Arizona Immigration Law: Enforcement Blocked by Circuit Court

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ViperChili
 


You keep refering to the citizenship clause. Illegals have rights under the due process and equal protection clauses.



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.


I agree that illegal is illegal. Not saying they should be given any breaks. Jus soli citizenship is up to each country to have if they choose. If that was the intent of the 14th is up to the courts to decide and personally I don't care either way.

Now, just like illegal means illegal, "any person" also means "any person" and not just citizens. The intent of the later parts are clear. The first adresses the privileges or immunities of citizens specifically while the due process and equal protection clauses are written so that there is not doubt that it applies to all.
edit on 14-4-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


I'll take that soft ball pitch:

14th Amendment:


Swing and a miss!


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!


Amnesty? Can you have a discussion on the topic being discussed?




No State shall ...


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.


Whifff. How about I just walk you?


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


Sure thing. Just as soon as you explain why you have shifted the argument. Maybe you need to see your quote again.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
You do realize that those who are immigrants, according to our Constitution have no rights, therefore your civil rights would not have been breached.

That "keyword" does not seem to appear anywhere in the quote I questioned. Chances are that if it had, I would not have asked. Perhaps you meant to originally say illegal but I am not psychic.


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.:




LOL. Can I just add new variables and change the entire argument as well or would that bother you? Keywords only work when you actually include them. Even then though, it appears T-ball might be a good fit. Even illegals have rights in the US. If I am wrong, then go find an illegal immigrant and kidnap them. Then report yourself. Let me know if they turn out to have the right to not be kidnapped by you, even though they are illegal.
edit on 14-4-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
You certainly cant be that naive nor simple minded.
I’m sure you can share your opinion without ad hominems.


Now, if an illegal alien ( keyword illegal ), is not part of any jurisdiction
You have yet to demonstrate how an illegal alien is “not part of any jurisdiction.”

The logic behind your own statements, in fact, contradicts this assertion, because, as you claimed, illegal aliens are illegal for being in violation of a “law/statute or regulation.” How can a law apply to someone who is not subject to that jurisdiction?


Meaning, that any act in direct violation of said laws, is grounds for punishment.
No one said illegal aliens weren’t in “violation of said laws,” nor that they shouldn’t be ‘punished.’ The point I and other members have been making is that everyone, including aliens, when they enter the United States are within the jurisdiction of the United States.


ETA: allow me to further solidify my point with one extra piece of fact:
Your citation of Sen. Howard’s statements from the debate on the 14th Amendment, not only tells me you have misinterpreted it, but that you continue to frame this whole discussion through the citizenship condition. And the due process and equal protection clauses of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment apply to “any person,” not just citizens.

Here is what the Supreme Court, in Plyler v. Doe (1982), unequivocally said—

The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term.
The Court added—

This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.

But let’s take Sen. Howard’s frequently misinterpreted statement, namely that “[the citizenship clause] 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.

The qualifiers “foreigners, aliens” is to persons “who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers,” and not to aliens in general. Otherwise, the second part of that statement is completely unnecessary. Sen. Howard could have said “it will not ... include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens.”

He was simply stating the common law principle of birthright citizenship — which considered the exceptions of diplomats (“ambassadors or foreign ministers”) and soldiers of invading armies — and the Civil Rights Act adopted one month earlier to that 14th Amendment debate.

In fact, Sen. Howard notes this by saying (and you cited) “[t]his 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.”

During the debates of the Civil Rights Act, we can read the following exchange between Sen. Cowan and Sen. Trumbull, the author of the Act—

Mr. COWAN. I will ask whether [the Civil Rights Act] will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?
Mr. TRUMBULL. Undoubtedly.
...
Mr. COWAN. ... The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians ... That is the fallacy of his argument.
Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.

Sen. Cowan went on, during the debates of the 14th Amendment, to express his disagreement with the law and the language of the proposed 14th Amendment, again talking about Chinese and Gypsies—

Sen. COWAN. Sir, I trust I am as liberal as anybody toward the rights of all people, but I am unwilling, on the part of my State, to give up the right that she claims, and that she may exercise, and exercise before very long, of expelling a certain number of people who invade her borders; who owe her no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognize no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own … ; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen, and perform none of the duties which devolve upon him, but, on the other hand, have no homes, pretend to own no land, live nowhere, settle as trespassers where ever they go … I mean the Gypsies.
That sounds analogous to the criticism of illegal immigrants.

Sen. Cowan voted against the 14th Amendment because it would make citizens children of certain classes of people, and that he objected to — Gypsies, Chinese.

During the debate, Sen. Doolittle expressed concern that the amendment would perhaps make Indians US citizens. Sen. Trumbull, author of the Civil Rights Act and chairmain of the Committee on the Judiciary, says the following regarding the meaning of jurisdiction—

Mr. TRUMBULL. ... Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. This is what it means. Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. ... They are not subject to our jurisdiction. We do not exercise jurisdiction over them. It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.


edit on 14-4-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ViperChili
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.
You can’t do that, for example, to foreign diplomats.


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.
It makes sense because, foreign diplomats, and Indians at the time, while in the territory of the United States, weren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

That’s why the language is “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction.” This is why Indians weren’t citizens. They were “born in the United States,” but they weren’t in the jurisdiction of the United States.

It’s somewhat odd you haven’t understood this point, seeing as you cited Elk v. Wilkins. The Court, in that case, stated—

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.


Supreme Court decisions in the Slaughterhouse Cases:
So I cite a Supreme Court case from 1886 (Yick Wo v. Hopkins) and you claim to refute my argument by citing a case from 1884?

If you keep going back and relying on older cases to refute more recent cases, in a while, you’ll be arguing that black people could never become US citizens (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857)

edit on 14-4-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)





 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 98 minutes remaining).
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP8 - Season Finale!

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def