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 08-09-2011, 02:55 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,641 times
Reputation: 299

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
BTW LR, give me a quick, succinct rundown of what you believe Footnote 19 in Plyler is saying.
19. We reject the claim that "illegal aliens" are a "suspect class." No case in which we have attempted to define a suspect class, see, e.g., n. 14, supra, has addressed the status of persons unlawfully in our country. Unlike most of the classifications that we have recognized as suspect, entry into this class, by virtue of entry into this country, is the product of voluntary action. Indeed, entry into the class is itself a crime.

The first 2 sentences simply means that illegal immighratns are granted 5th (Due Process Clause) and 14th (Equal Protection Clause) amendment protections, while the last 2 sentences explicitly acknowledge that illegal aliens come here knowingly, and that it is a crime.

In addition, it could hardly be suggested that undocumented status is a "constitutional irrelevancy." With respect to the actions of the Federal Government, alienage classifications may be intimately related to the conduct of foreign policy, to the federal prerogative to control access to the United States, and to the plenary federal power to determine who has sufficiently manifested his allegiance to become a citizen of the Nation.

This merely says that the Federal Government can determine who has manifested his allegiance and by so doing may become a citizen of the Nation.

No State may independently exercise a like power. But if the Federal Government has, by uniform rule, prescribed what it believes to be appropriate standards for the treatment of an alien subclass, the States may, of course, follow the federal direction. See De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976).

Oversimplified - This simply means that it is the Federal Governments prescriptions 9towards illegal aliens) that must be adhered to and that States may follow the Federal Direction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2011, 03:18 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,771 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
The first 2 sentences simply means that illegal immighratns are granted 5th (Due Process Clause) and 14th (Equal Protection Clause) amendment protections, while the last 2 sentences explicitly acknowledge that illegal aliens come here knowingly, and that it is a crime.
Well, no. The first two sentences are talking about the level of scrutiny that laws concerning illegal aliens are to be given in EP cases. The last two are digging into that further, implicitly discussing the criteria used for determining classes subject to heightened levels of scrutiny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
This merely says that the Federal Government can determine who has manifested his allegiance and by so doing may become a citizen of the Nation.
More or less. This is still all in the context of classification scrutiny.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Oversimplified - This simply means that it is the Federal Governments prescriptions 9towards illegal aliens) that must be adhered to and that States may follow the Federal Direction.
Since you said it's oversimplified, I'll assume you roughly know what that all means.

And yet, despite knowing just about every basic concept in that footnote, you did not identify the whole point of it, which is regarding the classification of illegal aliens. It would jump out to anyone who knew the 14th Amendment at anything above a beginner's level. I'm not sure what you would even believe was the point of that footnote if it meant simply what you have stated, which says almost nothing at all.

You know, don't take this the wrong way, but law is hard and stuff. You have an OK grasp on some things, but you overreach all the time. You constantly think that you are properly contextualizing things when you have not yet understood what the context actually means, both in terms of the language used and the extent to which it controls the courts. You can brush this off as being simply a matter of opinion/law is malleable etc. etc. if you want, but there is more to it than that. Last night you cited footnote 19, thinking that it had implications that in a very real and clear way it does not have. That's not some off-hand opinion of mine - that is the only conclusion one can accurately draw from your post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 03:33 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,641 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
False. A birth certificate is not what determines citizenship.
Who's talking about a birth certificate here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad
I mean, if you wanted to make it seem like you knew what you were talking about, you could like, I don't know, not say things like "You will learn about Plyler during 2L."
Con Law, introduces you to court concepts and rational. You are right that Con Law discusses Plyler (even though it is limited), it is Immigration Law students in their 2nd year that will better delve into Plyler vs Doe. As you have not stated which area of law you are pursuing....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad
No, this is wrong. The primary holding of Plyler was EP-related, obviously, but when the Court sits there and interprets a phrase (explicitly so, even though in the Anchor Babies thread you went wayyy out of your way to make it seem unclear) that has bearing on other clauses, that is effectively a collateral holding and it controls.
Wrong?, hardly. Plyler says: In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. {Brennan} Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [n10]
The premise is Brennan defining "within its jurisdiction" for the purpose of 5th (Due Process) and 14th (Equal Protection) protections. (which reverts back to Wong Kim Ark, which (Gray) reverts back to the Schooner Exchange, determining that those here without the consent of the Sovereign Nation fall under the jurisdiction of civil and criminal law.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad
My guess is that it's been challenged in lower courts.
Please provide a lower court challenge to BRC, cite a case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad
How about this - if anytime in the near future it comes before the Court, with the justices as they are, I'll make a wager. $1000 says my side wins. I'd even take some odds that it's 9-0, though you would need a miracle to do any better than a 5-4 loss.
Whats stopping you from challenging the BRC Clause, bring a lawsuit and make a name for yourself. When it does come before SCOTUS, then we can obtain a firm to hold the monies. Since your so quick to put your money where your opinion is, what are the odds for the 9-0 ruling?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 03:40 PM
 
485 posts, read 1,323,926 times
Reputation: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
I'm curious, guys. In 1999-2000, employment was at one of it's lowest points ever nationwide (below 4%) and the economy was booming. If illegals are truly taking so many jobs, how was that possible? We had tons of illegals cross the border in the 1990s and early 2000s, so how was that accomplished if there just weren't enough jobs to go around? I'm baffled by this idea that Americans have lost more jobs due to illegals than to a very sh*tty economy in which companies across the board are not in the mood to keep or hire more employees. So I'd love for one of you to explain to me how low employment is possible at all given the illegal situation.
I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say in this post. I read the next two pages of posts hoping that someone else would clarify for me. I am assuming that you are talking about low UNemployment not low employment. Even making this assumption I can't follow what you are trying to say. Please try again -- I would like to figure out what you are trying to say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 03:45 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,641 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
Well, no. The first two sentences are talking about the level of scrutiny that laws concerning illegal aliens are to be given in EP cases. The last two are digging into that further, implicitly discussing the criteria used for determining classes subject to heightened levels of scrutiny.



More or less. This is still all in the context of classification scrutiny.




Since you said it's oversimplified, I'll assume you roughly know what that all means.

And yet, despite knowing just about every basic concept in that footnote, you did not identify the whole point of it, which is regarding the classification of illegal aliens. It would jump out to anyone who knew the 14th Amendment at anything above a beginner's level. I'm not sure what you would even believe was the point of that footnote if it meant simply what you have stated, which says almost nothing at all.

You know, don't take this the wrong way, but law is hard and stuff. You have an OK grasp on some things, but you overreach all the time. You constantly think that you are properly contextualizing things when you have not yet understood what the context actually means, both in terms of the language used and the extent to which it controls the courts. You can brush this off as being simply a matter of opinion/law is malleable etc. etc. if you want, but there is more to it than that. Last night you cited footnote 19, thinking that it had implications that in a very real and clear way it does not have. That's not some off-hand opinion of mine - that is the only conclusion one can accurately draw from your post.
So because I don't use lawyer jargon (in terms of the language used), or you believe that I am not properly contextualizing things, I am therefor overreaching. AYY.

I guess we simply have to wait for a SCOTUS case and ruling, or for the Department of State to change the definition, or Congress to clarify the definition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 03:51 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,005,771 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
So because I don't use lawyer jargon (in terms of the language used), or you believe that I am not properly contextualizing things, I am therefor overreaching. AYY.

I guess we simply have to wait for a SCOTUS case and ruling, or for the Department of State to change the definition, or Congress to clarify the definition.
I mean, I believe you are overreaching for a lot of reasons. Using "lawyer jargon" is different than knowing what strict scrutiny is.

If DOS or Congress changes the definition, we'll see it in front of the Supreme Court pretty quickly imo. Again, I'd make wagers.

To be clear, I'm a living Constitution kinda guy. If the Court said "this is what it meant before, circumstances have changed drastically, this is what it should mean now" I don't have any constitutionally principled opposition to that sort of reasoning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 04:25 PM
 
951 posts, read 616,961 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Wrong?, hardly. Plyler says: In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. {Brennan} Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [n10]
The premise is Brennan defining "within its jurisdiction" for the purpose of 5th (Due Process) and 14th (Equal Protection) protections.
No, it isn't. Brennan is restating the argument Texas (bolded) brought forth which Brennan went on to state that:

"Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction."

He is saying they were not just wrong, they were way wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 04:26 PM
 
951 posts, read 616,961 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Who's talking about a birth certificate here?
So where and by what process is citizenship gained?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 10:25 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,641 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
I mean, I believe you are overreaching for a lot of reasons. Using "lawyer jargon" is different than knowing what strict scrutiny is.

If DOS or Congress changes the definition, we'll see it in front of the Supreme Court pretty quickly imo. Again, I'd make wagers.

To be clear, I'm a living Constitution kinda guy. If the Court said "this is what it meant before, circumstances have changed drastically, this is what it should mean now" I don't have any constitutionally principled opposition to that sort of reasoning.
Plyler:The existence of such an underclass presents most difficult problems for a Nation that prides itself on adherence to principles of equality under law. [n19]
Hence, why I said what I did in regards to the 5th and 14th Amendment.

DOS recently changed the definition in the Foreign Affairs Manuel (8/21/2009 - Obama Admin took over in Jan 2009) to what it now states: d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
It will change again when a consentualist takes over the Admin.

Your interpretation of a "Living Document" differs from mine, I believe it is living in the since that it can be Amended (added or subtracted to) by Congress and ratified by the 2/3 majority of States, but its Amendments are as they state and must be used in accordance as they were argued and passed in Congress. SCOTUS must remain within the parameters of the intent of the Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 10:32 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,641 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by huddledmasses View Post
No, it isn't. Brennan is restating the argument Texas (bolded) brought forth which Brennan went on to state that:

"Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction."

He is saying they were not just wrong, they were way wrong.
You miss read the quote. Appellants (Texas) you bolded, points out that they are arguing that illegal aliens do not fall within the jurisdiction of the State. {Brennan} refers to the italicized portion (not bolded - there is a period and a space before {Brennan}). Brennan says that appellants argument doesn't fall within the constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction.".

I agree appellants were wrong, I've never claimed otherwise. I've only stated that being subject to civil and criminal law (which is what Brennan is getting at) does not constitute allegiance as needed to pass down in order to obtain BRC.

I like how you bolded the portion of my comment you felt like, as I didn't bold it above in my comment at 163.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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
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