• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Associated Press: Arizona Senate Approves 'Birther' Bill

disneydude said:
Ever notice that Arizona is becoming more and more ridiculous and nobody is following their lead? Arizona is quickly replacing Texas as the clown-state of the Union.
Click to expand...

Actually the clown state of the Union is up between Illinois for allow Rham in a Mayor of Chicago and Cali for letting Jerry Brown back in as Gov.
 
Jerry said:
.....because the certificate of baptism states which church they were baptized in and who the state-recognized clergy member was.
Click to expand...
And exactly how does that prove which country the baby was born in?
 
solletica said:
The motivation behind the laws is to appeal to the xenophobic (anti-immigrant) right wing voters in the state who are scared of non-White (i. e. brown) peoples, who they believe are invading America to destroy it's supposedly "proper" White culture.

That xenophobia is evident in bans like this. . .

Arizona education chief moves to ban ethnic studies in Tucson schools - CNN



True, and many of them, it would seem, aren't savvy enough to recognize it. It's well known that Latino labor organizers like Cesar Chaves opposed open immigration to improve the work conditions for laborers.

If they did recognize it, it would certainly be ironical. The last thing the border bigots in AZ want is for Latinos in the state to benefit from those laws.



OK, please explain how it would be enforced (this should be interesting. . .!)
Click to expand...



cop pulls someone over for running a stop light. Man has no driver's license in his possession. Cop asks for documentation that he is here legally. man shows it to him. Man gets charged for driving without a license.
Man is in a wreck. Cop asks for license, registration, and proof of insurance. Man has all of those. A report is made and cop leaves. man calls his insurance co. and tow truck.
Man is pulled over for suspected DUI. He smells of booze and is slurring his words. He can't provide license. He is then asked for documents that prove he is in country legally. he can't do that either. He goes to jail for suspected DUI and possibly here illegally. When he fails again to get anyone to produce his documents he is eventually deported.
BTW, it is a law that immigrants carry their greencards or documents with them. Anyone who is here legally shouldn't have a problem with the AZ law that only mimics the federal law.

I am anti-illegal immigration. To call people who want our borders secure, anti-immigrant is an insult. Immigration is a wonderful thing. Illegal immigration is well, illegal and should be stopped by enforcing our laws.
 
Barbbtx said:
[/B]

cop pulls someone over for running a stop light. Man has no driver's license in his possession. Cop asks for documentation that he is here legally. man shows it to him. Man gets charged for driving without a license.
Man is in a wreck. Cop asks for license, registration, and proof of insurance. Man has all of those. A report is made and cop leaves. man calls his insurance co. and tow truck.
Man is pulled over for suspected DUI. He smells of booze and is slurring his words. He can't provide license. He is then asked for documents that prove he is in country legally. he can't do that either. He goes to jail for suspected DUI and possibly here illegally. When he fails again to get anyone to produce his documents he is eventually deported.
BTW, it is a law that immigrants carry their greencards or documents with them. Anyone who is here legally shouldn't have a problem with the AZ law that only mimics the federal law.

I am anti-illegal immigration. To call people who want our borders secure, anti-immigrant is an insult. Immigration is a wonderful thing. Illegal immigration is well, illegal and should be stopped by enforcing our laws.
Click to expand...

Barb, the folks that have a problem with the AZ immigration law,s and anti-illegal immigration laws have this problem because they see illegals as a future voting block and represent power. You, and I for that matter, are a threat to that power.
 
MrVicchio said:
Barb, the folks that have a problem with the AZ immigration law,s and anti-illegal immigration laws have this problem because they see illegals as a future voting block and represent power. You, and I for that matter, are a threat to that power.
Click to expand...
The only way they can vote is if they're given U.S. citizenship. Who was the last president to provide amnesty for illegal aliens?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
The only way they can vote is if they're given U.S. citizenship. Who was the last president to provide amnesty for illegal aliens?
Click to expand...

Shhhhhh, he's a great man. Mythological. Say a prayer when you speak his name. :coffeepap
 
disneydude said:
Ever notice that Arizona is becoming more and more ridiculous and nobody is following their lead? Arizona is quickly replacing Texas as the clown-state of the Union.
Click to expand...

Says the one from Ca, the state that is losing it's people and jobs to Texas.

Just don't send us Pelosi or Boxer.:mrgreen:

Hey! Do you want Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green? They'd fit right in with all your left wing loons.:2wave:
 
Barbbtx said:
I did, but then someone corrected me and said we know the name of the hospital.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. There is no link for it. Please supply one.
 
Jerry said:
.....because the certificate of baptism states which church they were baptized in and who the state-recognized clergy member was.

I'm no birther, but that lil tid-bit is fairly obvious, just like the piece of trivia a few posts back on how a state can tell the Fed what to do. This is basic common knowledge.
Click to expand...

How in the **** do we, in this day and age, have "state recognized clergy"?
 
Barbbtx said:
Barack Obama's Birth Certificate: Why It Matters
Click to expand...

hey birfer:

Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois - UPI.com

He was born at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children* in Honolulu, HI.

*The name of the hospital was corrected in the referenced article after originally stating that the hospital was the Queen's Medical Center. The name Kapi'olani is named after a queen...hence the hospital was called both.



Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois - UPI.com
 
MaggieD said:
Tell us what exactly is wrong with a law that requests documentation that a presidential candidate meet the requirements of office. Then give us a link to this "current law" that is more than sufficient to settle the question. I'll check back in July.
Click to expand...

First of all, let's distinguish between state requirements and federal requirements. While the states have some leeway in how they pick their electors and who the electors can vote for, the US Constitution imposes three federal requirements for presidents: 35 years old, 14 years in residency, and a natural born citizen. That is the business of the FEDERAL government, not the states. So from the State of Arizona's perspective, the fact that being a natural-born citizen is a federal requirement is irrelevant. Requiring a birth certificate to prove natural-born citizenship would be no legally different than, say, requiring a candidate to produce his high school diploma to prove that he graduated or any other requirement that the state might care to impose IN ADDITION TO the federal requirements.

As for what's wrong with it: The easiest (although by no means the only) point of contention is the 14th Amendment. Requiring people to produce a birth certificate places an undue burden on the poor, the old, and the foreign-born (which is not mutually exclusive with natural-born citizenship), because these people are less likely to have such a document. That is a violation of the Equal Protection clause.

MaggieD said:
Tinfoil hats/racial prejudice...whatever it takes to discredit yes?
Click to expand...

Oh give me a break. To claim that the "birther" movement isn't racially tinged defies credibility. It's easier to paint Obama as "the other" because he's black and has a Muslim-sounding name.

MaggieD said:
1st Bold: One state does not have to recognize a License to Carry from another state, nor a plain old gun permit.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. They have to recognize that you have a valid license to carry in your home state. That doesn't mean they have to allow you to carry a gun when you're in THEIR state. Again, there is a difference: Carrying a gun (like driving a car) is something you DO. Having been born in a certain state is something you ARE.

MaggieD said:
3rd Bold: Get 2/3 of the states to approve an amendment to the constitution, and we'll talk.
Click to expand...

No, I'm talking about implementing my require-Massachusetts-governors-to-prove-they-aren't-polygamous law on the STATE level. Just like Arizona wants to do for birth certificates.
 
ludahai said:
Hmm.. does the Constitution say anything about a president having to be monogamous? Nice try...
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. It's up to the FEDERAL government to determine if candidates meet the FEDERAL requirements for president. If individual STATES want to impose their own requirements in addition to these, they are able to do so (to a certain extent). So if Arizona wants to impose a natural-born citizenship requirement of its own, or a non-polygamy requirement of its own, it would probably be able to do so. Those two requirements would be functionally identical; the fact that the US Constitution requires one and not the other doesn't matter, because in this case it would be an individual state imposing them both.

The problem the state will encounter lies in imposing an undue burden of proof on someone. You can't require a birth certificate if certain classes of eligible people are going to be less able to produce one than others.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I was thinking along those lines but then I thought of the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to not recognize a marriage certificate from another state if the marriage is between two men or two women.
Click to expand...

Well, the Defense of Marriage Act is certainly unconstitutional, and I'm quite sure that the Supreme Court will agree (if it even makes it to the Supreme Court before being repealed). Same logic: Being married (or being born) is something you ARE. Getting married (or driving or carrying a gun) is something you DO.
 
liblady said:
hey birfer:

Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois - UPI.com

He was born at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children* in Honolulu, HI.

*The name of the hospital was corrected in the referenced article after originally stating that the hospital was the Queen's Medical Center. The name Kapi'olani is named after a queen...hence the hospital was called both.



Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois - UPI.com
Click to expand...

How did they get that information about what Hospital he was born in if his birth records are suppose to be off limits? Also Kapi-olani has never declared Obama was born there in a official statement.
 
Kandahar said:
Irrelevant. It's up to the FEDERAL government to determine if candidates meet the FEDERAL requirements for president. If individual STATES want to impose their own requirements in addition to these, they are able to do so (to a certain extent). So if Arizona wants to impose a natural-born citizenship requirement of its own, or a non-polygamy requirement of its own, it would probably be able to do so. Those two requirements would be functionally identical; the fact that the US Constitution requires one and not the other doesn't matter, because in this case it would be an individual state imposing them both.

The problem the state will encounter lies in imposing an undue burden of proof on someone. You can't require a birth certificate if certain classes of eligible people are going to be less able to produce one than others.
Click to expand...
Did the Federal Government do its job to determine if Roger Colero, a Nicaraguan national, born in Nicaragua to Nicaraguan parents was able to get on the ballots of states to run for president back in 08? He was not a natural born citizen at all.
 
Apuzo said:
Did the Federal Government do its job to determine if Roger Colero, a Nicaraguan national, born in Nicaragua to Nicaraguan parents was able to get on the ballots of states to run for president back in 08? He was not a natural born citizen at all.
Click to expand...

Never heard of him. He probably wasn't even on the federal government's radar because he didn't win and had no chance of winning. The states are in charge of balloting, the federal government is in charge of verifying federal requirements to be president.
 
Looks like Arizona has got a new state that wants to seek eligibility proof.


Two Dozen Pennsylvania Legislators Co-Sponsor Proof of Eligibility Legislation

Via Lancaster Online: - Lancaster County legislator backs birther bill - Tom Murse
Lancaster County legislator backs birther bill - LancasterOnline.com News


If President Barack Obama wants to win Pennsylvania in his bid for a second term in the White House next year, he might be asked to produce his birth certificate.

Two dozen legislators, including one from Lancaster County, want to force presidential hopefuls, including Obama, to cough up proof that they're natural born citizens to get on the state's ballot.

The bill's author, Republican state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe of Butler County, said he drafted the measure in response to persistent questions about Obama's citizenship — even though the president released a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Hawaii, during his first campaign.

"I was shocked that somebody's running for president and there's this question," Metcalfe said. "Why doesn't our process thoroughly ensure we don't have that question?"
 
Last edited:
Apuzo said:
How did they get that information about what Hospital he was born in if his birth records are suppose to be off limits? Also Kapi-olani has never declared Obama was born there in a official statement.
Click to expand...
For one, the Republican governor and former John McCain campaign staffer, said so...

"So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it's again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this." ~ Linda Lingle, former governor of Hawaii

UPI.com
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Just a reminder since it has happened a couple times in this thread now: when referencing outside sources, please provide a link. We require this for legal reasons involving fair use laws.
 
Redress said:
How in the **** do we, in this day and age, have "state recognized clergy"?
Click to expand...

501c3 status requires you to report your employees. In order for a clergyman to, say, officiate a legally binding municipal marriage license, or commission as a chaplain officer, they have to demonstrate that they are an official member of a recognized church; recognized, as in recognized by the state.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
For one, the Republican governor and former John McCain campaign staffer, said so...

"So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it's again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this." ~ Linda Lingle, former governor of Hawaii
Click to expand...

Well that means she broke Hawaiian privacy statutes by revealing on a national talk radio show a individuals private information detailing the specific location of the place of birth, Kapi-olani Hospital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom