It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that nothing in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), 100 Stat. 3359, expressly preempts Kansas’ criminal laws as they were applied in the prosecutions at issue here. But I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion about implied preemption.
"I agree with the majority that nothing in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), 100 Stat. 3359, expressly preempts Kansas’ criminal laws as they were applied in the prosecutions at issue here. But I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion about implied preemption. ... I would hold that federal law impliedly preempted Kansas’ criminal laws as they were applied in these cases. Because the majority takes a different view, with respect, I dissent."
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
They say they think there is implied preemptiveness while the majority thinks there isn't. That is only for the act of providing info to verify work eligibility.
It has nothing to do with any other crimes.
I'm looking at it objectively. Other's are saying the judges should be disrobed and that they are saying illegals can now get away with murder.
I saw spin and called it out. I guess I'm invested in the old ATS motto.
originally posted by: sean
Double standards. Comply citizen! Oh you're an illegal, you're free to go! Why is it that we must reinsert our laws and spend tax payer money and even have to vote? It's already well founded, well established that it is the against the law. If a illegal has the right to steal identity, then they have a right to steal from a bank too! Why stop there?
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. Before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens of the states were automatically considered citizens of the United States.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: bloodymarvelous
Sorry, but no, the parent's declarations have no bearing on the child's inalienable rights.
You forgot to bold "All persons born" because all children born on US land are subject to the jurisdiction thereof regardless of their parents, unless they have diplomatic immunity.
originally posted by: Rob808
Why would being an illegal immigrant provide you with an elevated status?
It seems to offer superior rights to normal citizenship. Why are they better?