Saturday, October 14, 2006
The Real Non-Americans
I've been rather neglecting Jurisdynamics of late, which is a mistake. As proof of that, see Jim Chen's moving article, "Born in the U.S.A." about the attempt by the Righteous Right to slam the door shut on America, given that their ancestors already safely made it in.
Specifically, Professor Chen, Harvard Law School graduate, Fulbright Scholar, clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, James L. Krusemark Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, prolific author and himself an immigrant, addresses the euphemism-drenched Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (EFIRA), H.R. 3938. The law tries an end run around the 14th Amendment that says:
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.
[A] person born in the United States shall be considered as "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" if --(1) the child was born in wedlock in the United States to a parent either of whom is (A) a citizen or national of the United States, or (B) an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence and maintains his or her residence . . . in the United States; or
(2) the child was born out of wedlock in the United States to a mother who is (A) a citizen or national of the United States, or (B) an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence and maintains her residence in the United States.
No woman is evil who seeks to bring her child into a world of promise and not of squalor.
For this affront to core American values, Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz. 5), sponsor of H.R. 3938, deserves to lose his reelection bid. So do his 33 cosponsors.I most wholeheartedly agree!
As to your interpretation of the "Consitution," I think I will go with the opinion of a distinguished professor of law (which comports with my own, more limited, research anyway), and with Justice Brennan:
Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment 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. 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. - Plyer v. Doe
Not only does EFIRA go against the real values of America and violate our Constitution but, if you apply it logically, it becomes a two-way street, with a quite nasty result. Notice where Justice Brennan says that an illegal alien is equally "subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws ... until he leaves the jurisdiction" as he is entitled to its protections? If you declare a person not to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, that includes the courts of the United States. And no court without jurisdiction can try a person for any crime. This idiot law, if not declared unconstitutional, would arguably render any of the children it covers immune from any action except deportation, no matter how great the crimes they may commit.
We may have to allow mouth breathers to vote, but we should not allow them to write laws.
The 14th Amendment is not absolute. There are exceptions to it in the case of diplomatic personnel and their families. For example, a child of a diplomat is not entitled to citizenship. Those given diplomatic immunity are not subject to prosecution under State or federal law. These provisions in the law seem to be violate your sense of American values, don't they? It would be easy to extend this concept to illegal aliens who have entered this country contrary to the wishes of the American people as codified in law. Even diplomats have rights, albeit apparently limited ones. We need only extend the level of protection due diplomats to illegal aliens, except for prosecution under our laws and still remain within moral bounds. That's one reason I support a change denying citizenship to the children of illegl aliens.
Your rational for this lacks common sense, as few children commit crimes, and when they do they are not often prosecuted, but given remedial treatment. It seems to me to be perfect sense to deport them to their homeland where thay can do us no harm. That should be sufficient punishment in itself.
A spelling flame, the misunderstanding of the Constitution's precise function to preclude U.S. citizens from enacting any old law they might want and the inability to understand that children may grow up is just too stereotypical mouth-breather to be real.
It's all moot anyway. This law now has zero chance of passage and the idiot who proposed it, J.D. Hayworth, was defeated.
Fortunately, there are enough people left who are true patriots and will vote to support the Constitution instead of trying to undermine it.
"....Constitution's precise function to preclude U.S. citizens from enacting any old law they might want....
Actually, the states may write any law they wish, as long it withstands Constitutional test. The Constitution was not written to assure uniformity of law across state lines. A general review of state law will disabuse you of that ignorant idea.
The existence of true patriots should not be taken for granted, as nothing in the Constitution provides for the perpetuation of patriotism.
Open borders can result in an influx of large numbers of those with religious or cultural beliefs that conflict with the Constitution as currently written. Just because democratic electoral process is followed doesn't mean that a U.S. type constitutional democracy will be the outcome. Witness the democratically elected government of Iraq and its constitution, and Lebanon, hardly mirror images of ours. The Israelis recognize this and are careful as to how much influence Arabs have in their country. We must be scrupulous in establishing good immigration policy, since the Constitution is subject to change at the will of the people by vote, it would only take numbers sufficient to make that happen to destroy what our forefathers envisioned. It is for this reason that the citizen shouldn't take the responsibility of his stewardsip of the Constitution lightly. The Constitution was primarily written for the citizens who are here, and not foreign nationals.
It is only by way of Emma Lazarus poem that we're lead to believe that our country was established to "Give me your tired, your poor Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free ..." etc, etc. Such sentiment has never been official government policy, for pragmatic reasons. If this reality differs from your naieve idyllic principles, then so be it.
Yes, the spelling flame was meant to piss you off. Your arrogance and insulting manner warrants such treatment.
I need not waste my time trying to educate anyone so resistant to the idea.
As to the whine about ad hominem, I'd be more concerned if it wasn't emanating from the vicinity of the person who started off referring to a distinguished professor of law as "This guy [who] is full of sanctimonious crap." You reap what you sow.
Now buzz off. Any future comments of yours will be unceremoniously dumped for the environmental health of the web.