U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-16-2011, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
16,116 posts, read 20,148,778 times
Reputation: 8204

Advertisements

That'll end Mitt Romney

 
Old 06-16-2011, 10:13 AM
 
951 posts, read 616,596 times
Reputation: 89
No other case will ever get to the Supreme court unless you can:

Quote:
describe the legal reasoning that gets you to your desired result and that is consistent with Kim and Plyler, and in particular what those cases had to say about the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
So far people either haven't been able to do it or are smart enough to know the case will get tossed immediately. I mean if people really hated these anchor babies and you have such a case to make (though I haven't heard it) this would be a shoe in to get fixed right? Wrong. I await your legal reasoning because your whole "you don't show evidence sufficient to my trollish needs" game you play in every thread isn't winning you anything here.

Can you do it? By it I mean:

Quote:
describe the legal reasoning that gets you to your desired result and that is consistent with Kim and Plyler, and in particular what those cases had to say about the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
The way you are trying hand wave the issue away and trying to get me to provide further non-necessary evidence despite what has been shown makes me doubt it. Here's your chance to prove your point.
 
Old 06-16-2011, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
No other case will ever get to the Supreme court unless you can:

So far people either haven't been able to do it or are smart enough to know the case will get tossed immediately. I mean if people really hated these anchor babies and you have such a case to make (though I haven't heard it) this would be a shoe in to get fixed right? Wrong. I await your legal reasoning because your whole "you don't show evidence sufficient to my trollish needs" game you play in every thread isn't winning you anything here.

Can you do it? By it I mean:

The way you are trying hand wave the issue away and trying to get me to provide further non-necessary evidence despite what has been shown makes me doubt it. Here's your chance to prove your point.
That’s funny. How can a case be decided prior to being presented to the Supreme Court? The last time I checked, they have NOT been presented a case involving Birthright Citizenship for illegal aliens.

I have to leave soon, but perhaps when I return, you will have posted the case.
 
Old 06-16-2011, 10:29 AM
 
951 posts, read 616,596 times
Reputation: 89
Perhaps you've heard of how the court system and appeals work having worked in the DoJ supposedly? You have to:

Quote:
describe the legal reasoning that gets you to your desired result and that is consistent with Kim and Plyler, and in particular what those cases had to say about the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
to not have it tossed.


Maybe you can think about how you want to describe this reasoning and get back to this thread later. Your dodging of doing any actual describing of your point and instead crying about needing another case without being able to argue the point yourself is getting more and more obvious.
 
Old 06-16-2011, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
Perhaps you've heard of how the court system and appeals work having worked in the DoJ supposedly? You have to:



to not have it tossed.


Maybe you can think about how you want to describe this reasoning and get back to this thread later. Your dodging of doing any actual describing of your point and instead crying about needing another case without being able to argue the point yourself is getting more and more obvious.
You can either post the Supreme Court case, or you can’t. Nothing else will suffice. Later.
 
Old 06-16-2011, 10:58 AM
 
951 posts, read 616,596 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
You can either post the Supreme Court case, or you can’t. Nothing else will suffice. Later.
I don't need to. It's been laid out already. Explain how these kids don't fall under jurisdiction.

I imagine the court case going something like this:

Benicar: These babies aren't U.S. citizens sir.
Judge: Were they born on U.S. soil.
Benicar: Yup
Judge: Well then they are U.S. citizens
Benicar: But their parents aren't citizens and are here illegally
Judge: That doesn't matter the rulings in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark and Plyle vs. Doe lay out the grounds for jurisdiction in all cases and states that they are under jurisdiction as well.
Benicar: But that didn't pertain to birthright citizenship yo
Judge: lol? The statements made in those cases specifically state that everyone is under the jurisdiction and babies born under jurisdiction are U.S. citizens. Describe to me how they aren't included in the jurisdiction.
Benicar: Well you show me the Supreme Court case.
Judge: I just did.
Benicar: Well I can't argue or explain my point so will just demand another case as proof while trying to claim victory like i do in every other thread
Judge: Are you going to explain how you think anchor babies don't fall under the jurisdiction as laid out in those 2 cases?
Benicar: No I need to see another case - duh winning
Judge: Dismissed lulz

Keep trying.

Last edited by huddledmasses; 06-16-2011 at 11:21 AM..
 
Old 06-16-2011, 11:00 AM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,899 posts, read 15,287,998 times
Reputation: 6451
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Why is birthright citizenship a Hispanic issue? Even those who can't stand Hispanics don't base their views on "xenophobia" because Hispanics are not strangers to this country. Some may be racists or they may just be fed up with their support of their ethnic kind here illegally. In the case of the illegal kind rather than hate it is an objection based on the rule of law and it isn't just about the Hispanic kind either.

I haven't a clue what your last sentence means. Hispanics are all over this country already both legal and illegal.

10 milion Hispanic voters out of 310 million people in this country is a big influence?

Thanks chicagonut; i have a lot of really good mexican friends who yes were born in this Country. To tell ya the truth, they want no part of mexican illegals in this Country, and when they talk about the situation they get pissed. You see the friends i have think of themselves as Americans being born in the Country, and as they so put it, they want no one coming across our Borders, if they do it in a unethical way. Like one of them told me, if they can't seem to want to do it the legal way, but do want to break our laws by coming here illegally, we should have no use for them, and we should not make it this easy for them. I agree with him.
 
Old 06-16-2011, 12:06 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,146,155 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
Yeah well the 14th Amendment has been ruled on. It's a done deal. Don't you respect the law?

Also, feel free to answer the above 2 questions I asked Benicar if you think you have a guess.
No, it isn't a "done deal". Do you realize how many amendments have been made to our Constitution over the years? In this case it only needs to be re-interpreted. I respect our laws and honor them in their present form, unlike illegals who do what they want BEFORE or IF the laws are even changed.

Seeking change is not unlawful, while obeying them in their present form in the meantime.

Our immigration laws state that anyone who enters our country without papers and authorization from our government IS an illegal alien.
 
Old 06-16-2011, 12:17 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,146,155 times
Reputation: 2130
Don't ya just love the exaggerations and smears of the pro-illegals? We "hate" anchor babies? Uh no, we hate the actions of their parents who jumped our borders in violation of our immigration laws to claim citizenship for their anchors and be able to tap into our tax coffers till they are 18 years old. It makes a mockery out of our citizenship.
 
Old 06-16-2011, 04:57 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,425 times
Reputation: 299
Huddlemass,

Plyler Vs Doe is specific in that the 14th Amendment is directed at the State, not the persons. The opening paragraph says: <i>The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens.</i>

This means that the State of Texas must allow these children the ability to goto school, even though they or there families have not paid for the desired benefit. <i>Public education is not a "right" granted to individuals by the Constitution. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973). But neither is it merely some governmental "benefit" indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation.</i>

In section II of Plyler it clearly states: <i>To the contrary, each aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment reflects an elementary limitation on state power.</i>, further down it concludes with: <i>That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. (this is known as Plausible Distinction, note 10 at ID 693)

Our conclusion that the illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases may claim the benefit of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection only begins the inquiry. <b>The more difficult question is whether the Equal Protection Clause has been violated by the refusal of the State of Texas to reimburse local school boards for the education of children who cannot demonstrate that their presence within the [p216] United States is lawful, or by the imposition by those school boards of the burden of tuition on those children. </b> </i> (this goes to the claims as made by Benicar on earlier pages) {....only begins the inquiry. - Does not grant 14th Amendment Protections to illegal aliens, there is no definitive claim that it does)

Section III
<i>The Equal Protection Clause directs that "all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike." F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920). But so too, "[t]he Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same." Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147 (1940). The initial discretion to determine what is "different" and what is "the same" resides in the legislatures of the States. A legislature must have substantial latitude to establish classifications that roughly approximate the nature of the problem perceived, that accommodate competing concerns both public and private, and that account for limitations on the practical ability of the State to remedy every ill.</i>

Section A:
<i>The children who are plaintiffs in these cases are special members of this underclass. <b>Persuasive arguments support the view that a State may withhold its beneficence from those whose very presence within the United States is the product of their own unlawful conduct. These arguments do not apply [p220] with the same force to classifications imposing disabilities on the minor children of such illegal entrants.</b> At the least, those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. Their "parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms," and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State's jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status." Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 770 (1977).</i>

Section IV:
<i>To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV).</i>

Conclusion:
If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial State interest. No such showing was made here. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in each of these cases is Affirmed.

Might I suggest learning to understand the cases and to whom it is directed before making claims that it infers something it do not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top