[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: Ann Coulter: Correcting Bill O’Reilly (Again!) On “Birthright” Citizenship And The Constitution To support his insane interpretation of the post-Civil War amendments as granting citizenship to the kids of illegal aliens, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is now taking job applications for the nonexistent—but dearly hoped-for—Jeb! administration, live, during his show. (Apparently my debate with O’Reilly will be conducted in my column, Twitter feed and current bestselling book, Adios, America, against the highest-rated show on cable news.) Republicans have been out of the White House for seven long years, and GOP lawyers are getting impatient. So now they’re popping up on Fox News’ airwaves, competing to see who can denounce Donald Trump with greater vitriol. Last Thursday’s job applicants were longtime government lawyers John Yoo [Email him] and David Rivkin. [Email him] In response to O’Reilly’s statement that “there is no question the Supreme Court decisions have upheld that portion of the 14th Amendment that says any person, any person born in the U.S.A. is entitled to citizenship … for 150 years”—Yoo concurred, claiming: “This has been the rule in American history since the founding of the republic.” Yes, Americans fought at Valley Forge to ensure that any illegal alien who breaks into our country and drops a baby would have full citizenship for that child! Why, when Washington crossed the Delaware, he actually was taking Lupe, a Mexican illegal, to a birthing center in Trenton, N.J. If one were being a stickler, one might recall the two centuries during which the children of slaves were not deemed citizens despite being born here—in fact, despite their parents, their grandparents and their great- grandparents being born here. Wouldn’t anyone who wasn’t applying for a job in the nonexistent, never-to- exist Jeb! administration remember slavery? Incongruously, Yoo also said, “The text of the 14th Amendment is clear” about kids born to illegals being citizens. Wait a minute! Why did we need an amendment if that was already the law— since “the founding of the republic”! An impartial observer might contest whether the amendment is “clear” on that. “Clear” would be: All persons born in the United States are citizens. What the amendment actually says is: “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 framers of the 14th Amendment weren’t putting a secret trap door in the Constitution for fun. The “jurisdiction thereof” and “state wherein they reside” language means something. (Ironically, Yoo—author of the Gitmo torture memo—was demonstrating that if you torture the words of the Constitution, you can get them to say anything.) At least Rivkin didn’t go back to “the founding of the republic.” But he, too, claimed that the “original public meaning (of the 14th Amendment] which matters for those of us who are conservatives is clear”: to grant citizenship to any kid whose illegal alien mother managed to evade Border Patrol agents. Whomever that was the “original public meaning” for, it sure wasn’t the Supreme Court. To the contrary, the cases in the first few decades following the adoption of the 14th Amendment leave the strong impression that it had something to do with freed slaves, and freed slaves alone: Supreme Court opinion in the Slaughterhouse cases (1873): “(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments), lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.” Supreme Court opinion in Ex Parte Virginia (1879): “[The 14th Amendment was] primarily designed to give freedom to persons of the African race, prevent their future enslavement, make them citizens, prevent discriminating State legislation against their rights as freemen, and secure to them the ballot.” Supreme Court opinion in Strauder v. West Virginia (1880): “The 14th Amendment was framed and adopted … to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that, under the law, are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government in that enjoyment whenever it should be denied by the States.” Supreme Court opinion in Neal v. Delaware (1880) (majority opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, who was the only dissenting vote in Plessy v. Ferguson): “The right secured to the colored man under the 14th Amendment and the civil rights laws is that he shall not be discriminated against solely on account of his race or color.” Supreme Court opinion in Elk v. Wilkins (1884): “The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was … to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States … The evident meaning of (the words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. … Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized …” One has to leap forward 200 years from “the founding of the republic” to find the first claim that kids born to illegal immigrants are citizens: To wit, in dicta (irrelevant chitchat) by Justice William Brennan, slipped into the footnote of a 5-4 decision in 1982. So to be precise, what Yoo means by the “founding of the republic,” and Rivkin means by “the original public meaning” of the 14th Amendment, is: “Brennan dicta from a 1982 opinion.” Perhaps, if asked, the Supreme Court would discover a “constitutional” right for illegal aliens to sneak into the country, drop a baby, and win citizenship for the kid and welfare benefits for the whole family. (Seventy- one percent of illegal immigrant households with children are on government assistance.) But it is a fact that the citizenship of illegal alien kids has never been argued, briefed or ruled on by the Supreme Court. Yoo and Rivkin aren’t stupid. It appears that the most significant part of their analysis was Yoo’s legal opinion: “I don’t think Trump is a Republican. I think actually he is ruining the Republican Party.” Please hire me, Jeb!! (or Rubio)! O’Reilly could get more reliable constitutional analyses from Columba Bush than political lawyers dying to get back into government. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: nativist nationalist, nolu chan (#0) O’Reilly could get more reliable constitutional analyses from Columba Bush than political lawyers dying to get back into government. The despicable, ever-spinning O'Leprechaun is...an blithering idiot. He is obviously a tool of the Uni-Party Coulter...when she's right can be devastatingly effective. ("Perhaps, if asked, the Supreme Court would discover a 'constitutional' right for illegal aliens to sneak into the country, drop a baby, and win citizenship for the kid and welfare benefits for the whole family." HA! The 14A -- if scrutinized -- CAN be overturned. It was clearly language and an amendment whose sole purpose was to protect and reinforce the citizenship of LEGAL slaves and blacks. The 14th Amendment needs to be revisited, parsed, and re-interpreted and enforced as per its original intent. Preferably BEFORE another 50 million illegal Third World jetsam and flotsam arrive and coincidentally drops their payload (as it stands.)
#2. To: nativist nationalist (#0) But it is a fact that the citizenship of illegal alien kids has never been argued, briefed or ruled on by the Supreme Court. It is undeniable fact that this is irrelevant. Is the child a person? Was the child born in the U.S.? Was the child, when born, subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.? If so, the child was born a citizen of the U.S.A. The court decisions since 1871 leave no doubt.
#3. To: Liberator (#1)
To support his insane interpretation of the post-Civil War amendments as granting citizenship to the kids of illegal aliens, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is now taking job applications for the nonexistent—but dearly hoped-for—Jeb! administration, live, during his show. For an earlier example of Ann Coulter making provocative legally insane statements as her fabulously successful way of making a living, there is her 2010 article, Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies. http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2010-08-04.html
The 14A -- if scrutinized -- CAN be overturned This is nonsense, just like Ann Coulter.
In response to O’Reilly’s statement that “there is no question the Supreme Court decisions have upheld that portion of the 14th Amendment that says any person, any person born in the U.S.A. is entitled to citizenship … for 150 years”—Yoo concurred, claiming: “This has been the rule in American history since the founding of the republic.” They should have included "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which excludes the children born of ambassadors and foreign ministers.
#4. To: nolu chan (#2) The court decisions since 1871 leave no doubt. I respectfully disagree with what you deem a slam-dunk decision....AND premise. The automatic citizenship of illegal alien ANCHOR BABIES needs to be re-examined and 14th Amendment scrutinized and scrubbed. Just because a woman trespasses and drops their newborn in your bed while you were at work doesn't mean your bed OR house is co-opted. If ANYTHING is "relevant," it's the invalidation of the contemporary subversive interpretation of 14A's loophole that is now so abused that it threatens the very existence of the Republic. Its original intent was NOT as it's being practiced and abused.
#5. To: nolu chan (#3) (Edited) They should have included "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which excludes the children born of ambassadors and foreign ministers. And why can't the illegal droppings of trespassers being interpreted as "ambassadors"...or just plain "criminal foreign personal contraband"? The INTENT and PURPOSE for the 14A is absolutely in question and up for serious debate. Technically, if you and your ilk want to insist on "citizenship" based on a bogus 14A scam -- an illegal act of trespassing, theft, and unauthorized entry -- then the US can and should make a case that ALL foreign babies are "contraband" and placed into orphanages UNTIL claimed and returned TO Mexico/China/Central America along with their criminal hosts/parents.
#6. To: nolu chan (#2) The court decisions since 1871 leave no doubt. Yet for some reason there was the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. On top of that, I really don't care what the courts say. Iranian can vote, but Khamenei the tyrant can do as he pleases, because he gets to "interpret" divine intent. Just because we can be over-ruled by 5 tyrants in black robes rather than 1 does not make it legitimate. There is a preamble to the Constitution, the 1971 "interpretation" consigns the preamble to the ash heap.
#7. To: nativist nationalist, goldilucky (#6)
Yet for some reason there was the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. On top of that, I really don't care what the courts say. I realize you don't care what the courts say, or have said since 1776. That is clear. Only by selective citing of nonsense can you reach your desired result. I like court opinions. The collection of court opinions is what makes up the common law. They say what the law is. Citing the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 is bullshit added to the bullshit citing of The Slaughterhouse Cases
Supreme Court opinion in the Slaughterhouse cases (1873): “(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments), lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.” and Elk v. Wilkins by Ann Coulter.
Supreme Court opinion in Elk v. Wilkins (1884): “The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was … to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States … The evident meaning of (the words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. … Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized …” - - - - - Try In re Wong Kim Ark 71 Fed. Rep. 382 (1896)
At 385:
#8. To: Liberator (#4) The automatic citizenship of illegal alien ANCHOR BABIES needs to be re-examined and 14th Amendment scrutinized and scrubbed. The question has been asked and answered since 1871. Babies born in the U.S., and subject to its jurisdiction, are born citizens of the U.S. "Subject to it's jurisdiction" has been defined quite clearly in accordance with the common law. All 13 original colonies adopted the common law and the constitutional Federal government adopted the common law. 14A does -NOT- create "anchor babies" as it confers no right to anyone but the baby.
#9. To: Liberator (#5) And why can't the illegal droppings of trespassers being interpreted as "ambassadors"...or just plain "criminal foreign personal contraband"? The U.S. cannot designate someone as an ambassador of another nation. No law can define a U.S. citizen as criminal foreign personal contraband. If you desire such a definition, you should propose it to your congressman as a constitutional amendment.
#10. To: Liberator (#5) Technically, if you and your ilk want to insist on "citizenship" based on a bogus 14A scam You and your ilk seek to change the Constitution by legislative or judicial usurpation. If that is acceptable for any provision of the Constitution, then it is acceptable for all parts of the Constitution. Recognizing that blatantly unlawful authority in Congress would effective destroy the Constitution. If Congress or the courts can legislate away what 14A says, they can legislate away what A2 says. Or A1 thru A10.
#11. To: nativist nationalist (#6) There is a preamble to the Constitution, the 1971 "interpretation" consigns the preamble to the ash heap. The "preamble" is not, and never has been, law.
#12. To: nativist nationalist (#0) The problem *IS_NOT* anchor babies. The problem *IS* illegal aliens crossing over the US soverign border. The US government has failed the citizenry.
#13. To: nolu chan (#2) Is the child a person? Is it. The Consitution has a clear definition of citizen but no definition at all of person. So what do you use as the source for the definition of person? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #14. To: nolu chan, Liberator (#8) 14A does -NOT- create "anchor babies" as it confers no right to anyone but the baby. And the baby becomes the anchor to stay here for its parents, sibs not born here, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc............ 14A clearly creates anchor babies. 14A encourages anchor babies. 14A incentivizes anchor babies. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #15. To: nolu chan, Liberator, All (#8) The question has been asked and answered since 1871. Babies born in the U.S., and subject to its jurisdiction, are born citizens of the U.S. "Subject to it's jurisdiction" has been defined quite clearly in accordance with the common law. How many other countries, past and present, grant citizenship to anyone born in their country a la A14? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #16. To: nolu chan, Liberator, All (#15) How many other countries, past and present, grant citizenship to anyone born in their country a la A14 (i.e. - brithright citizenship)? "The following are among the nations repealing Birthright Citizenship in recent years:
Australia (2007) New Zealand (2005) Ireland (2005) France (1993) India (1987) Malta (1989) UK (1983) Portugal (1981) " Seems that these countries got smart. OTOH most of South America does as does Mexico. It appears to be exclusievely an American thing, except for Fiji. All of Europe, Asia and Africa do not grant birthright citizenship. But even Canada is beginning to wise up. "The concern over birthright citizenship has also been raised in Canada by the Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who has vowed to crackdown on the situation."
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #17. To: nativist nationalist, All (#0) Perhaps, if asked, the Supreme Court would discover a “constitutional” right for illegal aliens to sneak into the country, drop a baby, and win citizenship for the kid and welfare benefits for the whole family. (Seventy- one percent of illegal immigrant households with children are on government assistance.) Canada is also wising up, as are some in the U.S. "Canadian Government Plans to Make It Harder to Become a Citizen Citizenship Law to be Changed by Edward C. Corrigan / December 31st, 2013 Since the Harper Conservative’s have come to power one of the areas which have attracted much of their legislative attention is the Citizenship and Immigration file. In an interview, which has attracted almost no national media attention at time of writing,1 published in the conservative National Post on December 27, 2013 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Chris Alexander, discussed dramatic changes to Canada’s Citizenship laws and which were being considered by the Conservative Government. In what has been described as the “first comprehensive reforms to the Citizenship Act in more than a generation” the controversial bill is expected to be introduced in the House of Commons sometime in 2014. Some of the changes being proposed include extending the qualifying period for residence to obtain Canadian Citizenship from the current three years in a four period to a longer period. Minister Alexander suggested that it was “time to consider increasing the threshold.” “I think the balance of considerations is in favour of a longer requirement,” he said. “There’s only one way of truly understanding what it means to be Canadian, what it means to participate in Canadian life, and that is by living here.” The Canadian government has already been cracking down on “alleged fraud” in reported physical presence in Canada for renewals of Permanent Residence Cards and for the granting of Canadian Citizenship. However, Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) is reportedly investigating over 11,000 suspected cases of fraud. Despite investing huge amounts of time and money, to date only “twelve (12) people have had their citizenship revoked for fraud, despite more than 3000 investigations.”2 Another expected change is the elimination of the automatic grant of Canadian Citizenship for those born in Canada. Reportedly, Canada and the United States are the only developed countries in the World that grant citizenship to individuals born on their territory. For a number of years Conservatives, and other commentators, have been complaining about “birth tourism” — tourists who come with the purpose of giving birth in Canada so that the child will acquire Canadian Citizenship by right of birth. Former immigration minister Jason Kenney was adamantly opposed to this current practice. “Granting citizenship based on place of birth is “outdated” and the rules need to change to prevent the proliferation of passport babies.” The new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration echoes this concern. Alexander said, “It’s something we need to look at. There is clearly abuse… People who come here as birth tourists solely for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for newborns and without any intention of immigrating and living here permanently — we need to find a way of addressing that.” In the United States critics describe these American born children as “anchor babies.” Critics in the US are calling for the elimination of this policy of granting United States Citizenship to all individuals born in the country. They propose limiting the granting of citizenship to babies where at least one parent has permanent residence or citizenship status in the United States.3 On April 17, 2009 a law amending the Canadian Citizenship Act came into effect. The law helped correct a problem in the Citizenship Status of many individuals who fell through the cracks in the law on obtaining Canadian Citizenship prior to the first Canadian Citizenship law which was adopted in 1947. Prior to that date there was no law on the granting of Canadian Citizenship. The 1947 law also required those eligible for Canadian Citizenship to apply before they reached the age of 28. The 1947 Citizenship law, however, also discriminated against women and children born out of wedlock. The April 2009 law addressed some of these issues. Other problems still remained like the so called “lost Canadians” born outside of Canada and before the 1947 law was enacted. The other major change to Canada’s Citizenship law in the 2009 law was removing the right of Canadians who were born outside of Canada the right to pass on their Citizenship to their children if they were born outside of Canada and did not qualify for the limited exemptions to the law. These exemptions primarily applied to children of Canadian military or government personnel serving overseas. This change has created many problems for Canadians whose children were born outside of Canada, such as difficulty passing their citizenship to their children. The result is that some of these children end up “stateless” and with no citizenship at all. This is especially the case where the country did not grant citizenship based on birth in the country or only recognized the passing of status though the father. These babies’ Canadian parent’s must then sponsor their children to Canada which creates significant difficulties and delays. If the children are stateless, they normally do not have a passport and cannot travel to Canada or to any other country. This new proposal to remove the acquisition of citizenship by birth, however, may also create a problem for such individuals who may become “stateless.” Canada ratified the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness on July 17, 1978. The following is taken from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) web site: The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness is the primary international legal instrument adopted to date to deal with the means of avoiding statelessness. The Convention provides for acquisition of nationality for those who would otherwise be stateless and who have an appropriate link with the State through factors of birth or descent. The issues of retention of nationality once acquired and transfer of territory are also addressed. The Convention does not address nationality issues within the jurisdiction of a State only, but also offers solutions to nationality problems which might arise between States. To this end, the principles outlined in the Convention have served as an effective framework within which to resolve conflicts concerning nationality. Key provisions Articles 1-4 of the Convention outline principles for the granting of nationality at birth to avoid future cases of statelessness. Articles 5-7 of the Convention include regulation on the loss or renunciation of nationality and stipulate that loss/renunciation should be conditional upon the prior possession or assurance of acquiring another nationality. Articles 5 and 6 include principles of family unity in the light of avoidance of statelessness. In particular, Article 6 contains a provision of non- discrimination against family members as to the loss of nationality. The issue of deprivation of nationality is dealt with in Articles 8-9. The basic principle is that no deprivation should take place if it will result in statelessness. Article 9 states that “A Contracting State may not deprive any person or group of persons of their nationality on racial, ethnic, religious or political grounds.” Loss or deprivation of nationality may take place only in accordance with law and accompanied by full procedural guarantees, such as the right to a fair hearing by a court or other independent body. Canada has not signed the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.4 It remains to be seen how Canada’s international law obligations and being a signatory to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness will mesh with the proposed changes to Canada’s Citizenship laws. According to CIC’s 2012-2013 departmental performance evaluations, citizenship grants were way below target. Only 106,353 people were conferred citizenship despite plans to grant it to as many as 214,944 people. The reasons for the shortfall are increased scrutiny of residency fraud, a new tougher citizenship test and high Citizenship judge vacancy rates. According to CIC citizenship application backlog stood at 349,249 at the end of 2012. The average processing time for a citizenship application was 25-35 months. In the last budget the government recognized backlogs were a problem and committed an additional $44 million over two years to speed up processing of citizenship applications. It is good that the government is addressing these unacceptable wait times. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Chris Alexander has set out his views on what the proposed new legislation on Canada Citizenship law might look like. The final text of the proposed Bill has not yet been presented to the Canadian Parliament. However, it is safe to bet that the changes will be significant and will further restrict access to Canadian Citizenship to Permanent Residents of Canada and perhaps also their Canadian born children. There are many Permanent residents in Canada who are presently eligible for Canadian Citizenship under the current rules. It would be prudent for these individuals to apply for Canadian Citizenship before the new law is passed. December 31, 2013. [] “Update on Citizenship Processing, 21st Annual Immigration Law Summit Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto, Ontario, November 26, 2013, prepared by Betsy Kane, “Statistics and insight courtesy of Richard Kurland, Editor in-Chief, Lexbase and Citizenship and Immigration Canada.” Unpublished paper at p. 7. [] “Is the next immigration fight over ‘anchor babies’?” Ed Hornick, CNN, April 28, 2011. See also “The Case for ‘Anchor Babies’ and Immigrant Integration,” Brendan Greeley, Bloomberg Business Week, November 5, 2013. [] See 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, Signatory States, Declarations and Reservations (external link). [] Edward C. Corrigan is a lawyer certified as a Specialist in Citizenship and Immigration Law and Immigration and Refugee Protection by the Law Society of Upper Canada in London, Ontario, Canada. He can be reached at: corriganlaw@edcorrigan.ca. Read other articles by Edward, or visit Edward's website." потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #18. To: SOSO (#13)
Is the child a person? The U.S. Supreme Court seems authoritative enough. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982)
Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
#19. To: SOSO (#14) And the baby becomes the anchor to stay here for its parents, sibs not born here, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc............ 14A clearly creates anchor babies. 14A establishes no right of anyone but the baby to stay here. The Executive and Legislature do that all on their own. It does not take an Amendment to stop that or to deport the parents and others who are here illegally. If we deported all the illegals in California, they might lose a few congressmen. Illegals count in the census for congressional representation.
#20. To: SOSO (#15) How many other countries, past and present, grant citizenship to anyone born in their country a la A14? A whole bunch. It was the law in the colonies, and the states before and after the Constitution. It is the law in all of North America and much of Central and South America. It was the law in much of Europe. And, of course, it was the law in all of the British colonies. Many have changed their laws. 14A is set in the Constitution and has not changed.
#21. To: nolu chan (#18) The U.S. Supreme Court seems authoritative enough. Authoritavive yess, definitive no. An alien in your citation can be a child or an adult. All this says is that an alien is a person. Now you could argue that by extension if even an illegal alien child is a person a legal native child is also a person. The fact remains that the U.S. Constitution does not define person. However SCOTUS ruling on RvW deemed that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of A14. So if you can please cite the SCOTUS ruling that established that native child (or native adult for that matter) is a person. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #22. To: SOSO (#16) The following are among the nations repealing Birthright Citizenship in recent years: 14A has not changed and it is our paramount law. A change might be a good idea, but it has not happened.
#23. To: nolu chan (#20) ow many other countries, past and present, grant citizenship to anyone born in their country a la A14? Yes, see post #16. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #24. To: nolu chan (#19) 14A establishes no right of anyone but the baby to stay here. The Executive and Legislature do that all on their own. It does not take an Amendment to stop that or to deport the parents and others who are here illegally. A distinction without much of a difference......see your comment below. "If we deported all the illegals in California, they might lose a few congressmen. Illegals count in the census for congressional representation." The last time I checked about 6 more Consgressmen as a result of all foreingers living in the state. Politicians pander to their base to get and stay elected. DRats will always make sure that their will be no change to the laws, policies or processes to deal with illegals other than de facto anmesity and further opening the borders to assure a growing voter base with an eventually unchallengable majority. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #25. To: nolu chan (#22) A change might be a good idea, but it has not happened. I am well aware of that. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #26. To: SOSO (#24) A distinction without much of a difference......see your comment below. It is a big distinction. Illegal aliens are, and always have been, counted in the census, much as were slaves, but not at 60%. Also like slaves, they have no status. With no status, they are officially neither citizen nor alien, and they never become eligible for naturalization. They have no constitutional right to remain in the U.S., under 14A or any other provision. They remain here unlawfully, based on reasons other than the Constitution. None of those reasons requires a constitutional amendment to be extinguished. It is likely that a significant majority, if not all, those added congressmen are Democrats.
DRats will always make sure that their will be no change to the laws, policies or processes to deal with illegals other than de facto anmesity and further opening the borders to assure a growing voter base with an eventually unchallengable majority. I agree with your statement, but see no difference in the policies of the GOPe. The GOPe appears ready to have an exploding aneurysm over Donald Trump and his upfront statements on immigration. The GOPe would prefer amnesty for those that care here out of love, and open borders to spread the love without limit.
#27. To: nolu chan (#26) Illegal aliens are, and always have been, counted in the census, much as were slaves, but not at 60%. Were slaves considered persons under the pre-A14 Consitution? I do not believe so. I am not sure that women were consider persons either at that time. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #28. To: SOSO (#21)
Authoritavive yess, definitive no. An alien in your citation can be a child or an adult. All this says is that an alien is a person. Now you could argue that by extension if even an illegal alien child is a person a legal native child is also a person. The fact remains that the U.S. Constitution does not define person. However SCOTUS ruling on RvW deemed that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of A14. So if you can please cite the SCOTUS ruling that established that native child (or native adult for that matter) is a person. Education can cure ignorance, but there is no cure for calculated stupidity. For 14A, an alien may be a child or an adult. An alien is a person. All aliens are persons. An illegal alien is an alien. An undocumented immigrant is a person. A person in the United States unlawfully is a person. The U.S. Constitution does not define the words in the U.S. Constitution. The Courts define the words in the Constitution. The Courts construe the applicable meaning of the words as used in the Constitution. That is case law. RvW ruled that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of 14A. But note:
Unborn child. Word "person" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 729, 35 L.Ed.2d 147. Unborn child is a "person" for purpose of remedies given for personal injuries, and child may sue after his birth. Weaks v. Mounter, 88 Nev. 118, 493 P.2d 1307, 1309. In some jurisdictions a viable fetus is considered a person within the meaning of the state's wrongful death statute, e.g. Summerfield v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 467, 698 P.2d 712, and within the meaning of the state's vehicular homicide statute, e.g. Comm. v. Cass, 392 Mass. 799, 467 N.E.2d 1324. For 14A, A child is a person. A native child is a person. A native adult is a person. An alien is a person. An adult alien is a person. A child alien is a person. For 14A, Legitimate and illegitimate children are persons. Bastards are persons. The unborn, the dead and the undead have not been held to be persons within the meaning of 14A. The definition of person applicable to 14A covers from the basket almost to the casket. 14A does not expand to cover from the womb to the tomb, or from the erection to the resurrection. A child is not a fetus for purposes of 14A. A child is a person. A person is a human being. The Supreme Court does not need to define every word in the dictionary for that word to have a meaning.
Person. In general usage, a human being. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed.
Aliens. Aliens are "persons" within meaning of Fourteenth Amendment and are thus protected by equal protection clause against discriminatory state action. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed.
As early as 1886, the Supreme Court held that aliens are "persons" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and are thus protected by the Equal Protection Clause against discriminatory state action. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356,6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886). That holding has been affirmed many times since and is no longer open to dispute. In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717, 93 S.Ct. 2851, 37 L.Ed.2d 910 (1973); Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 93 S.Ct. 2842, 37 L.Ed.2d 853 (1973); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 91 S.Ct. 1848,29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971); Takahashi v. Fish Game Commission, 334 U.S. 410, 68 S.Ct. 1138, 92 L.Ed. 1478 (1948). Foley v. Connelie, S.D.N.Y., 419 F. Supp. 889, 891 (1976)
#29. To: nolu chan (#28) Person. In general usage, a human being. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. So the Consitution states that a fetus is not a human being? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #30. To: nolu chan (#28) But note: Great example of stupidity, a nation that can't codify what a person is or isn't but leaves it to pariculars of a situation and/or location. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #31. To: SOSO (#29) Person. In general usage, a human being. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. If you say so.
#32. To: SOSO (#30) Great example of stupidity, a nation that can't codify what a person is or isn't but leaves it to pariculars of a situation and/or location. Yes, the intelligence of nations is measured by their success of their codification of what a person is, with failure, as is evident in the United States, leaving some unable to figure out what a person is.
#33. To: nolu chan (#31)
I didn't say so. You posted that in general usage a person in a human being. Since SCOTUS ruled that a fetus is not a person it follows that SCOTUS believes that a fetus is not a human. That or SCOTUS de facto ruled that all persons are human beings but not all human beings are persons. Our laws concerning what is or is not a person throughout the country and at the Fed leve,l or at least in their application, are absurd. If someone kills a pregnant women and the fetus dies as well whether there are two murders or just one depends on if it happened in State A instead of State B. But if a pregnant women is kidnapping and as a result the fetus dies according to the Fed no crime of murder or manslaughter was committed as according to the Fed the fetus is not a person or even a human being. Does this make sense to you? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #34. To: nolu chan (#32) Yes, the intelligence of nations is measured by their success of their codification of what a person is, with failure, as is evident in the United States, leaving some unable to figure out what a person is. Fixed it for you. "Yes, the intelligence of nations is measured by their success of their codification of what a person is, with failure, as is evident in the United States, leaving some unable to figure out what legally a person is". For all of your sarcasm the above statement is substantially correct. Certainly the morality of country is measured by such failure. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #35. To: nolu chan, All (#32) Yes, the intelligence of nations is measured by their success of their codification of what a person is, with failure, as is evident in the United States, leaving some unable to figure out what a person is. Please explain the intelligence is this Alaskan law,.....if you can. "Alaska Alaska. Stat. § 11.41.150 et seq., § 11.81.250, § 12.55.035, and § 12.55.125 (2005) relate to offenses against unborn children. The law provides that a defendant convicted of murder in the second degree or murder of an unborn child shall be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of at least 10 years but no more than 99 years. The law does not apply to acts that cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during a legal abortion to which the pregnant woman consented or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf consented, or for which such consent is implied by law. Also, please explian if you can the untleeignece behind any of those laws that leaves the legal determination of whether a fetus is a person or human being solely to thr pregnant women. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #36. To: SOSO (#33)
I didn't say so. You posted that in general usage a person in a human being. Since SCOTUS ruled that a fetus is not a person it follows that SCOTUS believes that a fetus is not a human. That or SCOTUS de facto ruled that all persons are human beings but not all human beings are persons. The court held that for purposes of the 14th Amendment, aliens are persons. For purposes of the 14th Amendment, fetuses are not persons. Things not yet born are not persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment. In general usage, persons are human beings. In general usage, aliens may be beings from outer space.
Our laws concerning what is or is not a person throughout the country and at the Fed leve,l or at least in their application, are absurd. If someone kills a pregnant women and the fetus dies as well whether there are two murders or just one depends on if it happened in State A instead of State B. But if a pregnant women is kidnapping and as a result the fetus dies according to the Fed no crime of murder or manslaughter was committed as according to the Fed the fetus is not a person or even a human being. Does this make sense to you? Absurd laws are still laws. An example of a fetus law would be attempted fetal homicide. Barry Boyfriend is no longer happy with Polly Preggers. He knocks her down and forcefully kicks her in the gut with the intent to terminate the pregnancy of Polly Preggers. A cop, Peter Pigg sees it all and arrests Barry Boyfriend who is charged, convicted and imprisoned for attempted fetal homicide. While that prosecution is in progress, Polly Preggers goes to a Planned Parenthood clinic and elects to have the pregnancy terminated. Polly succeeds in doing what Barrry tried to do. Polly committed no crime and Barry is in prison. In discussing what the law is, one can not wish a law into becoming something other than what it is. Accurately stating what a law is, and what its effect is, does not connote agreement with that law.
#37. To: SOSO (#34) "Yes, the intelligence of nations is measured by their success of their codification of what a person is, with failure, as is evident in the United States, leaving some unable to figure out what legally a person is". Some struggle more than others. Apparently SCOTUS never defined what the meaning of the word is is, resulting in Bill Clinton struggling with the meaning of the word is. Nobody has ever worried about the immigration status of a fetus.
#38. To: SOSO (#35) Also, please explian if you can the untleeignece behind any of those laws that leaves the legal determination of whether a fetus is a person or human being solely to thr pregnant women. Per RvW, abortion is legal. Alaska wants to make a law criminalizing taking the life of a fetus. They carve out an exception for lawful abortion as otherwise their statute would be unconstitutional, mull and void, and of no effect. The court determined the competing rights of the mother, the state, and the fetus at various stages of the pregnancy, and which was paramount at which time. The Constitution makes clear reference to capital crimes. How can there be a capital punishment if all life is sacred? On what theory is an atheist, pregnant by rape, subject to the paramount rights of the rapist, and forced by the authority of the government to carry the unwanted fetus of the rapist to term? If activists did not support a claim of Federal jurisdiction on such matters, Alaska would be free to ban abortion and have no exception in its law. Of course, California would be free to have lawful abortion and some activists won't be happy until they can force their moral beliefs on California.
#39. To: nolu chan (#37) Nobody has ever worried about the immigration status of a fetus. Yet. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #40. To: nolu chan (#38) How can there be a capital punishment if all life is sacred? Easy, it's called due process. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь . . . Comments (41 - 57) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|