Arizona Immigration Law: A Discussion

John R. Houk
© May 11, 2010

My son Steven and I are both Conservatives (or at least I think that is still the case). Steven has always believed my level of Conservatism is a bit radical compared to his. In political discussions between us Steven’s centrism sifts to the top when somewhere in the discussion he calls me a Nazi. I don’t recall if I told him that Nazi was an acronym for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP). Actually the word “Nazi” comes from the German pronunciation of “Nati” which makes the sound na-zi. The English translation works out to be National Socialist German Workers Party. Note words “Socialist,” and “Workers”. These are words that are Left Wing and not Right Wing.

Any way Steven and I have a disagreement on the Constitutionality of Arizona State anti-immigration law that is due to take effect in August barring Judicial challenges from the Left and the Obama Administration. Steven cites his feelings that the Arizona Immigration Law (SB 1070) will lead to an unconstitutional police state (See link below to Washington Seattle Police brutality) ending the inalienable right of Liberty.

Below is Steven’s logic which was initiated by a Facebook post I initiated HERE. I follow this with my rebuttal.

**************************************
Steven Copley

In typical jingoist fashion, you're missing the point. Do I look illegal to you? Does my sister? We're not, but if I had a decent tan would I?


You think its right for the government to be able to legally detain someone if their citizenship cant be confirmed? You really think that's right? I thought you liked the Constitution. There are these... See More amendments called the 4th and 5th that you and AZ lawmakers are totally ignoring. Actually, they pissed all over the constitution.


"May I see your papers?" -Nazi Germany (1930's)

Saturday at 5:36pm.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Steven Copley

http://www.kirotv.com/investigations/23490010/%20http://www.kirotv.com/news/23479966/detail.html


This is the kind of thing that happens when police think you look Mexican.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmm ... Jingoism: extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy. A definition often used as an epithet by Leftists against Conservatives. In my chauvinism does not apply. On the other hand extreme nationalism may be the case. Certainly my nationalism does lead to a belligerent foreign policy in the sense that those that do harm to America and American culture should be treated as enemies rather than friends. A person entering America against the law cannot be a friend. Does the government have a right to detain a suspected person of breaking the law? Absolutely!

Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

In an article entitled, “Original intent of the 14th Amendment,” there is some fascinating information the Democratic Party and Leftists might entice gagging:

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Thus original intent of the Constitution does support checking on the citizenship of illegal aliens as a process to protect American sovereignty from the disloyalty of foreign entities that hold allegiance to their homeland more than the allegiance to an America that provides a better economic situation. When push comes to shove the fact that an alien has broken the law to enter America is a demonstration of loyalty to their homeland than to the Constitution and rule of law of America. If that makes me a jingoist epithet in the eyes of those that would abandon E Pluribus Unum in favor of multicultural diversity, so be it.

Now to the racist cops of Seattle: Since racism was expressed in the State of Washington that borders Canada rather than Mexico, it appears you believe this police brutality is a universal action of law enforcement nationwide, correct? That certainly is the implication of the statement: “This is the kind of thing that happens when police think you look Mexican”. The statement followed a link to an article which is inclusive of a link of a Seattle Police Officer kicking the snot out of Latinos who were not involved in an incident at a Seattle restaurant. One of the perpetrators of the restaurant incident was a Latino and the two Latinos were accosted because of the similarity in racial appearance.

What is failed to be mentioned is to note this was in Washington State. The Arizona State Law stipulates racial sensitivity training to occur before the Arizona Law becomes enforceable State Law mirroring which as a reminder mirrors Federal Law. It is more likely a disgruntled American citizen in Arizona to act out in racism than it will be Arizona Law enforcement. This is especially so since Mexican druggers have stepped across the border and murdered a taxpaying Arizona rancher on his property.

JRH 5/11/10