Signed,
Taken over in San Diego.
NordP (www.pledgewear.com) – I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE.
Posted on 11/12/2004 6:11:00 AM PST by FairfaxVA
Arizona voters have spoken, and now the state's Hispanic community, and state employees, are waiting to find out what Proposition 200 will mean for them.
The controversial ballot initiative, which passed Tuesday, requires individuals to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote and applying for public benefits - but it's not clear exactly what public benefits are included.
Some people say the initiative targets only state welfare benefits, but others say it means everything from immunizations to water service and fire protection, the Arizona Republic reported Tuesday. State and local workers will be required to give immigration officials the names of anyone who illegally seeks public benefits. It will be a crime for public employees not to report the names.
According to the Arizona Republic, the Phoenix City Council is expected to vote Wednesday on using its resources to defend any employees who are sued for violating the provisions of Proposition 200.
Latino leaders, meanwhile, are scrambling to calm Hispanic residents, who are worried that Proposition 200 will lead to their deportation.
Maricopa County Head Start program officials said the day after Prop. 200 passed that many concerned parents kept their children home. One classroom reported an attendance of 2 out of 20 children.
Program spokeswoman Rachel Shultz says her department called many of the 2,700 families enrolled in the federal Head Start program to assure them they would be unaffected by the passage of Prop. 200, and by Thursday, attendance was at usual levels.
Opponents say Prop. 200 has prompted fears among immigrants as well as illegal aliens that they could be stopped at any time and asked for their papers.
"It's a very reasonable fear," said Thomas Saenz, spokesman for Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. Saenz says his group will seek a court injunction to block Proposition 200 from taking effect, as soon as Arizona's vote is certified on Nov. 22.
Supporters of the measure say it was intended to save the state money and discourage the influx of illegal aliens. Opponents worry that the measure will cause hardship for the estimated 350,000 illegal aliens living in Arizona.
Latino activists aren't the only ones who oppose Prop 200. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon was quoted as saying, "It will bloat and burden local governments, adding millions to our annual budgets."
Arizona's senior U.S. senator, John McCain, told CNSNews.com: "I understand the frustration most Arizonans feel with our unprotected border, but I don't think this is the right answer. It could be very divisive."
Mexico Interferes
Opposition to Prop. 200 extends into Mexico. In a written statement, the Mexican foreign ministry said, "The Mexican government regrets that the proposition passed and expresses its complete opposition to the measure, as it discriminates against individuals based on their ethnic profile and limits their access to basic health and education services."
Similar reaction erupted 10 years ago after California passed a similar measure, Proposition 187. Some say the California measure prompted illegal aliens to go further underground, keeping their children home from school and missing doctors' appointments.
The same thing might be happening in Arizona.
Elias Bermudez, executive director of Centro de Ayuda, an immigrant advocacy group, says his phone is ringing off the hook with worried immigrants and illegal aliens concerned about their futures.
"I tell them not to fear. I tell them the courts will eventually strike down this law," Bermudez said.
Signed,
Taken over in San Diego.
NordP (www.pledgewear.com) – I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE.
That is not correct. The Fourteenth Amendment, for example, speaks both of "citizens" and "persons." There is a difference - but no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process nor may any person be denied equal protection of the law. Those protections do not attach to citizens alone; they attach to any person under the jurisdiction of a State of the United States.
Prop 200 should be a federal Prop. I would wholeheartedly support it, to bad its not in our state.
Lets all push for it to become federal law.
Dan
IT IS TRULY SAD FOR AMERICA WHEN THE STATES HAVE TO DO THE DIRTY JOB OF CLEANING UP AFTER THE VOTE-PANDERING WASHINGTON POLITICIANS WHO LET THE WHOLE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ISSUE FESTER TO THE MASSIVE PROPORTIONS THAT IT HAS TAKEN ON....
When will the people of this country stand up and hold Washington accountable??? As a California resident, I am sick of living in an environment overrun by illegals and also HAVING TO PAY FOR IT AT THE SAME TIME. A double slap in the face courtesy of our Federal government...
I have a feeling this proposition will be challenged heavily in court. Hope it makes it through unscathed, but I am not too confident in its chances. It sounds too general, giving the judicial wing of the democratic party the opportunity to slam it for it's lack of specifity.
Still, either way, it is a building block. If it stands, great. If it falls, we know what to change to make it stronger.
"We could really use some drinking fountains out here!!!"
At the time the 14th Amendment was written, "subject to the jurisdiction" meant to exclude foreign subjects. As written, the 14th Amendment was NOT intended to grant citizenship or the rights thereof to the children of foreign subjects.
The Slaughterhouse Cases are the first Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment on record. The author of the majority opinion is a contemporary of those who drafted and debated the Amendment. The following text is from the majority opinion (about 3/4 of the way down the linked source page):
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)
Opinions
MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
I hate to break it to Comrade Vincente, but the proposition had NOTHING/ZIPPO/NADA to do with ethnic profiling FIRST OF ALL. Second, STAY OUT OF OUR BUSINESS. Third, why is THEIR health care our problem? What about OUR health care? What about how we have lost several hospitals and trauma centers down here in Southern Arizona because they were overrun by illegals? What about how we have to wait several hours in an emergency room because they are clogged with illegals? Any emergency room you walk into down here - same story.
typical leftist crap --- legal citizens and legal immigrants and those with legal permits will have NO PROBLEM.
Only criminals need to be quaking with fear! Is that why the left fears law & order?
What is conspicuously missing in this story is that 47% of the Hispanic (citizens) of Arizona voted for Proposition 200. Also, the law will require reporting any illegal alien that attempts to get government benefits to the law.
That's the whole point. If you create enough hardship, they'll leave, saving us the trouble of deporting them.
"Maricopa County Head Start program officials said the day after Prop. 200 passed that many concerned parents kept their children home. One classroom reported an attendance of 2 out of 20 children. "
Am I reading this right? Only 2 out of 20 kids were legals? I guess I understand what the funding for head start goes for. Interesting that I raised my kids, alone without headstart or any other government hand out. We should expect the same for all immigrants, and NEVER for illegal aliens.
I hope Arizona can make 200 stick.
The decision is incorrect.
No, you are.
It has to be both "born or naturalized" AND subject to the jurisdiction; iow, not foreign "subjects." Nor does the Amendment text say OR. Miller was contemporaneous with the authors and may even have been one of them. He therefore had to clearly understand their intent, had access to them in case he didn't, and would have run into a firestorm from the authors had he misconstrued that intent.
He didn't.
As opposed to "I believe" do you have any EVIDENCE to support that belief?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Emphasis mine.
You can go right ahead and believe that the dicta of an 100+-year-old Supreme Court decision are infallible. I stand by my interpretation.
Your interpretation deliberately misconstrues the letter of the Amendment, thus:
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I swear, the Republicans sound more like the leftist everday!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.