American Politics

[Shryke]

It's not the states defining who is a "natural born citizen". They presumably would be applying whatever standard is set by Congress, which isn't entirely clear anyway. But here's how I think it would work. If a Secretary of State rejected a candidate, that candidate would have the right to appeal that determination in Federal Court in that state, subject to review by Courts of Appeal, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court. Honestly, this whole area of constitutional law is such a mess that it could probably benefit from a court challenge, or at least motivate Congress to draft a cleaner definition.

Like I said, I wish this whole issue with Obama would just go away. But I think it's interesting from a purely legal perspective how completely messed up this area of the law is.

Except that by rejecting the candidate, Arizone HAS defined Natural Born Citizen. Something Congress hasn't done and ALSO something only Congress has the right to do.

It has, and it does. The problem is that it doesn't really get resolved because nobody seems to know where/when is the right place to challenge it. Read up on what happened with McCain.

Nothing happened with McCain. It got brought up and then immediately shot down since McCain was born on a US Army Base (as I remember. It was something like that.) and Congress had already passed laws ages ago clearing that situation up.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Except that by rejecting the candidate, Arizone HAS defined Natural Born Citizen. Something Congress hasn't done and ALSO something only Congress has the right to do.

The Constitution doesn't say that. In fact, the Constitution pretty much delegates to states the right to select electors in any manner they see fit. But that's missing the point anyway. The state would simply be making the "first cut" based on whether or not the candidate presented documentation. The federal courts would ultimately have jurisdiction, which is how it can work in other areas of the law involving federal questions. That's why a lot of Constitutional issues come up initially through the state court system, and because it involves a "federal question", the case can ultimately end up in the U.S. Supreme COurt. The fact that a federal law is at issue doesn't mean states don't have jurisdiction. It just means that the federal system gets to make the final call.

Nothing happened with McCain. It got brought up and then immediately shot down since McCain was born on a US Army Base (as I remember. It was something like that.) and Congress had already passed laws ages ago affirming that people in his situation were NCBs.

There is disagreement on that, and it was never resolved legally. The Senate ended up passing some weird non-binding resolution in the summer of 2008 addressing the issue, which only serves to demonstrate a better process is needed.

[El-ahrairah]

Isn't the whole natural born citizen a rather irrational relic to begin with? Perhaps the better solution would simply be to get rid of the provision.

Yes! The particular latitude and longitude where you left your mother's womb has what exactly to do with your ability to run the country? Um... Nothing?

[BloodRider]

It's not the states defining who is a "natural born citizen". They presumably would be applying whatever standard is set by Congress, which isn't entirely clear anyway. But here's how I think it would work. If a Secretary of State rejected a candidate, that candidate would have the right to appeal that determination in Federal Court in that state, subject to review by Courts of Appeal, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court. Honestly, this whole area of constitutional law is such a mess that it could probably benefit from a court challenge, or at least motivate Congress to draft a cleaner definition.

Like I said, I wish this whole issue with Obama would just go away. But I think it's interesting from a purely legal perspective how completely messed up this area of the law is.

I would think the bigger issue is Arizona would presumably be reviewing Hawaii's (or whatever state's) birth certificates.

[TheKassi]

I'm not at all sure the Party of No label hurts Republicans right now. Obama's approval rating is below 50 percent. Polls also show that a strong majority agree that the government is too large, doing too much, and spending too much. They want someone to be saying "no", and to put the brakes on things.

This is a tag line, and not an actual reflection of policy. Even the tea party likes Social Security and Medicare, and they have never made a peep out of cutting defense spending. Without even getting down to the nuts and bolts of what people do and do not want their government to do for them, even the people who are supposed to be protesting in the name of fiscal responsibility demand we keep our hands off of two thirds of the budget, and two thirds of that chunk of the pie is a pair of social programs.

Given Palin's wing of the tea party wants the government to take a more active role in people's lives, it is impossible to argue that people actually wish a reduction in the size and intrusiveness of government.

At the end of the day people want the government to spend more money on the things they like (and on both sides of the aisle that includes plump social programs these days) and less on the things their political opposition enjoy. That isn't anything like advocating small government, any more then eating more cake and less pie is a good way to lose weight.

[TrueMetis]

It will only work if there is a sworn brotherhood of black-clad security guards.

And if you can figure out a way to keep it from melting.

[TrackerNeil]

I would think the bigger issue is Arizona would presumably be reviewing Hawaii's (or whatever state's) birth certificates.

I wonder...what would happen if Arizona disagreed with the issuing state regarding the validity of a birth certificate? It's easy to say "That won't happen", but if you've got Orly Taitz in charge of the department that does the review...

Tee-hee. What a bunch of chowderheads.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Is there an actual definition of what natural born citizen means? Two American parents and the baby is born in the US? Born in the US period? Two American parents outside or inside the US?

[Elrick]

I wanted to add a couple of things first off I think it's funnier than shit that people think the republicans are SOOOO hard on illegals when their HERO Ronald Reagan was the one that granted them amnesty. Which was one of the reasons the republicans were winning the republican vote.

As for Obama's approval ratings go since I heard mention how low his approval rating is (48.8) as of this day it's really funny because Reagan's was actually lower 46.6. Gee approval ratings really do determine how successful your presidency is going to be. (sarcasm)

Oh and as for this bill goes about the illegal immigration, I think it's a bullshit bill that is all about racial profiling.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tarant,

Is there an actual definition of what natural born citizen means? Two American parents and the baby is born in the US? Born in the US period? Two American parents outside or inside the US?

Born in the U.S. period. If your parents are here on vacation and your mother gives birth to you in the airport on their way home the baby is considered a U.S. Citizen and has the right to vote when the child reaches age 18. To address the purpose of the thread this law does not thrill me. Giving police carte blanch to stop and question people simply because they suspect they might be illegal, sounds like a recipe for abusive practices.

On the other hand isn't that exactly what Terry v. Ohio already allows police to do on "reasonable suspison". It seems this law simply expands the Terry stop, again, not something I see as conducive to a non-police state atmosphere.

[sToNED_CAT]

I wanted to add a couple of things first off I think it's funnier than shit that people think the republicans are SOOOO hard on illegals when their HERO Ronald Reagan was the one that granted them amnesty. Which was one of the reasons the republicans were winning the republican vote.

Republicans winning republican vote? Do you mean hispoanic vote or what?

Republicans are so hard on illegals because Reagans amnesty never worked as intended. The deal was the 2 mil. people in US would get amnesty and illegal immigration will be stopped. The later part never happened, that's the reason why most of GOP is again ANY compromise right now. They were already screwed once and they don't want to repeat it. And they are right - with any amnesty the influence of pro-illegal groups would only become stronger.

[Annelise]

I'm not at all sure the Party of No label hurts Republicans right now.

Oh it may not at the moment but I also don't think it's hurting the Democrats, either. You know, it's ye ol' tactic of repeating something over and over and over. So, for instance, when items that are popular with the public come up, having kept up with the ground work, as it were, may prove useful.

[Annelise]

There isn't an "official GOP" position because there is nobody who has the authority to speak for every elected Republican. Different Republicans have different views.

Right. I know Graham has been working on it, for instance, but I don't know if the rest of the congressional GOP has coalesced a response one way or the other. While there are obviously differing opinions within both parties, they do tend to respond as a party, create a party line and so forth on big issues like this.

[Swordfish]

As for Obama's approval ratings go since I heard mention how low his approval rating is (48.8) as of this day it's really funny because Reagan's was actually lower 46.6. Gee approval ratings really do determine how successful your presidency is going to be. (sarcasm)

So you believe that Reagan's presidency was successful despite his approval rating? And that Obama's will be also?

Or..... What, exactly is your point?

[Annelise]

Republicans are so hard on illegals because Reagans amnesty never worked as intended. The deal was the 2 mil. people in US would get amnesty and illegal immigration will be stopped. The later part never happened, that's the reason why most of GOP is again ANY compromise right now.

I think this is the key. This must be answered in the legislation. Some sort of amnesty is going to happen because rounding up illegal immigrants (in good standing) for deportation is unrealistic, a money pit and I don't even think its desirable in terms of our own best interests, but people will need to be convinced that there is a good plan to keep this from happening every 20 years or so. I agree amnesty will become the big point of contention (unfortunately), but it's anything but the critical part. Handling current illegal immigrants is the easy part, IMO. Getting the problem of illegal immigration under control is the hard part; that's what should receive the spotlight.

[Swordfish]

I think this is the key. This must be answered in the legislation. Some sort of amnesty is going to happen because rounding up illegal immigrants (in good standing) for deportation is unrealistic, a money pit and I don't even think its desirable in terms of our own best interests, but people will need to be convinced that there is a good plan to keep this from happening every 20 years or so. I agree amnesty will become the big point of contention (unfortunately), but it's anything but the critical part. Handling current illegal immigrants is the easy part, IMO. Getting the problem of illegal immigration under control is the hard part; that's what should receive the spotlight.

Perhaps a giant, magical wall of ice would do the trick......

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Right. I know Graham has been working on it, for instance, but I don't know if the rest of the congressional GOP has coalesced a response one way or the other. While there are obviously differing opinions within both parties, they do tend to respond as a party, create a party line and so forth on big issues like this.

I'd say Graham's position on this is to the left of most Republicans. He's unpopular within the party on that issue. IMHO, most Republicans oppose any form of amnesty or path to citizenship unless we first have effective control over who crosses the border.

[Annelise]

I'd say Graham's position on this is to the left of most Republicans. He's unpopular within the party on that issue. IMHO, most Republicans oppose any form of amnesty or path to citizenship unless we first have effective control over who crosses the border.

And by that do you mean, test it first, leave the current illegal situation as is, and then talk about amnesty later?

[Annelise]

Perhaps a giant, magical wall of ice would do the trick......

Heh.

Given that Mexico is still on the slide, it does make it that much harder. I had kinda hoped it might spawn a big legalize weed movement. Half wondered if waiting to see what happens in Cali would be useful to that particular end.

[Elrick]

So you believe that Reagan's presidency was successful despite his approval rating? And that Obama's will be also?

Or..... What, exactly is your point?

My point is that approval ratings have nothing to do with success at this point. People are making a big deal about Obama's approval ratings being small at this point but the reality is that it doesn't mean much. Yes Obama's presidency will be successful. That's just my opinion though.