Supreme Court rules 5-4 that states can prosecute illegal aliens for identity theft

a reply to: Scapegrace
Grim stats for sure but they contradict the idea that they are running around with complete immunity.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Here is a little more about what they said in their dissent:

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.

KANSAS v. GARCIA

Sounds a little bit different than the cherry picked snippet in the OP's source.

a reply to: daskakik

No it doesn't. How? It makes their decision even worse.

This is how deranged they are. They are claiming the IRCA preempts Kansas from enforcing laws on illegals. They admit NOTHING in the IRCA expressly preempts Kansas from doing it, they are saying it is implied preemption. Exactly as I said, the laws are clear and Kansas can prosecute, but these 4 dissenting liberals are activist judges using their power to enforce the laws as they WISH they were, and not as they are.

How did you read what you just posted in that source and not immediately say I was right?

"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."

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
They say they agree with the majority except for a technicality.

It is quite different than the spin served in that article and the take away that illegals can't be touched by the states.

ETA: And again, they are specifying that it is only in the cases before them, not across the board.

a reply to: daskakik

I have no idea where you are getting the stuff you are saying. There is no technicality, that is not what they are saying at all. It's like you want to be obtuse.

They are saying the Kansas can prosecute according to the laws as written. Then they are saying Kansas can NOT prosecute, because even though the law does not stop them, they believe the law implies it stops them.

Supreme Court does not EVER rule on a case before them, they only rule on cases that apply across the board.

It seems you are somehow invested in something here and thus are blocking your mind from understanding.

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 would have been able to get away with murder if these judges had gotten their way.

I saw spin and called it out. I guess I'm invested in the old ATS motto.

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.

There is no spin, 'implied' means it is not there, never has been, and they are trying to put it there.

Why can't they get away with murder if immigration and thus illegals can ONLY be dealt with by the federal courts? Using the rationale of the minority explain to me why one crime is prosecuteable by the state and the other is not?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
That is the spin. They didn't say "illegals can ONLY be dealt with by federal courts".

The majority said "IRCA’s express preemption provision applies only to employers and those who recruit or refer prospective employees and is thus plainly inapplicable."

The minority thinks it should apply to the employees as well. That is a technicality. And, again, it only applies to the act of using false info to prove work eligibility.

That is why every other crime in which the feds don't have sole jurisdiction is prosecuteable by the state.

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?

a reply to: sean

America is getting very strange to those who don't live there.

Trump said some mean things about illegals so now the establishment is bending over backward to appease them.

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?

There is an advantage to these kinds of rulings, though.

The constitution says:

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.

If we're not allowed to prosecute them, then they are clearly not "subject to the jurisdiction" , right?

Really, EVERY TIME the Mexican consulate weighs in to assist a "Mexican citizen" by arguing that they are a Mexican constituent and not an American one. And the person expresses any agreement whatsoever with that argument, If they have any children born here, those children should IMMEDIATELY be stripped of their citizenship.


The children are NOT citizens unless their parents are subject to American jurisdiction at the time of their birth.

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: 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.

Actually the supreme court has frequently ruled that children born to native Americans off the reservation are not.

Furthermore, the Mexican consulate continually asserts that its citizens are not subject to American jurisdiction while they are in American lands.

Which means Mexico disagrees.

Children can't decide their own jurisdiction until they reach the age of 18, but must abide the decision of their parents or guardians. So if the parent is not subject to American jurisdiction , it therefore follows the child must not be.


If Honduras allows America to have jurisdiction over its citizens while they are in America, then maybe the children of illegal Honduranean immigrants might be considered "subject to jurisdiction". But this would mean that Honduras must allow us to apply the death penalty when its citizens commit capital crimes in a state that has it.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

That is a special circumstance, like the children of diplomats.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Actually, it is the US that decides who is and isn't under their jurisdiction.

You can look up how many illegal mexicans are in US prisons to see how wrong you are about Mexico's stance on things meaning something.

Seems all we would really have to do is just concede that, then.

Let all the illegal immigrants out of prison - but deport them to their country of origin.

Let the nation know their own national committed an act of harm against one of our citizens. If they go unpunished, then apply sanctions or go to war, as appropriate.

We'd definitely save ourselves some prison costs.

Our assertion of jurisdiction, where we don't need to assert it, is our own undoing. Just like if we were to arrest a foreign soldier for committing an illegal act while occupying an area of our territory.

Illegal entry should be reclassified as a form of invasion. All undocumented foreign national invited to leave, or be treated as unarmed enemy combatants.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous
But you don't, so your "what if" is rather pointless.

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? a reply to: Gojira54

originally posted by: Rob808
Why would being an illegal immigrant provide you with an elevated status?

It doesn't.

It seems to offer superior rights to normal citizenship. Why are they better?

They are not, it is just a skewed view that some, for some reason, want to believe.