restrictionists can hear it, without getting defensive or jumping to the conclusion that we're anti American?

My advice is this:  don't frame the message so that restrictionists can hear it, but give life to the message so that those who need justice get justice.  Activism should be about those whose benefit we seek.  The point is that the message shouldn't be about winning over the restrictionists, but in creating justice for immigrating people.  Take the restrictionists out of the equation of activism, and let the actual doing of justice be your voice.

You asked, [Is there] any way to reach these folks in order to assuage their evident fear and loathing of the alien "other"(?)

The only way anyone can be reached is by their own choice.  They have to be open to confronting their own preconceptions and consider new ways of seeing things.  And the best we can do is invite them to do so.  It is up to them to accept the invitation.  Beyond that we must be continually be committed to forging the path forward in humbly bearing witness to compassion and grace, and vigorously advocating for our common humanity.

Pathforgers have a declaration called "The PathForge", and in it are many insights which directly touch upon the questions you've brought up.  I encourage you to check it out at http://www.pathforgers.org/pathforge

My advice is this:  don't frame the message so that restrictionists can hear it, but give life to the message so that those who need justice get justice.  Activism should be about those whose benefit we seek.  The point is that the message shouldn't be about winning over the restrictionists, but in creating justice for immigrating people.  Take the restrictionists out of the equation of activism, and let the actual doing of justice be your voice.

Thank you, R Jay.  I agree with your insights. You sound like a very wise and perceptive person.  Pretty darn brilliant too! (forgive me for saying this, but I can hardly believe you were once a restrictionist!). I will definitely check your site :-)

Mark, you stated:  To hear some in here talk we are the most inhumane country in the world because our immigration laws don't allow every Tom, Dick and Jose to come here at will.

Just out of curiosity, Mark, why the phrase "Tom, Dick and Jose" as an illustration for immigrants?  The phrase is usually "Tom, Dick and Harry".  Did you use a Hispanic name on purpose in place of Harry, or was it just automatic?

Here's what I don't like: "illegals" used as a noun.  Moved from an adjective to a noun.  Which is the whole point. 

Also I don't like hard-core restrictionists who are unwilling to compromise plastering their comments all over this blog.  It is disrespectful, from people who demand unconditional respect from immigrants and their allies.

The unwillingness to compromise is a factor of ego, which is rooted in fear, and which has as one of its symptoms the impulse to simply fight a fight.

And that's what it's about for many "hard-core restrictionists":  just fighting a fight, rather than engaging in healthy discourse in a reasonable desire to seek solutions.  Which often requires -- here it comes -- compromise.

Once again . . .

"most of the illegals in this country are of Latino extraction"

Thank goodness race had nothing to do with your choice of words.

I'm actually not so much bothered as I am simply not surprised.

But that's okay.

Perhaps we can move on to another topic that relates to immigration and which I suspect you have some unique insights on.  Someone else was unable to answer these questions.  I suspect you will be able to, and I look forward to your answers.

What is the foundation of law?  What is the foundation for determining what is or is not ethical?  What is the source for determining what is or is not moral?

What is the foundation of law?  What is the foundation for determining what is or is not ethical?  What is the source for determining what is or is not moral?

Go to a local community college and you can sit and ponder these philosophy questions ad nasium. what is moraity and who decides.. text books will give you the pro's and cons. it was borring in class and it is borring on this thread.  I have no intrest to read your dry posts.  The rest of us have to actually live in the community, and we have a problem. This is a numbers game. it wasn't a problem when the illegals were in the millions. they snuck in, stayed under the wire and went unnoticed. now they are noticed and are being told they don't belong here and they have to go back to their own country.  If they can't they can go to canada and bring their ray of sunshine up there. Canada has tons of room up in that empty quarter up in the north.  why is it they all have to all congragate  in my neighborhood.. disperse

Ah, yes.  The "Send them to Canada" argument.  Truly a hallmark of the anti-migrant intelligentsia.

Perhaps, Hilary, "they" are congregating in your neighborhood because of your warmth and endearing charm.  I could, of course, be wrong.

How many illegals do you live next to Mr. Pearson?  Do you have 1 bedroom apartments that have 6-10 people living in it that change all the time ALL around you?  do you have people with out cars that use shopping carts as cars and park 2 or 3 carts in your yard a week?  You ever been hit and go out to talk to the driver and they don't speak english then when you go to get your insurance they take off?  Search hit and run with illegal. How many rolling black outs do you have because your population growth exploded faster than your infrasructure can support. Do you have water shortages like we do? more people equals less quality of life.  how many people can you fit into your house before it becomes disfunctional? it is a finite number you know. Look at the lady who love cats and has 100 cats in her house.  at some point it is no longer a humane issue to take in more cats.  at some point she has to redirect them to other locations for the health and resources of the cats already there. they will collapse. it is a mathmatical certanty. 6 billion people on the planet. they can't all migrate to the US.?

I don't know.

I don't know.

No.

Yes.

I'll do that later.

A couple now and then, but not because of population growth.

Sometimes.

I disagree.

About thirty.

Actually I think you mean "finite capacity".

I love cats.

It's "certainty" not "certanty".

You're right.

And so my question is . . . what's your point?

My point is I see your compassion as ignorance. Our government has to put the responsiblity of care of the mexican people where the responsiblity belongs the Mexican Government not on the State of California. What are the stats of illegal immigrants in New Jersy 200k or something?  once it gets to 2 million and you see your neighborhood with the look and feel of a mexican bario it gets a little old.  Anyone screem at the top of their lungs outside you home selling tamales?  Try that at 9:am TAMALES!!!! TAMALES!!! TAMALES!!! then when they are gone a few hours later ELOTE!!! ELOTE!!! ELOTE!!! someone comes by selling corn..  screeming this all day. No noise ordinance in Mexico, apparently you can screem and blast your music or anything else all hours of he night.  At night it is PELOTAS PEOLOTAS  icecream man is riding a cart through with his ice cream.  It is someone screeming thorugh your neighborhood at all hours.  Then another strange thing is that they don't know from spading your dogs. So you will see ferrel dogs running rampant some nursing all over the place.  these rough looking dogs don't usually hurt anyone as they are skidish but someone is bringing in dogs and then kicking them out and they form pack of other dogs and they run the neighborhood and sometimes it can be scarry getting out of your car becuase you don't know. so your first answer of how many illegals live in your neighborhood of "I don't know" i'm going to guess the answer is zero to none.  If they were in your neighborhood, you would know.

sorry it is PALETAS they scream not balls. :-)

The larger and first portion of your most recent post (10:10AM) I will get to later.

As to your statement, and I quote:  So your first answer of how many illegals live in your neighborhood of "I don't know" i'm going to guess the answer is zero to none.  If they were in your neighborhood, you would know. . . .

Hilary, I live in Harrisburg, PA, the state capital.  With over half a million people in the metro area I am absolutely certain there are undocumented immigrants living here.  And the truth is I don't know how many.  And I have no idea what you mean by "you would know".

I must be chopped liver anymore I don't see anybody responding to my threads, boo hoo.  I see up above Canada is offered up as a sanctuary for Mexicans.  Why don't we assist the Mexican people by b.o.y.c.o.t.t.i.n.g Mexico and afterwards they wont have to leave to go anywhere?  Boycott, it's a word I must have invented alone, correction, Jesse Jackson invented it.  Works for him and his.

Nobody reads my anecdotes and responds.  My friend Beto met me in Canada and we found work for him.  The Canadians only required that he go home and come back.  THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE BASTARDS IN MEXICO TAKING A SIESTA TILL NOVEMBER AT THE EARLIEST (before they'll even talk to him, and then who knows what shit they'll throw in his way.)

Mr. Pearson, are you avoiding me?