Arizona Immigration Law: Enforcement Blocked by Circuit Court

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
What years would you like to discuss? You do know there was a pre-immigration period right?

Years??????

What are you taling about? Maybe a little less time worrying about my typos and a little more time reading would help. I have no clue what you are asking what years for. Immigration is a constant and ongoing thing. Yeah, there was a pre-America period too but neither of those have to do with my question to you that you apparently cannot answer.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
What years would you like to discuss? You do know there was a pre-immigration period right?

Years??????

What are you taling about? Maybe a little less time worrying about my typos and a little more time reading would help. I have no clue what you are asking what years for. Immigration is a constant and ongoing thing. Yeah, there was a pre-America period too but neither of those have to do with my question to you that you apparently cannot answer.

Dont know much about history apparently. The time frame was from 1794 to 1890 (pre-immigration station period). Are those the " years " you wish to discuss? I asked a simple question, what years did you wish to discuss. And yet, you avoid discussing a specific time frame, and suggest that I cannot answer? Now if that isnt the pot callin the kettle black?

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Dont know much about history apparently. The time frame was from 1794 to 1890 (pre-immigration station period). Are those the " years " you wish to discuss? I asked a simple question, what years did you wish to discuss. And yet, you avoid discussing a specific time frame, and suggest that I cannot answer? Now if that isnt the pot callin the kettle black?

Um...can you read? Let me ask you again.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Immigrants have no rights according to our constitution? What was all that Ellis Island nonsense about?

Whatever you are going on for time periods about is entirely beyond me. Above you will find two distinct questions. If you read the first one, you will understand the relationship of the second one and why when you edit what you reply to and leave out the important parts on a forum where we can go back and look, it appears less than honest.

Now, I asked a simple question and yet you insist on discussing a specific time frame for absolutely no reason at all. Perhaps I need to ask my questions one at a time for you.

Try it this way

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Immigrants have no rights according to our constitution?

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Apparently someone forgot to inform these judges that the Constitution grants the powers not delegated to the states to the people as well.

Someone forgot to tell the people that if they are not willing to water the tree of liberty with a bit o blood that the Constitution becomes nothing more than a piece of paper.

reply to post by Sinnthia


I'll take that soft ball pitch:

14th Amendment:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Take note in the 1st:

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

Does that grant amnesty? Nope!

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This portion again identifies with its citizens.

Please tell me you weren't going to try to spin the 14th?

Keyword in the first sentence:

naturalized

Meaning, green card, and acceptance of citizenship.

Please enlighten me with your explanation on how illegal immigrants, ( key word " illegal " ) have rights?

Are you going to try to sway Articlee IV section 2? It clearly states " the citizens".

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Please suggest where in the Constitution it states the illegals have rights. ( again key word being "illegal" )

Illegal defined:

–adjective 1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.:

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Please enlighten me with your explanation on how illegal immigrants, ( key word " illegal " ) have rights?

You answered your own question

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

After stating that citizens have certain rights they go on to say, what I understand as, the rights of "any person". This would include illegals.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Please enlighten me with your explanation on how illegal immigrants, ( key word " illegal " ) have rights?

You answered your own question

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

After stating that citizens have certain rights they go on to say, what I understand as, the rights of "any person". This would include illegals.

Negative. In the first:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Meaning those persons being either citizens or naturalized within the confines of the jurisdiction.

the last:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

meaning those same peoples within that jurisdiction.

illegals are not subject to any jurisdiction, thus the reason immigrants that are non-citizens are deemed, illegal.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Your just stating what you think it means.

I disagree and by the looks of it so do the courts.

That's why the watering the tree of liberty has to be done every so often. Of course who's the free and who are the tyrants will probably still fall victim to the us and them finger pointing.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

Your just stating what you think it means.

I disagree and by the looks of it so do the courts.

That's why the watering the tree of liberty has to be done every so often. Of course who's the free and who are the tyrants will probably still fall victim to the us and them finger pointing.

edit on 13-4-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

No, I did not interpret anything, nor am I giving my spin like others tend to do. The 14th Amendment is very clear. A peoples must fall into a jurisdiction. There is no debate on what is very clear. Thus the reason the term " jurisdiction " is mentioned twice within the same Amendment. To be crystal clear.

You have stated the same quote from Jefferson twice now. Do you even know why?

Governments must be reminded that the people have the right and the responsibility of protecting their collective liberties and freedoms. The government should fear it's people otherwise it might try to unduly control the people.
He then went on to say that a government in fear of its people is, freedom, and a people afraid of their government, is tyranny.

reply to post by daskakik


Say what?

Try reading Elk v. Wilkins.

Want cliff notes? Here, maybe this will help.

An indian assumed he automatically became a U.S. citizen when he quit his tribe due to the "citizenship clause". Given that tribes were sovereign nations, he wasn't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus was not automatically deemed a citizen after leaving his tribe.

Or, if you wish, we could simply read the words of the who is considered the father of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard:

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country

Yea, I just did that to your argument

reply to post by daskakik


Did you also know, that within the text of the Declaration of Independence, it states that it is our duty to abolish the ruling government if it no longer works for the people by the people, and establish a new one?

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

www.ushistory.org...

Do you understand that is our right and our duty? Do you not see that I have only reiterated what is fact? Not my spin mind you~

reply to post by Whereweheaded


I'm not interpreting anything either. I'm just stating what I am reading without spin. I just think that since the same group of guys stated that they thought all men were created equal in the Declaration of Independance that the Constitution was written in the same spirit.

Illegals do fall under the jurisdiction of the state they are in and also the United States. If this were not the case the states would not be able to force their laws upon them and feds would not be able to deport them.

I know what Jefferson meant. It means that the blood that your forefathers shed was to ensure their freedoms and when those freedoms start being chipped away by the tyrants then the young have to shed their blood to regain those freedoms. If they don't then whatever social contract that the "people" made with the government in the past means squat.

reply to post by daskakik


Either you are implying you know more than the man who actually wrote the citizenship clause, or you are 100% wrong.

Which one is it?

reply to post by ViperChili

I'm not talking about citizenship but that illegals are under the jurisduction of the state and the federal government. Truth is that whatever I think I know has little to do with anything because the courts decide the interpretation of the laws. They just seem to coincide with what I think on this one

reply to post by daskakik


Which courts would those be?

Specifically, what cases?

reply to post by ViperChili


First off all the criminal courts that send illegals to prison for breaking state laws. Federal courts sentencing illegals to federal prison for federal crimes and ICE deporting them for being illegal.

And the circuit court of the OP.

Originally posted by ViperChili
Either you are implying you know more than the man who actually wrote the citizenship clause, or you are 100% wrong.

Respectfully, it seems it is you who doesn’t know what he is talking about. You, and Whereweheaded, keep framing the 14th Amendment and all its language strictly through a citizenship condition, which is incorrect.

Section 1 of the Amendment is broader than the citizenship clause. It contains the due process and equal protection clauses, and the protections they provide, as daskakik correctly indicated, apply to everyone, including non-citizens, and yes, even illegal immigrants.

These aren’t even recent or new developments. In 1886, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court stated—

The rights of the petitioners ... are not less because they are aliens ... The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens.

It says: “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
illegals are not subject to any jurisdiction, thus the reason immigrants that are non-citizens are deemed, illegal.

This is also incorrect.

Everyone physically in the United States, safe for very few exceptions, is in the jurisdiction of the United States, including illegal immigrants. If illegal immigrants weren’t in the jurisdiction of the United States when they entered the country, as you suggest, then you couldn’t arrest them, now could you?

The few exceptions being people with legal immunity, like diplomats, or invading soldiers. That’s why, in fact, these are also the classes of people whose children, if born in the United States, aren’t granted US citizenship.

reply to post by aptness


You certainly cant be that naive nor simple minded. Let me make this real easy. What does illegal mean? Illegal is an adjective, meaning not with in law/statue or regulation.

Now, if an illegal alien ( keyword illegal ), is not part of any jurisdiction, and came across our borders, illegally, that would suggest an illegal act, not within the governing laws and jurisdictions. Meaning, that any act in direct violation of said laws, is grounds for punishment. Why else have the statement within our Constitution to protect our borders? Possibly to enforce the laws of said jurisdictions perhaps?

Now it is very clear what the 14th Amendment says. It is you, who clearly are mistaken and have no clue what liberal bull shizat your talking about.

ETA: allow me to further solidify my point with one extra piece of fact:

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country

reply to post by Whereweheaded

Your trying to force illegal to mean not under jurisdiction and you are wrong. If someone is not under jurisdiction, like diplomats, then they can't be arrested, charged, tried and convicted because the courts don't have jurisdiction over diplomats. Of course all this can be done to an illegal because they are under jurisdiction. Aptness even cited a Supreme Court case. What more do you want?

The text you quoted is about citizenship not about jurisdiction.

Originally posted by aptness
Respectfully, it seems it is you who doesn’t know what he is talking about. You, and Whereweheaded, keep framing the 14th Amendment and all its language strictly through a citizenship condition, which is incorrect.

Section 1 of the Amendment is broader than the citizenship clause. It contains the due process and equal protection clauses, and the protections they provide, as daskakik correctly indicated, apply to everyone, including non-citizens, and yes, even illegal immigrants.



These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.


Everyone physically in the United States, safe for very few exceptions, is in the jurisdiction of the United States, including illegal immigrants. If illegal immigrants weren’t in the jurisdiction of the United States when they entered the country, as you suggest, then you couldn’t arrest them, now could you?

Wrong, and let me show you why.

a) I never implied the 14th was solely about citizenship conditions.

b) The quote you pasted contained the key word: territorial jurisdiction. Naturally any nation has territorial jurisdiction when it comes to law. Break a law within our borders, and we have the right to prosecute you, and upon completion of your sentence, you are rightly deported. There is a difference between the term "jurisdiction" and territorial jurisdiction.

c) The structure of the wording of the 14th also proves you wrong. If things were as you say (that anyone here is already under the jurisdiction of the United States), there would be no need to add the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," qualifier.

d) Supreme Court decisions in the Slaughterhouse Cases:

The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

Justia Source