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.
Texas is not disputing the citizenship of those born in the US. Rather, the state ceased to accept the parents' consular photo ID issued by Mexico. More than 2 dozen parents in South Texas have sued the state on behalf of 32 children they claim had been denied birth certificates and they fear losing access to vital services.
It has not mattered who sat the oval or held the majority. 30 years of doing nothing has consequences.
Isn't this against the constitution? Why aren't conservatives up in a fury?
In interpreting statutes, the Supreme Court has often recognized the rule "that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers." E.g., United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193, 201, 61 L. Ed. 2d 480, 99 S. Ct. 2721 (1979) (quoting Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 459, 36 L. Ed. 226, 12 S. Ct. 511 (1892)).
The 14th Amendment does not apply to "anchor babies."
There is also the issue of "absurd results":
In recognizing the principle that a statute's language and purpose may at time differ, the Court has stated guidelines for reconciling the two:
There is, of course, no more persuasive evidence of the purpose of a statute than the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes. Often these words are sufficient in and of themselves to determine the purpose of the legislation. In such cases we have followed their plain meaning. When that meaning has led to absurd or futile results, however, this Court has looked beyond the words to the purpose of the act. Frequently, however, even when the plain meaning did not produce absurd results but merely an unreasonable one "plainly at variance with the policy of legislation as a whole" this Court has followed that purpose, rather than the literal words. When aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in the statute, is available, there certainly can be no "rule of law" which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on "superficial examination."
See: United States v. American Trucking Associations, 310 U.S. 534, 543-44, 84 L. Ed. 1345, 60 S. Ct. 1059 (1940) (footnotes omitted), quoted in Church of Scientology v. United States Department of Justice, 612 F.2d 417, 422 (9th Cir. 1979); accord Burroughs v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, 686 F.2d 723, 727 (9th Cir. 1982).
Texas is not disputing the citizenship of those born in the US. Rather, the state ceased to accept the parents' consular photo ID issued by Mexico. More than 2 dozen parents in South Texas have sued the state on behalf of 32 children they claim had been denied birth certificates and they fear losing access to vital services.
It has not mattered who sat the oval or held the majority. 30 years of doing nothing has consequences.
Okay, here's how this will proceed: It will be overturned by a higher court, and many conservatives will chant their familiar mantra, 'States rights! States rights! The Feds are overextending their reach!'.
Okay, here's how this will proceed: It will be overturned by a higher court, and many conservatives will chant their familiar mantra, 'States rights! States rights! The Feds are overextending their reach!'.
The metricula is not acceptable under the Fed rules for acceptable ID.
It's like if you went to the DMV for an ID card and provided no proof of who you are or your citizenship status.
It will be interesting to see what the Fed says.
They have turned a blind eye to is being used here in the US and allowed the government of Mexico to lobby cities and states and financial institutions to accept it.
Kinda like the stealth amnesty we have.
They can't come here but when they do we send out the welcome wagon, give them their shots and buy them a bus/plane ticket to any city in the US.
I'd rather have 200 kids born in America to illegal Mexican immigrants than 5 babies born to some legal, lazy, law breaking Americans. Mexicans are largely hard workers and good additions to our economy. Those who hate these people are truly clueless.
I'd rather have 200 kids born of illegal Mexican immigrants than 5 babies born to some legal, lazy, law breaking Americans. Mexicans are hard workers and mostly good additions to our economy. Those who hate these people are truly clueless.
Obviously they need to work harder. They are suing because they can't sign up for welfare benefits
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.
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.
