|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The State of Washington included this angle in their brief - which I only know about because the DOJ orally argued against it in the video posted earlier. I tracked it down:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
That 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. The question of whether the 14th amendment grants non-citizens rights was answered as early as 1886 in the case of Yick Wo v Hopkins only 18 years later.
In that case, the Supreme Court held that citizens of China, legally resident in the United States, " are entitled to enjoy the protection guaranteed by the Constitution and afforded by the laws." | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
quote: So when a current court makes a ruling today that green card holders or visa holders on vacation have at least a right to due process, that court is following firmly established precedent. That may make them idiots in Faith's eyes, but so what? It does not much matter what Jefferson or Hamilton may have thought about that result. The 14th amendment modified the constitution to have its current meaning. Let's recall that not all slaves were born in the US. The international slave trade ended in 1808, and at least some of the freed slaves were not born in the US, but were born on foreign continents. Surely, the constitution applied to those folks. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
"Persons" was probably used because one of the problems that the amendment addressed was the noncitizen status of some people born in the country, blacks in other words. "Person" was used to include folks that were currently not citizens prior its enactment. African's in this country were considered foreigners. And because they could not establish their country of origin, they could not even establish foreign citizenship to the extent necessary to sue in federal court like other foreigners. So "person" does not mean citizen. I know you'd like that to be different. I've also cited some case law if that helps.
So that has to be taken into account in this discussion. There is no reason to think that foreign noncitizens were intended. African slaves, prior to becoming citizens, were foreigners. Why in the world you think that to help your argument is beyond me. What you seem to be saying is something that is a slightly less controversial. Namely that the 14th amendment was meant to apply only to African Americans. But even if that was the original intent, it has long since fallen by the wayside. Everybody including African Americans and White people can sue under the 14th Amendment. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I would bet you anything the 14th amendment was not originally intended to apply to noncitizens. Leaving aside the 14th amendment for the moment, the 5th also has a due process clause: " nor shall any person be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". And it is easy enough to find out who James Madison --- who wrote the Bill of Rights --- thought it that it covered:
It does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that, whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed that, as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage. And so a little before that he writes:
But it cannot be a true inference, that, because the admission of an alien is a favor, the favor may be revoked at pleasure. A grant of land to an individual may be of favor, not of right; but the moment the grant is made, the favor becomes a right, and must be forfeited before it can be taken away. To pardon a malefactor may be a favor, but the pardon is not, on that account, the less irrevocable. Now, doesn't that exactly cover the case of the green card holders? Is there some reason you feel that this does not settle the issue? (Link to the text.) Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I believe that your comments on Marxism were already covered by my previous post.
quote: There are already people living in America making such claims. Naturally they can get in trouble when they disobey laws they don't like. But I have never heard of anyone getting in trouble for simply believing it.
quote: My view is that they should be asked if they would follow the law. If they refuse there is a valid reason to deny them entry that doesn't rely on discrimination. But then again, since it applies to some Christians (or more commonly "Christians") in a practical situation the question would never arise in those cases and the Religious Right would be complaining about it if entry were denied even with good reason.
quote: The basic distinction between belief and action ought to be. If you can't make that distinction then you have a serious problem. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
No National Security Purpose
Three former secretaries of state, along with ex-CIA officials and Obama administration intelligence officials, claim President Donald Trump's travel ban on people from seven Muslim-majority nations serves "no national security purpose."
Even people who might be expected to support Trump are worried.
John Yoo, the former member of the White House’s Office of Legal Counsel from 2001 to 2003 who is well-known in legal circles for his expansionary view of executive power and the so-called Torture Memos, wrote a Monday oped in The New York Times, saying Trump's order gave him "grave concerns."
Yoo's former colleague Jack Goldsmith goes further and suggests that Trump is trying to lose the court cases. Does Trump want to Lose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Federal law gives the President the right to determine if there are national security issues involved; others' opinions are not included.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The phrase, "whilst they actually conform to it" excludes lawbreakers, which includes people who are breaking the law to be here in the first place. The word "obedience" is mentioned again later too.
Madison's comments also are not referring to people who are not within the jurisdiction of the US. So if they enter illegally or are outside, the Constitution does not apply to them. Also, the rights of noncitizens are not equivalent to those of citizens. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The pertinence of any of this should be recovered. The travel ban refers to noncitizen foreigners who are not in the country.
If there are already rights granted for anyone to be in the country, from a green card to a visa or whatever, I would assume the travel ban would not apply to them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Even if it were true that views of others - or the facts - have no legal force - there is nothing that prevents people from expressing those views. And in fact Freedom of Speech mandates that they do have the right to express those views. Whether you are right, however, is a matter for the courts and I think you will find that they have the sense to baulk at the complete deference to the President that you demand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: We already know that the order affected people with visas when they arrived in the country. We also know that the Trump administration tried to apply it to Green Card holders arriving in the country. We also know that tens of thousands of visas have been revoked under this order. Isn't it way past time time that you did less assuming and more paying attention to the discussion here ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's a lot of semantic word twisting. The definition of a citizen now includes anyone born within the country, as it should. The way slaves were "foreigners" is not the same as the way Iraqi nationals are foreigners or aliens who have crossed our borders illegally.
The question is whether the amendment was intended to apply to anyone without a legal right to be here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The point -- obviously -- was that their opinions were treated as legally affecting Trump's action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Then I'll wait and see how the legality of revoking the visas and the green cards plays out. No point in taking the opinion of anyone here as the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The phrase, "whilst they actually conform to it" excludes lawbreakers, which includes people who are breaking the law to be here in the first place. The word "obedience" is mentioned again later too. And I specifically asked you "doesn't that exactly cover the case of the green card holders?" A green card holder is not some sort of crook.
Madison's comments also are not referring to people who are not within the jurisdiction of the US. So if they enter illegally or are outside, the Constitution does not apply to them. That's a bizarre notion. Do you suppose it would be legal for the government to seize your property without due process while you were on vacation in Canada? And then when you get back they say "the Fifth Amendment didn't protect Faith while she was out of the country"? Can you imagine how loud a judge would laugh at that?
Also, the rights of noncitizens are not equivalent to those of citizens. True, they don't get to vote. However, James Madison, who wrote the Bill of Rights, Faith, said that the Constitution offers equal protection to foreigners.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024