Duh!
Master of the obvious.
I myself support a common sense, middle of the road approach. I am 100 percent against open borders, but also I am against “kicking every illegal alien out”.

I blame both Democrats and Republicans for our inability to come up with a solution. And i blame the American people.

Secure the borders. Require verification for all employees. Require verification for all students. Reqire verification for all Social Services and Medical Care. Jail and fine all CEO’s and Managers that hire Illegals and Deport every illegal we find. Start doing that, and most Illegals will leave on their own; Many already have.

Everyone knows that , George .

Just put up the double fence with a road in the middle like was supposed to happen .

But if you want to deport anybody , Amanpour , Zakaria and Aunt Zeituni might be a good start .

You’re right Freak. George Will has gone a long way downhill lately. He either points out the obvious, or finds something irrelevant to blurt, or reverts to baseball.

Charles Krauthammer is doing this a bit also. Not good. Not good.

There needs to be a comprehensive solution, something the Republican constituents oppose.

Cut off the supply of jobs and they will all go home. I worked my way through college changing tires at a tire store. It was a nasty job, but it paid much more than McDonalds. The local tire store has an all Mexican workforce changing tires and it is still the most expensive place to buy tires in this town.

Moderate said:
Cut off the supply of jobs and they will all go home. I worked my way through college changing tires at a tire store. It was a nasty job, but it paid much more than McDonalds. The local tire store has an all Mexican workforce changing tires and it is still the most expensive place to buy tires in this town.

Only if you also cut off the entitlements they also enjoy. Illegals have learned how to game the system and get the same benefits legal citizens get.

We must

GoneFishing said:
Secure the borders. Require verification for all employees. Require verification for all students. Reqire verification for all Social Services and Medical Care. Jail and fine all CEO’s and Managers that hire Illegals and Deport every illegal we find. Start doing that, and most Illegals will leave on their own; Many already have.

As long as the borders are porous, it will be impossible to effect meaningful reform.

Jose Antonio Vargas was on the panel and towards the end, Amanpour asked “what shall we do about him?”

I have a response- arrest him, charge him with fraud for the variety of fraudulent documents he has filled out and presented, investigate whether his current employer knew of his fraud and immigration status, and then, deport him. As a journalist, he is certainly capable of working in other parts of the world after he gets his documents in order from the Phillipines, though he will not be able to come into the U.S. for ten years- he will still be able to practice his craft, but he will be abiding by the law. Just because he came to this country as a child, it does not exonerate him from responsibility for violating the law after he came of age. He has willfully and actively violated the law, as an adult.

Fokker News said:
There needs to be a comprehensive solution, something the Republican constituents oppose.

No, we just need to enforce the Law. But I’ll bite; One question…Why?

We could start with not giving automatic citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens. If you are here illegally then so is the baby you just delivered. Period. The law was originally written to guarantee citizenship to all freed slaves and since we did away with slavery it is time to do away with automatic citizenship. Not only would it cut down on the amount of people that come here but it will save us GOBS of money.

The Lantern of Truth said:
Everyone knows that , George .

Just put up the double fence with a road in the middle like was supposed to happen .

But if you want to deport anybody , Amanpour , Zakaria and Aunt Zeituni might be a good start .

Yeah anyone who disagrees with *you* has got to go, right? Actually, I find you pretty obnoxious myself and wouldn’t mind a bit if you were deported to Ecuador or somewhere (nothing against the Ecuadorians, mind you, I just figure you’d disappear there and make the world that one little bit better.)

And thousands of miles of fence is really going to work.

The problem here is that your solutions are so stunningly impracticable that just proposing them makes it pretty clear that you and your fellow wackos really don’t have a solution for anything.

And don’t need to be listened to. Which is what the people are doing.

France has set the example for America – under Sarkozy they have been cleaning up their ILLEGAL trash and throwing out hundreds of thousand of these criminals. But as long as America has an irresponsible, lawless, GANGSTER GOVERNMENT in washington, criminals will flaunt their crimes on shows headed by America-hating iranians to make a mockery of everything that is great about our country. In Nov. 2012, we must TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY from these socialist extremists and restore the rule of law.

2012freedom said:
We could start with not giving automatic citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens. If you are here illegally then so is the baby you just delivered. Period. The law was originally written to guarantee citizenship to all freed slaves and since we did away with slavery it is time to do away with automatic citizenship. Not only would it cut down on the amount of people that come here but it will save us GOBS of money.

Good luck with that Constitutional amendment thingie. You do realize that’s what it would take?

2012freedom said:
We could start with not giving automatic citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens. If you are here illegally then so is the baby you just delivered. Period. The law was originally written to guarantee citizenship to all freed slaves and since we did away with slavery it is time to do away with automatic citizenship. Not only would it cut down on the amount of people that come here but it will save us GOBS of money.

babies born here no matter what are american, now the parents should be deported

GoneFishing said:
Many already have

yep.. My town feels so empty these days. Many immigrants here fled during the recession..

mediadoubt said:
Good luck with that Constitutional amendment thingie. You do realize that’s what it would take?

Yes, unfortunately I do realize that which is why I have to press 1 for English in America.

I think the rigidity of the far-right (current) GOP electorate is quite evident in this thread. Not exactly a FoxNation immigration comment thread, in which supposedly pro-life people call for snipers and landmines, but nonetheless.

2012freedom said:
Yes, unfortunately I do realize that which is why I have to press 1 for English in America.

And what a terrible inconvenience pressing a singular button is. You’re right.

Moderate said:
Cut off the supply of jobs and they will all go home. I worked my way through college changing tires at a tire store. It was a nasty job, but it paid much more than McDonalds. The local tire store has an all Mexican workforce changing tires and it is still the most expensive place to buy tires in this town.

yes, money is the main reason illegal come here. Its not education.. they don’t really care much about that. The profiteers find it great to employ illegals since they get rich doing so..
It has always been that way and always will.

No matter what you think, corporate spirit still controls the Government and still will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

mediadoubt said:
thousands of miles of fence is really going to work.

Obnoxious guy with serial killer’s picture back again . Creep .

TeaPartyNation said:
France has set the example for America – under Sarkozy they have been cleaning up their ILLEGAL trash and throwing out hundreds of thousand of these criminals. But as long as America has an irresponsible, lawless, GANGSTER GOVERNMENT in washington, criminals will flaunt their crimes on shows headed by America-hating iranians to make a mockery of everything that is great about our country. In Nov. 2012, we must TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY from these socialist extremists and restore the rule of law.

Why are you a racist? “Gangster Governement?” Who are we taking our country back from? Answer that one, bright guy. I sure am going to do everything in my power to keep it from getting into the hands of idiots like yourself. How many jobs have you created smart guy?

mediadoubt said:
Good luck with that Constitutional amendment thingie. You do realize that’s what it would take?

No actually all it would take is the Supremes to revisit the issue and read the current amendment before they vote….the intent is clear, and it does not apply to anyone who entered our country illegally.

The one thing why nothing will get done is that food prices will skyrocket, but as much as people don’t like them here they don’t realize how much we need them. They keep this economy moving.

@ Yoda

You realize that they keep food prices down and the economy moving because they’re paid less than they should. So essentially, what you’re saying is it’s good to keep these people around, under paid, with no insurance, and uneducated because it keeps my “out of pocket” low. Isn’t that more than a little selfish and insulting? Aren’t you advocating a form of slavery?

ImNotBlue said:
@ Yoda You realize that they keep food prices down and the economy moving because they’re paid less than they should. So essentially, what you’re saying is it’s good to keep these people around, under paid, with no insurance, and uneducated because it keeps my “out of pocket” low. Isn’t that more than a little selfish and insulting? Aren’t you advocating a form of slavery?

well said blue

ImNotBlue said:
@ Yoda

You realize that they keep food prices down and the economy moving because they’re paid less than they should. So essentially, what you’re saying is it’s good to keep these people around, under paid, with no insurance, and uneducated because it keeps my “out of pocket” low. Isn’t that more than a little selfish and insulting? Aren’t you advocating a form of slavery?

I’m just stating the facts min. wage doesn’t apply to farm workers. I think they should be better paid and insured because we end up paying for it with our tax money. Our corporation are using slave labor in China right now.

Yoda002 said:
Our corporation are using slave labor in China right now.

Blow the whistle on them you must .

The Lantern of Truth said:
Blow the whistle on them you must .

I do.

We can talk about the immigration crisis from now until forever.

The first step to fixing America’s immigration crisis would be an Amendment to the US Constitution; particularly Section 1 o the Fourteenth Amendment has to be repealed: “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.”

The key words are “BORN IN THE UNITED STATES”.

Automatic citizenship by birth is the main problem and is what turned America into a “Gold Mine” for illegal immigrants who go to the US mainly for the purpose of delivering Anchor Babies and immediately getting US Passports for them.

A fair measure would be to retain the phrase of the Fourteenth Amendment that grants automatic citizenship by birth; but instead it should be re-written(amended) to grant automatic citizenship by birth ONLY to babies born by parents(mothers) who were in the US legally(valid Visas, residence permits etc..) at the precise time of the children’s birth.

With a measure like this, those from other countries who aspire to have Children who are American citizens will face the reality that it is ONLY possible if they enter the US legally. This invariably discourages the illegal aliens from coming through the back door. Only after this can the government talk of securing the borders, and perhaps a sort of “reasonable” path to eventual legal status(not full amnesty or citizenship) for the illegal aliens currently in the US, whom my liberal/progressive friends choose to refer to as “undocumented workers” as if hey all work.

Until then, people from other countries will still risk their lives to come into the US illegally knowing their kids are automatic citizens by birth. As I said, it is like a gold mine for them giving births and obtaining the US passports for their babies the following week; so they don’t actually bother to come in through legal means like valid visas or resident permits. When ONLY a mother’s legal status guarantees automatic citizenship, coming in legally will be their greatest aspiration and the surest path to better life for their children and themselves.

How about a million of us walk into Mexico to live , work , use their schools and hospitals .

Think that’ll work out well ?

Finding and deporting, most, if not all Illegals is very doable. You just have to commit to doing it.

Credit cards, social security, School Registration, informants, (yes I would and have) traffic stops, traffic accidents, crime and Police Reports, etc. Sooner or later, most, if not all Illegals enter the system. If the”System” wants to, the Illegals can be sent back.

If the System wants to, the System can keep them there.

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

LOGICandREASON said:
We can talk about the immigration crisis from now until forever.

Well done sir. Thourough and accurate. My compliments

Liberals/socialists should endorse the example of their idea of perfect country, the Soviet Union:

Land mine, barbed wire fence, watch towers every 200 yards, shoot on sight, ask no questions, give no answers.

Worked for them to keep people in, should work keeping people out.

Yukon Jack said:
Liberals/socialists should endorse the example of their idea of perfect country, the Soviet Union:

Land mine, barbed wire fence, watch towers every 200 yards, shoot on sight, ask no questions, give no answers.

Worked for them to keep people in, should work keeping people out.

Just curious, do you consider yourself pro-life?

“To deport them would require not just police measures we would never tolerate. The majority have been here five years or more, they’ve had children here, their children are citizens. But to depart them would require a line of buses bumper-to-bumper extending from San Diego to Alaska. Not going to happen. And as soon as people come to terms with that, then we get on to settling it”

So according to Jorge Will, just because someone lives next door for a few years, we should continue to allow them to “break into our house” and RIP US OFF!!! Hey, Will, stick to baseball and leave running this country to those of us who are more concerned about American sovereignty, security, law & order than convenience…

If Americans wanted to live among Latino squalor, criminals, crime & corruption, we’d move to Juarez…

To allow illegal aliens to “cut in line” is a slap in the face to the MILLIONS OF LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who waited years & years & years to become American citizens.

Illegal aliens are costing American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
Which is a very high price to pay for cheaper produce…
And for the record, labor accounts for less than 10% of the cost of produce.

D.C. clowns like Jorge Will can start cleaning their own toilets & mowing your own lawns because after we elect a true-blue conservative POTUS next year, we’re gonna secure BOTH BORDERS & DEPORT ALL LLEGALS.

Illegal aliens need to GO HOME & GET IN LINE…and take your illegal drugs home with ya…PLEASE!
We have enough American criminals & illegal drugs already, we don’t need to import any.

Only 19 more months ’til we evict the Marxist Moron in the Oval Office & cancel “Amateur Hour” at the White Office.

NOBAMA 2012

“Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink.” P.J.O’Rourke

Publius219 said:
Just curious, do you consider yourself pro-life?

Yes, and more importantly and appropriately, AMERICAN life.

Yukon Jack said:
Yes, and more importantly and appropriately, AMERICAN life.

So, against the death penalty then at least?

Teapartynation
always knew that you are a bigot, you stink

Publius219 said:
So, against the death penalty then at least?

What the Hell are you yakking about?

Yukon Jack said:
What the Hell are you yakking about?

Pro-life presumably means pro-life, right? Or do you just use it in the more common pro-white/christian/american-life context?

George Will is right on that. I live in S. Florida. If you would just drop somebody off in S. Florida they would swear they are in Cuba.

Mexican President Calderon comes to America & tells us how we should deal with immigration.

Here is an interview Calderon had with Wolf Blitzer regarding illegal immigration in Mexico.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBOuHOXo1Vk

How do you say “hypocrite” in Spanish.

Lets not get this issue twisted, “immigration reform” is Liberal Code for “amnesty” and the ONLY reason the “D” party is interested in amnesty for illegals is so that the “D” party has yet another group of people who would be dependent on the government for their livelihood & hence vote “D” in every election.

NOBAMA 2012

“Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink.” P.J.O’Rourke

NOBAMA2012 said:
Lets not get this issue twisted, “immigration reform” is Liberal Code for “amnesty” and the ONLY reason the “D” party is interested in amnesty for illegals is so that the “D” party has yet another group of people who would be dependent on the government for their livelihood & hence vote “D” in every election.

Just like Reagan was when he granted genuine amnesty back in the 80′s, eh?

SANITY 2012

By the way, I believe hypocrite in Spanish is pronounced “drugwar”

LOGICandREASON said:
We can talk about the immigration crisis from now until forever. The first step to fixing America’s immigration crisis would be an Amendment to the US Constitution; particularly Section 1 o the Fourteenth Amendment has to be repealed: “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.” The key words are “BORN IN THE UNITED STATES”. Automatic citizenship by birth is the main problem and is what turned America into a “Gold Mine” for illegal immigrants who go to the US mainly for the purpose of delivering Anchor Babies and immediately getting US Passports for them. A fair measure would be to retain the phrase of the Fourteenth Amendment that grants automatic citizenship by birth; but instead it should be re-written(amended) to grant automatic citizenship by birth ONLY to babies born by parents(mothers) who were in the US legally(valid Visas, residence permits etc..) at the precise time of the children’s birth. With a measure like this, those from other countries who aspire to have Children who are American citizens will face the reality that it is ONLY possible if they enter the US legally. This invariably discourages the illegal aliens from coming through the back door. Only after this can the government talk of securing the borders, and perhaps a sort of “reasonable” path to eventual legal status(not full amnesty or citizenship) for the illegal aliens currently in the US, whom my liberal/progressive friends choose to refer to as “undocumented workers” as if hey all work. Until then, people from other countries will still risk their lives to come into the US illegally knowing their kids are automatic citizens by birth. As I said, it is like a gold mine for them giving births and obtaining the US passports for their babies the following week; so they don’t actually bother to come in through legal means like valid visas or resident permits. When ONLY a mother’s legal status guarantees automatic citizenship, coming in legally will be their greatest aspiration and the surest path to better life for their children and themselves.

Great post, L and R! And I thought you were a liberal!

Publius219 said:
Pro-life presumably means pro-life, right? Or do you just use it in the more common pro-white/christian/american-life context?

What the hell has this got to do with the topic?

TillieGlockenspiel said:
Jose Antonio Vargas was on the panel and towards the end, Amanpour asked “what shall we do about him?” I have a response- arrest him, charge him with fraud for the variety of fraudulent documents he has filled out and presented, investigate whether his current employer knew of his fraud and immigration status, and then, deport him. As a journalist, he is certainly capable of working in other parts of the world after he gets his documents in order from the Phillipines, though he will not be able to come into the U.S. for ten years- he will still be able to practice his craft, but he will be abiding by the law. Just because he came to this country as a child, it does not exonerate him from responsibility for violating the law after he came of age. He has willfully and actively violated the law, as an adult.

Right on, Tillie!

Publius219 said:
Just like Reagan was when he granted genuine amnesty back in the 80’s, eh?

Hey, missy, Reagan agreed to “amnesty” as long as the BORDERS WERE SECURED…
well, we got “amnesty” BUT NEVER GOT SECURED BORDERS….

Shezzzzzz…facts…they just keep gettiing in the way of you Liberal Lewzers….LMAO

mediadoubt said:
Good luck with that Constitutional amendment thingie. You do realize that’s what it would take?

No, it would take a Supreme Court with enough common sense to recognize that the 14th Amendment was not intended to confer citizenship on anyone born here whose parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Yoda002 said:
The one thing why nothing will get done is that food prices will skyrocket, but as much as people don’t like them here they don’t realize how much we need them. They keep this economy moving.

Yoda, you’re wrong about that. Studies have shown over and over again that they take more out of the economy that they put in. The effect on the price of produce, etc., is not that significant.

purveyor said:
Finding and deporting, most, if not all Illegals is very doable. You just have to commit to doing it.

Credit cards, social security, School Registration, informants, (yes I would and have) traffic stops, traffic accidents, crime and Police Reports, etc. Sooner or later, most, if not all Illegals enter the system. If the”System” wants to, the Illegals can be sent back.

If the System wants to, the System can keep them there.

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

easier way would be just to bring a lockdown and restrictions on employers. More employer checks would mean that employers wouldn’t employ illegals, if it meant having to be fined a lot or having the owners of that company in jail. Who would live in a place where they can’t find a job?

LOGICandREASON said:
illegal immigrants who go to the US mainly for the purpose of delivering Anchor Babies and immediately getting US Passports for them

That is according to your delusional thinking.

They simply come here for a better standard of living.

Stop allowing employers to give jobs to illegal immigrants and they will flee..

It has happened to my town.. well the recession hit.. and illegals couldn’t find jobs and then left.

I, for one, am absolutely shocked that xenophobia would run rampant in a time of economic despair.

“No jobs for immigrants until EVERY AMERICAN has a job!!!!!!!” Irrespective of the fact that uneducated rural redneck meth addicts aren’t qualified to do much.

LAPhil said:
Yoda, you’re wrong about that. Studies have shown over and over again that they take more out of the economy that they put in. The effect on the price of produce, etc., is not that significant.

You need to look at the real studies. The price of food is very significant.

GoneFishing said:
No actually all it would take is the Supremes to revisit the issue and read the current amendment before they vote….the intent is clear, and it does not apply to anyone who entered our country illegally.

Sorry to .. extinguish your excitement.. but Supreme court doesn’t have precedent to rule an amendment unconstitutional. Amendments were designed by the founding fathers to be parts of the constitution to alter the constitution to the changing times as well as reiterate the Constitution to the changing times. KEYWORD: part of constitution

In Simple, you can’t call parts of the constitution unconstitutional, and so can’t supreme court. The courts only have power to review federal and state laws (which wasn’t originally in the constitution but created by Marbury v Madison).

And if your question is has it been tried.. yes it has. Look at the number of supreme court cases for the 16th amendment, which allowed income taxes and created an inefficient bureaucracy and has given so much power to the executive branch( I am a supporter of LVT).
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad
Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.

These court cases above allowed the supreme court to interpret the amendment, but not radically change it

All other cases that have been brought up to the supreme court challenging the constitutionality of the amendment have been immediately dismissed.

So i wouldn’t be surprised if the court dismisses the cases against the 14th amendment.
ONLY way to change or repeal an amendment is through another amendment

This is just for your knowledge….

And also 14th amendment is so broad and clear, that I wouldn’t be surprised if the Supreme Court would try to interpret that amendment. Even though it is the duty of the Supreme court to interpret laws.. it will steer away from this case. This is not like the first amendment which has been interpreted in many different ways. some of which have allowed the government to censor language (FEC v Pacifica Foundation).

14th amendment is clear

Publius219 said:
I, for one, am absolutely shocked that xenophobia would run rampant in a time of economic despair.

“No jobs for immigrants until EVERY AMERICAN has a job!!!!!!!” Irrespective of the fact that uneducated rural redneck meth addicts aren’t qualified to do much.

“Uneducated rural redneck meth addicts” make up a tiny percentage of all American adults.

We don’t have to do anything… Just cut them off, no free ride and I think most of them would choose to go home, wherever that may be…

GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is no longer a nation of LAWS. It is a nation of men.

Thanks Will for verifying that. Thanks Communists……….erm Democrats for verifying that.

Did you hear that folks? ANARCHY, is the name of the game!

Previous comment-

Or does the RULES of LAW only apply to the non protected classes of people? Remember Holdrens “my people” comment? What happens when LAWS are only applied to “certain people”? Hmmm, are we back in the days of LAW by decree? What happened back then? By the way, when are you folks going to get off that welfare plantation? It is a lot better out here in the land of freedom.

If I say, no habla englais or sprakin ze deutch, do I get a free ride?

Yukon Jack said:

Liberals/socialists should endorse the example of their idea of perfect country, the Soviet Union:

Land mine, barbed wire fence, watch towers every 200 yards, shoot on sight, ask no questions, give no answers.

Worked for them to keep people in, should work keeping people out.

OK, I gave you a thumbs up. LOL

Can’t we just deport George Will back to Nerdland?

carlinist said:
Sorry to .. extinguish your excitement.. but Supreme court doesn’t have precedent to rule an amendment unconstitutional. Amendments were designed by the founding fathers to be parts of the constitution to alter the constitution to the changing times as well as reiterate the Constitution to the changing times. KEYWORD: part of constitution

In Simple, you can’t call parts of the constitution unconstitutional, and so can’t supreme court. The courts only have power to review federal and state laws (which wasn’t originally in the constitution but created by Marbury v Madison).

And if your question is has it been tried.. yes it has. Look at the number of supreme court cases for the 16th amendment, which allowed income taxes and created an inefficient bureaucracy and has given so much power to the executive branch( I am a supporter of LVT).
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad
Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.

These court cases above allowed the supreme court to interpret the amendment, but not radically change it

All other cases that have been brought up to the supreme court challenging the constitutionality of the amendment have been immediately dismissed.

So i wouldn’t be surprised if the court dismisses the cases against the 14th amendment.
ONLY way to change or repeal an amendment is through another amendment

This is just for your knowledge….

It has nothing to do with ruling it ‘un-Constitutional’. The Supremes made a decision in ‘United States v. Wong Kim Ark’ expanding the 14th amendment to include children of foreign nationals. Before that case was decided, those same children did not receive citizenship at birth.

Because that right was conferred by court decision, it can be revoked in the same manner, and a decision returning to the original intent of the amendment is all that would be needed.

Reversing the decision of ‘United States v. Wong Kim Ark’ and removing the ‘Right’ created by the court is certainly within the power of the Supreme Court.

carlinist said:
Sorry to .. extinguish your excitement.. but Supreme court doesn’t have precedent to rule an amendment unconstitutional. Amendments were designed by the founding fathers to be parts of the constitution to alter the constitution to the changing times as well as reiterate the Constitution to the changing times. KEYWORD: part of constitution

In Simple, you can’t call parts of the constitution unconstitutional, and so can’t supreme court. The courts only have power to review federal and state laws (which wasn’t originally in the constitution but created by Marbury v Madison).

And if your question is has it been tried.. yes it has. Look at the number of supreme court cases for the 16th amendment, which allowed income taxes and created an inefficient bureaucracy and has given so much power to the executive branch( I am a supporter of LVT).
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad
Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.

These court cases above allowed the supreme court to interpret the amendment, but not radically change it

All other cases that have been brought up to the supreme court challenging the constitutionality of the amendment have been immediately dismissed.

So, I wouldn’t be surprised if the court dismisses the cases against the 14th amendment.
ONLY way to change or repeal an amendment is through another amendment

This is just for your knowled

Hmm, a conundrum of sorts. GONEFISHIN and CARLIN are two of the more strong intellects on this site.

CARLINIST, I too, when I Post, reference Court Cases, frequently. However, It seems that this is one “dot” that many have trouble connecting, so to speak. Which, given the intricacies of Con-Law, is somewhat understandable.

I have studied and wrote on, Con-Law, extensively. I am almost certain the three of us would agree that the Court has become a “Super-Legislature,” in the past century. Since The Brown decision, the Court has become an unstoppable juggernaut.

The only impediment to an obstinate, pro-active Court, that has negated the legislative process, is a Constitutional Amendment!

Thank Heavens, the people, at least have that, or the 9, supposed “Philosopher Kings” would control everything.
The Socialist, Liberal, Democrats are working on just that…

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

GoneFishing said:
has nothing to do with ruling it ‘un-Constitutional’. The Supremes made a decision in ‘United States v. Wong Kim Ark’ expanding the 14th amendment to include children of foreign nationals. Before that case was decided, those same children did not receive citizenship at birth.

Because that right was conferred by court decision, it can be revoked in the same manner, and a decision returning to the original intent of the amendment is all that would be needed.

Reversing the decision of ‘United States v. Wong Kim Ark’ and removing the ‘Right’ created by the court is certainly within the power of the Supreme Court.

Correct, Respectfully.

carlinist said:

That is according to your delusional thinking.

They simply come here for a better standard of living.

Stop allowing employers to give jobs to illegal immigrants and they will flee..

It has happened to my town.. well the recession hit.. and illegals couldn’t find jobs and then left

What?

The two of you are both correct. CARLINIST, do you deny hat even ‘some’ Hispanic women come to this country to take advantage of our generosity?

English Common Law (Which much American Law is based) requires that: “NO profit be made by anyone, from an illegal act.” Thus the newborn’s bonafides, are also illicit.

PURVEYOR

carlinist said:

easier way would be just to bring a lockdown and restrictions on employers. More employer checks would mean that employers wouldn’t employ illegals, if it meant having to be fined a lot or having the owners of that company in jail. Who would live in a place where they can’t find a job?

Vigilance, Amigo. Why not both a strong resilient border coupled with ‘reasonable’ Employer policing?

We have a BIG problem!

I hope all the illegals from Europe, Africa, and Asia are also included in the list. Ahhhhhhhh, all the Irish bars and Chinese restaurants would be badly affected.

Numbers aren’t quite the same, skyfet. A little harder to cross an ocean than to just walk across the border.

What is the problem with deporting illegal aliens ? It has been done 3 times before. Is this society so liberal that that it can’t think straight anymore ? The government cares more about illegal aliens than it cares for it’s own people. Millions of American workers out of work and the government just doesn’t do anything but allow more people to collect benefits they are not entitled to. If employment is the biggest issue in this country, why is Obama keeping 2,000 workers out of work at the new Boeing plant in S.C. ? At this rate the whole country will be on welfare in no time. Government has no business telling a company where it can set up shop, this right belongs to the states. Boeing may just get fed up and move all it’s production to China or Japan and we will lose many more jobs. I really believe this man is out to destroy this nation.

The “illegals” do most of the work in this country. You cannot get a black person or white person to do the stoop labor that gives us our food, do our landscaping, care for our pools, raise our children, do everything in restaurants except serve food, clean our houses and cars, etc. I cannot imagine surviving without them, couldn’t afford the grocery costs if any food was available in the stores. Also, we already have a huge investment in their education which is paying off in business, health care, education, etc. They are generally better family people than whites and blacks. What are we objecting to? They give us out comfortable lives!

Also — who is it that buys the dope that comes into our country? Not illegals. Who is it that sells the drug lords their fancy guns? Not illegals. We cannot even clean our own house, yet act like it is all their fault, when we have brought this on ourselves because we are lazy and get nice government unemployment and welfare checks and do not have to work anymore.

As usual, George Will misses the crux of the argument. He, and the rest of Liberal dupes want us to believe that physical deportation is out of the question because of the time and costs involved. The issue is, how do we rid ourselves of 15-million illegal alien parasites. People who took it upon themselves to piss on us, and our laws!
Not once do these clowns mention enforcement of present immigration law, shutting off jobs (E-verify) , shutting off the welfare they are receiving illegally (71% of all illegal aliens are receiving welfare) and forcing anyone in our education systems to prove they are, in fact, a legal citizen of this country.
In California, illegal aliens costs the legal citizens of this state $10.5 Billion annually in education, health care, and incarceration alone! This costs every legal household in California $1,183 dollars annually, and growing.
As a consequence of the enormous costs, and indifference of the government in this state, tens of thousands of legal citizens of California, both on a private, and business level, have left, and are leaving this state, and their taking their businesses with them. This state is a ticking time-bomb. When this state has to default (inevitable) on all benefits illegal alien parasites are receiving, illegally, this issue will spiral out of control!

It CAN be done and we should start with the Illegal Alien in the Oval Office!

Everything in life is relative, if you were born rich or poor, have a good education or not, you are ambitious or lazy. I have worked in the trucking industry for almost 50 years and I am now retired. My job wasn’t easy and most illegal aliens couldn’t do it because it was labor intensive and required a fair amount of skill. Don’t tell me or the unions the illegals do most of the work in this country I know better than you ever will. I repair my own vehicles, help my neighbors, cut my own grass, maintain my own house, help my wife clean up, make breakfest every day. We grow our own vegetables and catch our own fish. I don’t have a pool but, if I had one I would clean it myself. Most of the illegals have been run out of town or been deported because the crime rate was so high and several citizens were killed by illegals driving unregistered vehicles and no license. These people were taking construction jobs away from our local citizens and building inferior housing that had to be rebuilt because of sloppy workmanship and did not conform to codes. You may be the lazy person that cannot do the things you mentioned but, I’m not, and neither are my neighbors or relatives.

purveyor said:
What? The two of you are both correct. CARLINIST, do you deny hat even ’some’ Hispanic women come to this country to take advantage of our generosity? English Common Law (Which much American Law is based) requires that: “NO profit be made by anyone, from an illegal act.” Thus the newborn’s bonafides, are also illicit. PURVEYOR

Not as many women come here to give birth as you would think. Those who do usually live close to the Mexican border. If they showed up at a border hospital in labor, and an ambulance took their butts back to Mexico before they give birth, that would solve that problem.

purveyor said:
Why not both a strong resilient border coupled with ‘reasonable’ Employer policing?

Ok let me ask you a question.

Would you move somewhere else if you knew you are going to starve and have no money?

GoneFishing said:
It has nothing to do with ruling it ‘un-Constitutional’. The Supremes made a decision in ‘United States v. Wong Kim Ark’ expanding the 14th amendment to include children of foreign nationals. Before that case was decided, those same children did not receive citizenship at birth.

Yes
But in the supreme court, justices don’t rule based upon the ruling’s benifits to the country. They clearly don’t.
In the judicial branch, its about ideology and it always goes over democracy. In other terms, even if 70% of the country wanted 14th amendment restricted, Supreme court wouldn’t hesitate in ruling otherwise..

and i don’t think they will
i will explain my position when i come back

And now to explain my position.

The supreme court usually decides on restricting the amendments usually if the language of the amendment is complex and try to assert it to situations brought up in court. This has happened to 16th amendment, and to the 1st amendment (pacifica foundation vs fec, where court ruled in favor of fec to allow them to censor vulgar language to prevent kids from listening (since kids are .. well kids.. the constitution doesn’t fully apply to them and they are technically considered property)). But as you see in the recent phelps vs snyder case, the court ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist church and said that it was perfectly OK for him to say horrible things, even though they knew that he did profit from saying those things(through suing people for attacking the members of the church). He takes advantage of them

This is because the first amendment is clear in its language. It guarantees freedom of speech and states no exceptions. Same goes with the 14th amendment. the language in it is so clear that i don’t suspect the supreme court will try to restrict it , even though many illegals take advantage of it.

purveyor said:
“NO profit be made by anyone, from an illegal act.”

well is it in the constitution?

purveyor said:
I have studied and wrote on, Con-Law, extensively. I am almost certain the three of us would agree that the Court has become a “Super-Legislature,” in the past century. Since The Brown decision, the Court has become an unstoppable juggernaut.

Well it was a super legislature even before the brown decision.

The precedent for the power of the Supreme Court was set by Marbury v Madison during 1800s. This doctrine is still in practice today (as you know), however it is not in the constitution..

Constitution has very little to say about the Supreme Court really.. The original text of the constitution has about one paragraph about the supreme court, in which it pretty much creates the supreme court and .. thats about it.

carlinist said:
Would you move somewhere else if you knew you are going to starve and have no money?

To your question: Yes!

However, as I am an American Citizen I can and will do what I can to stop anyone from entering this country illegally.

So, what was your point? Am I to dispose of my Nation’s sovereignty and way of life, because Hispanic women bear children spontaneously, without intercourse. Like an illness, they just keep creating more mouths to feed?

WE cannot save everybody and I flatly reject any assertion that we should try or be compelled.

Purveyor

carlinist said:
well is it in the constitution?

I am sorry, I missed your point?

carlinist said:
Well it was a super legislature even before the brown decision.

The precedent for the power of the Supreme Court was set by Marbury v Madison during 1800s. This doctrine is still in practice today (as you know), however it is not in the constitution..

Constitution has very little to say about the Supreme Court really.. The original text of the constitution has about one paragraph about the supreme court, in which it pretty much creates the supreme court and .. thats about it.

Couldn’t have simply acknowledged the efficacy of my point?

mari42 said:
The “illegals” do most of the work in this country. You cannot get a black person or white person to do the stoop labor that gives us our food, do our landscaping, care for our pools, raise our children, do everything in restaurants except serve food, clean our houses and cars, etc. I cannot imagine surviving without them, couldn’t afford the grocery costs if any food was available in the stores. Also, we already have a huge investment in their education which is paying off in business, health care, education, etc. They are generally better family people than whites and blacks. What are we objecting to? They give us out comfortable lives! Also — who is it that buys the dope that comes into our country? Not illegals. Who is it that sells the drug lords their fancy guns? Not illegals. We cannot even clean our own house, yet act like it is all their fault, when we have brought this on ourselves because we are lazy and get nice government unemployment and welfare checks and do not have to work anymore.

What planet do you live on?

Let’s keep the immigrants here and deport the liberals, that way we will have somebody to throw away the useless filler local papers use to create space between advertisements, you know, the junk like columns and last weeks news. Nobody will notice as most liberals can’t read anyhow and loons like Will, a pretend conservative, and Krugman, an actual communist, never could get real jobs in a real world.

carlinist:

You are pre-supposing people are dying of starvation in Mexico. A country with a world GDP ranked 14th. Not exactly a poor country. This tells us the rich in Mexico don’t want to take care of hoards of uneducated, and unskilled worker peasants and have directed the government they own, to rid Mexico of it’s parasites. So, the rich in Mexico simply dump them on the great welfare state to the north called the U.S.A., which accomplishes a two fold problem. Mexico rids itself of it’s responsibility toward it’s own citizens, and insures illegal employers in the U.S. a steady stream of really cheap illegal labor. Illegal labor subsidized by the very people the illegal aliens are stealing from, and openly sanctioned by the lack of immigration enforcement by this government.
Do we care about the plight of illegal alien parasites? The answer is a resounding, HELL NO!! Mexico’s lack of planning and common decency does not constitute and emergency on our part. The economic, and criminal price legal Americans are paying is a price too damned high.
With unemployment at an all time high in the U.S., why do they continue to come? That question was puzzling me so, I simply asked some illegal aliens I know, and the answer was, WELFARE! No job, no problem, they simply head on down to the local welfare department, produce some bogus papers and wa-la, problem solved. Food, clothing and shelter, at the expense of the legal taxpaying citizens of this country. I personally stop giving a damn when I was told school classes that were common when I went high school were being dropped because they could no longer pay for them because, that money was being redirected to educating the children of illegal aliens. When these scumbag illegal aliens started receiving preferential treatment over my children, the caring stopped!!

purveyor said:
To your question: Yes!

However, as I am an American Citizen I can and will do what I can to stop anyone from entering this country illegally.

So, what was your point? Am I to dispose of my Nation’s sovereignty and way of life, because Hispanic women bear children spontaneously, without intercourse. Like an illness, they just keep creating more mouths to feed?

WE cannot save everybody and I flatly reject any assertion that we should try or be compelled.

Purveyor

well let me ask you this differently

put yourself in the shoes of an illegal immigrant. If you couldn’t find any job here and if employers feared to give u a job and most of them didn’t, would you stay here?

Chances are you wouldn’t. because you wouldn’t be able to survive without money and food.
Simply cutting off the source of income and the magnet for their immigration to US will simply solve the problem.
If they want to leave let them leave freely and they will in hordes if they can’t find jobs here. No need to put barricaded fences. walls are just too symbolic and serve no purpose.. Chinese built walls to keep off invaders.. didn’t work same with East Germany, who tried to build walls to keep people from emmigrating, didn’t work. Walls simply don’t work. If people KNOW that there is heaven on the other side of the wall, they would risk anything to run away from hell.

CARLIN

No, no, no, GI, I’m ricky tick, you pay 5 dolla fo boom boom baby sista. You not fool me GI…. LO L

That argument is deceptive as you assert it is benign, maybe even money saving. In truth, I believe you are playing a shell game.

Anyway, you forgot the National Security aspect of the Border?

Carlin, I like you and I think you are well meaning.

But to quote Marlon Brando (Colonel Kurz) in Apocalypse Pretty Soon (the sequal) LOL

“I had a dream, that a snail, crawled along the razor’s edge”

CAconservative said:
carlinist:

You are pre-supposing people are dying of starvation in Mexico. A country with a world GDP ranked 14th. Not exactly a poor country. This tells us the rich in Mexico don’t want to take care of hoards of uneducated, and unskilled worker peasants and have directed the government they own, to rid Mexico of it’s parasites. So, the rich in Mexico simply dump them on the great welfare state to the north called the U.S.A., which accomplishes a two fold problem. Mexico rids itself of it’s responsibility toward it’s own citizens, and insures illegal employers in the U.S. a steady stream of really cheap illegal labor. Illegal labor subsidized by the very people the illegal aliens are stealing from, and openly sanctioned by the lack of immigration enforcement by this government.
Do we care about the plight of illegal alien parasites? The answer is a resounding, HELL NO!! Mexico’s lack of planning and common decency does not constitute and emergency on our part. The economic, and criminal price legal Americans are paying is a price too damned high.
With unemployment at an all time high in the U.S., why do they continue to come? That question was puzzling me so, I simply asked some illegal aliens I know, and the answer was, WELFARE! No job, no problem, they simply head on down to the local welfare department, produce some bogus papers and wa-la, problem solved. Food, clothing and shelter, at the expense of the legal taxpaying citizens of this country. I personally stop giving a damn when I was told school classes that were common when I went high school were being dropped because they could no longer pay for them because, that money was being redirected to educating the children of illegal aliens. When these scumbag illegal aliens started receiving preferential treatment over my children, the caring stopped!!

Illegal immigration has slowed A LOT during the recession. The days when hordes of immigrants coming are long gone. And To your welfare problem. Actually legal people suck more from welfare than illegals. Trust me it is not that easy to create bogus papers. Legal citizens have recently taken more from welfare than ever before( due to recession through unemployment benefits). I work part time in a supermarket and i have seen so many people .. so many use food stamps. They can pay , really they have debit cards and they have a income on which they can live on, but why pay for everything out of your own pockets when you can get FREE LUNCH?

Welfare issues are direct problems caused by many factors, like a horrible tax structure with endless loopholes( Ex: Cash income is not taxable/can be hidden), current economic crisis and an inefficient bureaucracy. While illegal immigration are a problem, you can’t blame the welfare problem on them, since they have done little to destroy it.
Now Education in this country has been destroyed by centralization, a movement towards a meritocratic society and apathy among parents and students. And for your case, i see that you live in CA, which has accepted a good amount of illegals and provides them the same level of care as any citizens. I do feel sympathetic to your cause, but as i said before, their main motive to come to US was to find a better standard of living through hardwork, not to get welfare. Public education is nothing that it used to be. Although illegal immigrants didn’t destroy them single handedly, they have contributed to its damage. But public education has deteriorated everywhere due to rising costs. Illegals only make fraction of that cost. Wars, drug wars( and incarcerating people in hordes), high cost for social programs, etc. GO to Brooklyn and see how worse the schools have gotten there, they were bad to begin with. While illegals do create problems in your state, it is something that is easy to fix, by indirectly removing them. Through careful steps, illegals can be removed without force and law enforcement coming in.

here is the first fix: change the tax system (preferably to LVT where land, not property is taxed and the land owner is taxed.) or maybe fair tax, and then the system will be much fairer. The only problem i have with illegals getting the same care as regular citizens is that the don’t pay into the system, but having a tax that taxes them too will change that. Sales taxes do tax illegals and so would LVT (it is very easy to find where people live, rather than what they earn these days).

Then from from then on.. like start fining employees for employing illegals and bring control of spending and things will definitely change… Although this is a longer step, it will bring deep changes and will solve the main problem – immigration of illegal immigrants. IF they don’t have any benefits of running from their native country, they wouldn’t run away from it.

Also i do agree with your rant on Mexico. We have also contributed to that through the drug war. Drug cartels are among the richest people in Mexico and also have contact with the elite. They have made so much money due to high markup on drugs. They have BENEFITED from the drug war.

I do suggest you research into that. This war has cost us so much and still continues to.

purveyor said:
Anyway, you forgot the National Security aspect of the Border?

Well, building a fence isn’t going to save the border. protecting the border is the army’s job, something that civilian authority shouldn’t get into.. but they do.

And where is the army? hint hint: overseas

And about your quote, snails secrete mucous that prevents them from getting cut.. yes i know biology very well.

We need that layer of protection, which doesn’t come from having a fence but having a better foreign policy taht allows us to save resources overseas and bring more resources back to US and put that money into rebuilding our infrastructure, education, welfare. Instead of going to war to prevent getting involved in bigger wars, which leads to having smaller wars in the future, and those which lead to even more wars, we should get out of entangling alliances and remain out of the world conflicts. Look at China, although they are autocratic, they have managed to remain out of wars, and have managed to build a high speed railway from Tibet to Beijing. Yes they don’t allow peaceful demonstrators and allow Tibet to create its own country, but then again would Americans be OK if any of its state seceded? Lets not get into that. Point being China, while it doesn’t promote liberty, does promote general welfare for its citizens, something that our government hasn’t been focusing on for some time.

Also i would like you to consider this quote from Thomas Jefferson

“honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”

Ill continue this arguement tomorrow…

carlinist said:
Also i would like you to consider this quote from Thomas Jefferson

“honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”

CARLINIST,

Great quote, Jefferson was, perhaps, the greatest mind of the age.

That silly GI, Boom boom, thing, was just feeble humor, The Apocalypse Now, was just because the movie has great lines in it. I did not mean to offend you. My apologies.

This time of night, I post poetry, some of it original, or strange quotes, just for fun. I am surprised you haven’t seen some. I am a bit eccentric.

This weekend, Mediaite saw some very strange behavior within. ALICE67, got so mad she changed her name to “FUCKYOU”. Seriously. Did you notice that? People ganged up on a 67 year old Hippie and she had a melt down.

Anonymity has some BAD by-products.

Also, I received some of the meanest Posts ever! Was like a full moon in here.

Anonymiity has by-products

Mr. Will is smart–plenty smart–but his message on deporting all the criminal aliens who have invaded the US and are infesting our country with their presence seems to be misunderstood. If he’s saying that our government is failing to uphold the Constitution and any number of laws, he’s correct. However, if “We the People” acted for once in unison to DEMAND our government deport them NOW, we might be able to prove Mr. Will wrong.

I am one voice who has written to my representatives on numerous occasions to demand they uphold the Constitution and laws they swore to uphold. If you did the same thing, we might have hopes for some action in that direction. Will you take the time to let your elected servants know how you feel?

Will you?

That is red herring, we are never going to deport them all. But that line is usually an excuse to do nothing or even grant all those hispanics amnesty, There are plenty of intermediate steps we can take, like start deporting real criminals illegals or make sure they can’t find employment by turning up the heat on employers and let them at least fire them.

CAconservative said:
carlinist:

You are pre-supposing people are dying of starvation in Mexico. A country with a world GDP ranked 14th. Not exactly a poor country. This tells us the rich in Mexico don’t want to take care of hoards of uneducated, and unskilled worker peasants and have directed the government they own, to rid Mexico of it’s parasites. So, the rich in Mexico simply dump them on the great welfare state to the north called the U.S.A., which accomplishes a two fold problem. Mexico rids itself of it’s responsibility toward it’s own citizens, and insures illegal employers in the U.S. a steady stream of really cheap illegal labor. Illegal labor subsidized by the very people the illegal aliens are stealing from, and openly sanctioned by the lack of immigration enforcement by this government.
Do we care about the plight of illegal alien parasites? The answer is a resounding, HELL NO!! Mexico’s lack of planning and common decency does not constitute and emergency on our part. The economic, and criminal price legal Americans are paying is a price too damned high.
With unemployment at an all time high in the U.S., why do they continue to come? That question was puzzling me so, I simply asked some illegal aliens I know, and the answer was, WELFARE! No job, no problem, they simply head on down to the local welfare department, produce some bogus papers and wa-la, problem solved. Food, clothing and shelter, at the expense of the legal taxpaying citizens of this country. I personally stop giving a damn when I was told school classes that were common when I went high school were being dropped because they could no longer pay for them because, that money was being redirected to educating the children of illegal aliens. When these scumbag illegal aliens started receiving preferential treatment over my children, the caring stopped!!

Mexicans are corrupt, greedy and are more indifferent to their poor than even an average teabagger. They are the pits. We should just take over the whole mess again and send all the Rotor Rooter and honey wagon men down their to clean out that cesspool. Then it might be a place that people would want to live in

carlinist said:
Yes
But in the supreme court, justices don’t rule based upon the ruling’s benifits to the country. They clearly don’t.
In the judicial branch, its about ideology and it always goes over democracy. In other terms, even if 70% of the country wanted 14th amendment restricted, Supreme court wouldn’t hesitate in ruling otherwise..

and i don’t think they will
i will explain my position when i come back

I certainly do agree the Supremes often have their own agenda. Perhaps if they Rule based on the text and intent of the Amendment, then that would be enough. The 14th was never intended to include the children of Foreign Nationals.

carlinist said:
But in the supreme court, justices don’t rule based upon the ruling’s benifits to the country. They clearly don’t.
In the judicial branch, its about ideology and it always goes over democracy. In other terms, even if 70% of the country wanted 14th amendment restricted, Supreme court wouldn’t hesitate in ruling otherwise..

It has to do with the law. If 100% of the country wanted the 14th Amendment restricted, it would still not be proper for the Court to do it. It’s the job of the legislature and the states to amend the Constitution again. The court is supposed to apply the law, not rewrite it.

X-3 said:
However, if “We the People” acted for once in unison to DEMAND our government deport them NOW, we might be able to prove Mr. Will wrong.

Not likely. The easier (and cheaper) path is to give them good reason to self-deport.

GoneFishing said:
I certainly do agree the Supremes often have their own agenda. Perhaps if they Rule based on the text and intent of the Amendment, then that would be enough. The 14th was never intended to include the children of Foreign Nationals.

That is correct. Respectfully.

“Delagata non delagata.” Unable to delegate power, that one does not posess themselves.

The S. Court cannot create amendments, just alter the heck out of them! Seriously, the Court has expanded and contracted many amendments throughout our Nation’s History.

Therefore, the Court could curtail or compress its original rulings. Hence, being born in this country, is not a citizenship panacea.

Purveyor

GoneFishing said:
I certainly do agree the Supremes often have their own agenda. Perhaps if they Rule based on the text and intent of the Amendment, then that would be enough. The 14th was never intended to include the children of Foreign Nationals.

yes if the 14th amendment was explicitly written to do so then yes. But it wasn’t, even though its purpose at the time was to give citizenship to slaves.

The court would simply not consider that argument

purveyor said:
“Delagata non delagata.” Unable to delegate power, that one does not posess themselves.

The S. Court cannot create amendments, just alter the heck out of them! Seriously, the Court has expanded and contracted many amendments throughout our Nation’s History.

Therefore, the Court could curtail or compress its original rulings. Hence, being born in this country, is not a citizenship panacea.

Purveyor

The supreme court legalized segregation with the Plassey v Ferguson ruling in the 1890s..
And then reversed this decision during the Brown v Board of Education ruling.

This is an inherent flaw in many common law countries, where courts have sufficient power to strike down laws if they are supposedly against the constitution of those respective countries. While the “ideology over democracy” works theoretically, it doesn’t always work practically. While i believe supreme court has the power to strike down unconstitutional laws, legislature can still override the supreme court. This has been done forcibly during Andrew Jackson’s era, by ignoring the Court and during Woodrow Wilson’s era, where the congress overrode the Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co(which forbade direct taxation(like the income tax)) by ratifying the 16th amendment.

it is actually perfectly OK to override the Supreme Court, by the due process of law and in a democratic way.

purveyor said:
Therefore, the Court could curtail or compress its original rulings. Hence, being born in this country, is not a citizenship panacea.

The amendment can only be repealed or modified through another amendment. Supreme Court applies the amendment or law to situations (as Pablo said).

As I said before, the Plassey v Ferguson legalized segregation on the belief that there shall be separate BUT equal services. However the latter part didn’t come true and that was the main issue.

purveyor said:
I am sorry, I missed your point?

Well my point there was that the court in America don’t cite British common law codes or the rulings of the courts there and all that sort of stuff in the ruling of American courts. So the courts here don’t care if you are taking profit of the laws and amendments as long as you don’t do something unconstitutional or against the law…

IN other words, we are not British or belong to its commonwealth. Thus our courts don’t care about the rulings and codes of law in Britain, since it doesn’t apply to us anymore.

carlinist:

Your attempt to midirect the issue of, illegal aliens using our welfare system (illegally) falls far short of any reasonable justification.
“Legal citizens take more welfare than illegal aliens”?
You do know your talking about legal citizens using a taxpayer-based welfare program they helped pay for, don’t you? Are you trying to suggest that because there are more legal citizens using it, that somehow justifies a lower number of illegal alien parasites who are illegally using it?!
The heavy use of our welfare system in a time of economic turmoil is not the issue. The issue is, theft of American resources by people who have no legal or moral argument for being here in the first place! In California those resources are all but gone!!
The only issue I agree with you on in your statement is, the ways and means of deporting people who told us where to put our laws, the very moment they stepped, illegally, into our country. If we can indirectly deport them by shutting of jobs, welfare, education, social serivices, and health care (other than emergancy) I’m all for it.

It’s very annoying when deporting “all” illegals is made to seem like it has to happen in 20 minutes. Usually a liberal talking point, Will has disappointed once again. Lets cut the crap already. You pass the laws needed then let them implement themselves. There is no need for a false panic and time references. You “throw them out” as you come across them, thats all there is to it.

Passing the laws alone would start helping. Some would leave on their own. Many would stop coming and obviously when these people fall into law enforcement hands they can be promptly removed. Safety sovereignty and identity are at risk so lets stop with the ‘compassion” bullsh!t.

Steve_27:

I agree, it’s very annoying to have to tell people, who should know better, that illegal alien parasites are severely hurting this country. No one in their right-mind would allow anyone to enter their house uninvited, and unwelcome. The United States is our HOME, and those that enter it illegally, should be treated like any other bottom-feeding criminal.
Fact: More people have been killed in the U.S. by illegal alien parasites since 9/11 than all the soldiers killed in Afghanistan, and Iraq combined! I read today, that the WH is trying to intervene in an execution of an illegal alien scumbag who brutally raped and killed a sixteen year girl in Texas. Seems he didn’t get instructions from his Mexican consulate. Do you think by some chance, that poor American girl would still be around if this government wasn’t guilty of gross-negligence?!
Upward of 15-Million legal Americans out of work, and another 10-Million underemployed, and yet 8-Million illegal alien parasites hold jobs in the U.S.?!! I’m all for using whatever means necessary to rid ourselves of Mexico’s problem!!

CAconservative said:
Steve_27: I agree, it’s very annoying to have to tell people, who should know better, that illegal alien parasites are severely hurting this country. No one in their right-mind would allow anyone to enter their house uninvited, and unwelcome. The United States is our HOME, and those that enter it illegally, should be treated like any other bottom-feeding criminal.Fact: More people have been killed in the U.S. by illegal alien parasites since 9/11 than all the soldiers killed in Afghanistan, and Iraq combined! I read today, that the WH is trying to intervene in an execution of an illegal alien scumbag who brutally raped and killed a sixteen year girl in Texas. Seems he didn’t get instructions from his Mexican consulate. Do you think by some chance, that poor American girl would still be around if this government wasn’t guilty of gross-negligence?!Upward of 15-Million legal Americans out of work, and another 10-Million underemployed, and yet 8-Million illegal alien parasites hold jobs in the U.S.?!! I’m all for using whatever means necessary to rid ourselves of Mexico’s problem!!

And after they come in to your home, you pay for them if they get sick. Hmmm…ridiculous!

CAconservative said:
More people have been killed in the U.S. by illegal alien parasites since 9/11 than all the soldiers killed in Afghanistan, and Iraq combined!

proof?

CAconservative said:
Steve_27:

I agree, it’s very annoying to have to tell people, who should know better, that illegal alien parasites are severely hurting this country. No one in their right-mind would allow anyone to enter their house uninvited, and unwelcome. The United States is our HOME, and those that enter it illegally, should be treated like any other bottom-feeding criminal.
Fact: More people have been killed in the U.S. by illegal alien parasites since 9/11 than all the soldiers killed in Afghanistan, and Iraq combined! I read today, that the WH is trying to intervene in an execution of an illegal alien scumbag who brutally raped and killed a sixteen year girl in Texas. Seems he didn’t get instructions from his Mexican consulate. Do you think by some chance, that poor American girl would still be around if this government wasn’t guilty of gross-negligence?!
Upward of 15-Million legal Americans out of work, and another 10-Million underemployed, and yet 8-Million illegal alien parasites hold jobs in the U.S.?!! I’m all for using whatever means necessary to rid ourselves of Mexico’s problem!!

It is one thing to have objections against illegals for coming to the country illegally , but its a very different thing trying to demonize them. I understand that illegals try to take advantage of the current system, but so is everyone else. Illegals don’t take much from welfare, they technically can’t. BY law, illegals can be deported for receiving welfare in form of SS, Medicare or Foot Stamps. If you are an immigrant, these programs require verifications(Like the ACTUAL green card(not a photocopied one) and/or a driver’s license(same)) and these can’t be faked in any way. Even if you have a fake ID, it can’t pass online verifications methods, which government agencies use, since they have access to databases, which keep records of the legal citizens and immigrants, something that illegals simply can’t hack into. However, as you said, children sometimes do get welfare and the government knows they do. When it comes to children, governments do take a softer approach and they get education and access to health care and vaccinations. These are universal services, in my opinion and even the courts have ruled in favor of the illegals here.
Solution for this is simple, introduce a better taxation system as i said before, like Fair tax or Land Value Tax, which can apply even to illegals. This along with harder policies against employers can slow down illegal immigration a lot.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/

Steve_27 said:
You “throw them out” as you come across them, thats all there is to it.

That is actually against the 4th amendment, which doesn’t allow searches and seizures of individuals by the government without a warrant.

And before you go on a rant claiming that illegal immigrant are not citizens, i agree they are not. However, the constitution is written to apply to the GOVERNMENT, not the citizens. The bill of rights tells the Government what NOT TO DO rather than what the people can do. Therefore, since it is impossible to know if an immigrant is illegal or not without actually doing searches(asking for ID, also is a search), it is impossible to constitutionally remove them. And since the illegals aren’t in the records, it is hard for Judges to give warrants.

Only way to remove illegals is indirectly.

Also to clarify my position on police searches

the 4th amendment doesn’t allow law enforcement to search your house and papers for unreasonable doubts without a warrant.

If a person is DUI, it is obvious that it is so and therefore a police can ask for a license or search the car because it is reasonable

However how does someone find it reasonable to search a person without knowing exactly that the person is illegal?

carlinist:

Proof: WorldNetDaily, CNN report, OneNewsNow.com, AgapePress.com, FreeRepublic.com,
F.I.R.E Coalition.

Although the 4th Amendment does not allow unreasonable search and seizure, according to the Patriot Act, it does. Taken to it’s extreme, the Patriot Act does allow for police to stop and ask questions of people without reasonable cause. I do not agree with this Act and the undermining of the Th Amendment that it allows.
Your remarks looks like a continuation of the bogus, racial-profiling argument. Bogus because if implemented, it takes away one of the most important policing tools available, a description of the perpetrator. Commonsense, and verifiable evidence tells us that the overwhelming majority of illegal alien parasites are of Hispanic decent.

CAconservative said:
according to the Patriot Act, it does

then the patriot act is unconstitutinal. Parts of it have already been found unconstitutional and i don’t see why that can’t be taken to court.

CAconservative said:
Commonsense, and verifiable evidence tells us that the overwhelming majority of illegal alien parasites are of Hispanic decent.

The constitution the supreme law of the land. Whatever the constitution says stands.
Now tell me where in the constitution does it tell that law enforcement can profile against a race just because a sizable part of them commit crimes?

Does that mean more black people should be put in jail just because a disproportionate amount of them commit crimes compared to other races(and yes this is a fact)?

And also, remember the Arizona Law that allowed police to ask the people for ID?
The main part of it was stricken down(the part that stated that police must ask for ID) because it was found unconstitutional because there wasn’t enough emphasis on what a “reasonable suspicion” was in the law and how it could be defined.

The Law enforcement simply can’t suspect anyone for being illegal for the color of their skin, the language they speak or clothes they wear. These will simply be against the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and will still go against the 4th amendment because it will stretch it a bit too far.

CARLINIST,

You have just enough Con-Law to get in trouble with… You get close, but NO cigar!

I’ll look for you elsewhere

Pablo said:
Not likely. The easier (and cheaper) path is to give them good reason to self-deport.

I agree that we need to definitely turn up the heat on those who knowingly hire Criminal Aliens–how about a $100,000 fine AND ten years in the slammer w/o possibility of parole? But that doesn’t cover all the bases.

What about the Criminal Aliens who do not work? The answer goes back to my original argument: If the cops catch a Criminal Alien, deport them on the spot–NO trial, NO recourse, NO BS from some lib group who tries to stand in the way. BTW, we could install a chip in them before we send them back and if they’re caught here a 2nd time, they do life at hard labor–NO parole.

Ya see Pablo, it ain’t a single-faceted problem we got here; what we’ve got is a multi-faceted problem that needs a multi-faceted solution. We could take it a bit further by reminding ANY elected official who is arguing for amnest–or dragging their feet in upholding the Constitution and our laws–that they are breaching their oath of office, and the penalty is, of course, dismissal from that office.

carlinist said:
Well my point there was that the court in America don’t cite British common law codes or the rulings of the courts there and all that sort of stuff in the ruling of American courts. So the courts here don’t care if you are taking profit of the laws and amendments as long as you don’t do something unconstitutional or against the law…

IN other words, we are not British or belong to its commonwealth. Thus our courts don’t care about the rulings and codes of law in Britain, since it doesn’t apply to us anymore.

CARLINIST,

I know that PAUL G will send bad vibes at me, but. LOL You are engaging in dialogue, rather than just making statements for impact. Thats a good thing…

With all due respect, please, Google “British Common Law.” (Wikipedia, is fine) Almost all of the Nations in existence today, that were once Governed by the crown, use as the basis of their ‘Legal System,’ “British Common Law.” Including, the USA.

Every Lawyer and Judge studies such, as a form of Legal History. However, citing such as basis for a Judicial decision could be improper.

Back to my assertion about Common Law: “One cannot profit from a crime” (Except Lawyers, of course. LOL)
Hence, my argument about anchor babies. An entire family, potentially, profits from the woman illegally crossing the border.

‘Comprende?’

Purveyor

carlinist said:
The supreme court legalized segregation with the Plassey v Ferguson ruling in the 1890s..
And then reversed this decision during the Brown v Board of Education ruling.

This is an inherent flaw in many common law countries, where courts have sufficient power to strike down laws if they are supposedly against the constitution of those respective countries. While the “ideology over democracy” works theoretically, it doesn’t always work practically. While i believe supreme court has the power to strike down unconstitutional laws, legislature can still override the supreme court. This has been done forcibly during Andrew Jackson’s era, by ignoring the Court and during Woodrow Wilson’s era, where the congress overrode the Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co(which forbade direct taxation(like the income tax)) by ratifying the 16th amendment.

it is actually perfectly OK to override the Supreme Court, by the due process of law and in a democratic way.

CARLIN,

I wrote a paper, waay back in 1993, for a Federal Judge, titled: “Did Brown v. Board of Education, (1954) achieve its objective?”

Succinctly, I asserted that Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896)– (“Separate but Equal,” properly applied, as ordered) would have been more effective than Brown’s, somewhat convoluted reasoning. Also, Brown relied on the “Commerce Clause,” an odd but effective method to win the case. Unfortunately, Racism and second class status, kept marching onward.

Also, Plessy was based on sound Constitutional reasoning, whereas, Brown relied social dicta, which is not altogether appropriate for Constitutional Law.

It is an excellent paper and was way ahead of its time. Unfortunately, as Brown is viewed as a Great Legal Monolith, (Also Thurgood Marshal may have won the case, but?) Anyway, as a result, the paper did not get traction, so to speak.

I looked at case law as well as books Jonathan Kozol, William Kilpatrick,and Jared Taylor. All education specialists who have researched the status of the Minority students in America today.

Its a damn good paper…

Purveyor

X-3 said:
What about the Criminal Aliens who do not work? The answer goes back to my original argument: If the cops catch a Criminal Alien, deport them on the spot–NO trial, NO recourse,

that is also against the constitution.

As i said before, the constitution applies to the government on what are its rights and what rights it should allow the inhabitants of the country..

We don’t have extra territorial rights these days so basically if you are in Canada, you live in their jurisdiction, not American, even if you are an American citizen.

It doesn’t matter how criminal you are, you deserve the same rights as everyone else.

purveyor said:
CARLIN,

I wrote a paper, waay back in 1993, for a Federal Judge, titled: “Did Brown v. Board of Education, (1954) achieve its objective?”

Succinctly, I asserted that Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896)– (“Separate but Equal,” properly applied, as ordered) would have been more effective than Brown’s, somewhat convoluted reasoning. Also, Brown relied on the “Commerce Clause,” an odd but effective method to win the case. Unfortunately, Racism and second class status, kept marching onward.

Also, Plessy was based on sound Constitutional reasoning, whereas, Brown relied social dicta, which is not altogether appropriate for Constitutional Law.

It is an excellent paper and was way ahead of its time. Unfortunately, as Brown is viewed as a Great Legal Monolith, (Also Thurgood Marshal may have won the case, but?) Anyway, as a result, the paper did not get traction, so to speak.

I looked at case law as well as books Jonathan Kozol, William Kilpatrick,and Jared Taylor. All education specialists who have researched the status of the Minority students in America today.

Its a damn good paper…

Purveyor

Hmm i thought Irene Morgan v Virginia relied on commerce clause and it ruled that segregation in interstate buses were illegal. Brown v. Board of Education relied on the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause.. right?

All that Brown v. Board of Education did was end segregation in government services, not private. Many rulings like this followed that dismantled Jim Crow Laws. However they didn’t go much far in trying to end segregation in private places.
The Civil rights act of 1964 that banned segregation in all places, public and private..

And the Civil rights act used commerce clause to end segregation in public places(like hotels restaurants etc).

purveyor said:
Hence, my argument about anchor babies. An entire family, potentially, profits from the woman illegally crossing the border.

Yes i understand that argument. However, I don’t think a case can be brought against these illegal families on the basis that they are taking advantage of the law…

If you know, the Phelps v Snyder ruling, which happened recently allowed him to use his first Amendment rights and talk vile and horrible things and taking advantage of the (rightful) decisions some people end up taking(like punching the Westboro protesters) by suing them..

Although US law is based on common law, it is very different from common law countries. They are based on common law, but in the end are incompatible with the British law system, due to the hundreds of years of “isolation”

But we have adopted many things from the Common Law however…

X-3 said:
, we could install a chip in them before we send them back and if they’re caught here a 2nd time, they do life at hard labor–NO parole.

Right.. that would work .. if you lived in Soviet Russia..

X-3 said:
Ya see Pablo, it ain’t a single-faceted problem we got here; what we’ve got is a multi-faceted problem that needs a multi-faceted solution. We could take it a bit further by reminding ANY elected official who is arguing for amnest–or dragging their feet in upholding the Constitution and our laws–that they are breaching their oath of office, and the penalty is, of course, dismissal from that office.

Only reason we have illegals coming (and going ) is because of two things

1) Selling drugs
2) getting jobs

The drug problem is caused by the drug war. The drug war has increased the markup on illicit drugs so much, that drug dealers are going to RISK THEIR LIFE to come here because they can sell for extremely high prices. And the supply on drugs isn’t actually “low”.. If they lose couple of hundred pounds of drugs, they can always go back for more. Drug war has increased violence in Mexico and has caused violence in the Border.. Did we have this problem before the drug war? i doubt..

I for many reasons have believed that substance should never be banned or the user of that substance shouldn’t be criminalized for possessing. The government simply LACKS the power to do so and therefore can’t. Let them pass an amendment allowing the decriminalization of Drugs and some substances..

And as for the job problem.. Fine employees and put a handle on their corrupt practices and everything will go back to normal…

and as for the officials, they have their own right to speech and advocacy and that goes above anything, including the oath to serve in public office.

sometimes i believe that a good number of liberals commentators are trolls and lack patience to argue and make good points.

but when i see conservative posters like X-3, i am forced to reconsider that argument..

@ Purveyor

Funny video here ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dLf57DrAsk

purveyor said:
Also, Brown relied on the “Commerce Clause,” an odd but effective method to win the case. Unfortunately, Racism and second class status, kept marching onward.

CARLINIST,

Your “hmm” is well founded. What I wrote and what I was thinking, were very different. What I meant to say is: The progeny of Brown, i.e., The Civil Rights Laws, as well as various, subsequent Court decisions, relied on the “COMMERCE CLAUSE. Such as “Heart of Atlanta Motel and Katzenbach cases. All of which stemmed from an obscure pre-WWII case Wickard v. Filburn.

The Supreme Court started to use the Commerce Clause as blunt instrument to eradicate racism, when, perhaps the court should have been more articulate and delicate by staying with the 5th and 14th amendments.

I firmly conclude that “Equal Protection” is fairly easy to interpret, don’t you agree?

I guess I was in too much of a hurry to put into a paragraph or two, that which I wrote and studied on, for years. My compliments and my apologies. I hope this clarifies things?

Regarding the weakness of the Brown decision, Justices Jackson and Warren commented just prior to release of the decision: “I wish it more law in it but I didn’t find anything unacceptable in it.” (“Simple Justice”, page 696)

Purveyor

carlinist said:
ll that Brown v. Board of Education did was end segregation in government services, not private. Many rulings like this followed that dismantled Jim Crow Laws. However they didn’t go much far in trying to end segregation in private places.
The Civil rights act of 1964 that banned segregation in all places, public and private..

NO!

Brown overturned the Separate but Equal doctrine, which was anything but equal. However, what Brown, inadvertantly, created was new Monster: desegregation, reverse discrimination, busing, etc. The idea that a Black kid sitting next to White kid was ‘panacea’ for civil rights and racial equality, is prima facie, questionable. But, that is what the Warren Court did.

My whole assertion was/is that Separate but Equal was correct path. The doctrine just needed to be enforced, VIGOROUSLY!. Equal facilities, teachers etc. No corners cut!

Furthermore, Brown attacked de jure vs. de facto segregation. Such was supported by a less than scientific Social Study, to support the Courts assertion: “We conclude that in the field of education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” (Brown v. Education, 1954)

I disagree, and that is the thrust of my thesis…

Purveyor

carlinist said:
@ Purveyor

Funny video here ..

CARLIN

Reminds me of a recent discussion I had with a small group: The question before the group was, if there was a civil war of sorts, or, the Government decided to crack down on liberty such as the 2nd amendment, would the Local Police and Military stand for it?

After all, the Police and the young soldiers would be seizing guns from people very much like their own friends and families. Would a young National Guardsman seize his Uncles Shotgun? Would the Police Captain across the street from me, come to take my firearms?

There are Liberal Democrats who desire limiting various amendments. I want to scream—NEVER, EVER give up a Right! So precious is liberty why or how could anyone consder such?

Thanks, interesting video

purveyor said:
I firmly conclude that “Equal Protection” is fairly easy to interpret, don’t you agree?

Yes, but in the seperate but equal doctrine.. there was separation, but never equality. The equality part was under control of the people. People had to make sure the services were equal, but that never happened due to their mind set.

In the end you can’t control people or force them to stick with the law. The law has to change in order to force them to.

purveyor said:
The doctrine just needed to be enforced, VIGOROUSLY!

Wouldn’t happen, when the law enforcement administrations were inherently very supportive of one side over the other..

This is why the court overturned Plassey v Ferguson ruling because seperate but equal couldn’t be properly and fairly reinforced..

purveyor said:
the Government decided to crack down on liberty such as the 2nd amendment, would the Local Police and Military stand for it?

After all, the Police and the young soldiers would be seizing guns from people very much like their own friends and families. Would a young National Guardsman seize his Uncles Shotgun? Would the Police Captain across the street from me, come to take my firearms?

Well during wars.. the laws become a wee bit stricter and your liberties do get reduced.. heavily.

During the Civil war, Lincoln put forward an executive order(AKA emancipation proclamation), which could be argued to be unconstitutional because Executive Branch can’t make laws and he also put supposed Confederate Sympathizers in jail without trial, which was obviously a suspension of Habeas Corpus. Things like this HAPPEN during wars. The federal government gets stronger and it puts forward rights that reduce liberties of citizens. I am OK with that because it always happens.

What i am not OK with however, is endless wars. That’s what has been going on since World War 2 due to Preemptive wars, all of them undeclared and proxy wars..

purveyor said:
I firmly conclude that “Equal Protection” is fairly easy to interpret, don’t you agree?

True, however the thing with Brown v Board of Ed was that in the end, it dismantled segregation in PUBLIC services, therefore i don’t see anything unconstitutional.

All the constitutional Amendments that restrict Federal government, also restrict state governments. As i said before, Separate but Equal services were separate but not equal and there was no possible way state governments and local governments would enforce it vigorously, therefore not fulfilling the “equal protection” clause.
Also Segregation also heavily restricted laws of Black African Americans. That wasn’t equal was it?

purveyor said:
The doctrine just needed to be enforced, VIGOROUSLY!. Equal facilities, teachers etc.

See I am OK with the current situation. Yes there is racism, but everyone has the right to expression..

I mean you have to see the other effects of Segregation, in order to understand it deeply. While the basic motif was creating separate services that were equal, the law went deeper into restricting African American rights. Were they allowed to protest?
Were they allowed actual free speech?

And the thing with law enforcement is, it is always going to be biased. There is no way to change that.
And creating laws that allow such Bias to exist makes it worse

carlinist said:
See I am OK with the current situation. Yes there is racism, but everyone has the right to expression..

Huh!

You completely missed the concepts of de jure and de facto segregation?

I am not “OK with the current situation.” That is why I wrote this thesis, of which you missed the entire point. You are dwelling on what you know, not what you are hearing or reading. I have offered you an expansion of your knowledge. Take it.

READ CAREFULLY:

Plessy, like any form of human interaction was flawed. However, had it been applied properly, Racial disparity would be greatly diminished today. In the 1800s it was a falsity. Today, We could Police and regulate, thus guarantee equality of facilities. (YES, there will be mistakes, there always are, we do the best we can)

BROWN and its progeny asserted the PANACEA was having black kids sitting next to white kids. That is ridiculous, prima facie! All we got is busing and other horrid by-products.

I f Black and white kids all had the same quality schools and teachers, THAT would be the PANCEA we seek!

READ THAT AGAIN… The logic is impeccable.

By your own conclusion, Brown is a failure, and it is. Separate but equal would guarantee an equal education, but NOT an equal outcome. It is then up to the graduate to take his or her place in the world.

Don’t just sit on history, expound on it. That is what Con-Law does. Legal Philosophy

carlinist said:
True, however the thing with Brown v Board of Ed was that in the end, it dismantled segregation in PUBLIC services, therefore i don’t see anything unconstitutional.

All the constitutional Amendments that restrict Federal government, also restrict state governments. As i said before, Separate but Equal services were separate but not equal and there was no possible way state governments and local governments would enforce it vigorously, therefore not fulfilling the “equal protection” clause.
Also Segregation also heavily restricted laws of Black African Americans. That wasn’t equal was it?

I am NOT suggesting Brown was unconstitutional, rather it was a bad decision. Plessy was a much better decision, except that it was a Farce when applied!

LIke I said, the Commerce Clause was the real club for the civil rights movement, NOT Brown. Google Heart of Atlanta Motel or Katzenbachv McClung. It was legerdemain, but it worked.

The Court found that Interstste Commerce is affected by Racism! (READ THAT AGAIN)

This starte out life as an A paper to a Federal Judge. The research is solid and the assertion is valid.

purveyor said:
By your own conclusion, Brown is a failure, and it is. Separate but equal would guarantee an equal education, but NOT an equal outcome. It is then up to the graduate to take his or her place in the world.

legally yes.
But practically no..
Plessey v. Ferguson wasn’t an inherently flawed ruling(like Dred Scott v Sanford), but the realistic implication it brought was horrid..

I do see your argument on Brown ruling.

However in the end, its about practicality, not legality. In the end, The “seperate but equal” doctrine just didn’t work. Instead of creating equal, although separate lives for Black and Whites, it instead made Whites superior to the Blacks. Because the law enforcements were racists, Blacks weren’t given justice as Whites. In the end segregation didn’t work and I believe that was the motive that the justices used to rule in Brown v Board of ed, although it can’t be cited.

It is important to know that laws create.. side effects.

purveyor said:
The research is solid and the assertion is valid.

Yes, the ruling did make sense there..

Also just for knowledge.. was segregation forced in the south?

In other words, if i was a Businessman in the south, was i forced to have segregated business venue?

I never thought of that before..

And also Brown v Board of Education found out that segregation was harmful to a Black person’s perception and thus the segregated economic system indoctrinated the African American students(doll test was cited).

purveyor said:
However, had it been applied properly, Racial disparity would be greatly diminished today. In the 1800s it was a falsity. Today, We could Police and regulate, thus guarantee equality of facilities.

Well we wouldn’t know..
And segregation, is inherently bad. there is no practical way to create “separate but equal” services. Think about it, If a certain group of people(X) want to separate the other group(Y), just because for who they are, then isn’t their perception of group Y to be put in question?

IN other words, why would group X want to be separate from group Y if they don’t believe group Y is fit enough to interact with group X?

Why would any group want to legally separate the other group from their own for no reason?

And if the reason is hate and/or racism, which happened during 1890s(time of the Plessy ruling), then there is no way to create “equal” services.. Just isn’t.

Even the law enforcement in the South didn’t care to uphold the “equal” part..

while it might legally sound OK, in reality Plessy ruling was a failure. It put blacks in a much inferior position than Whites.

CARLINIST,

I still like you, you have sincerity, a certain Je ne se quois! LOL

We convered a a lot of ground the last two days.

I guess I’d agree that “ideally” a law or decision sounds good, but in application, often fails. Especially if we are talking about the Jim Crow South.

Here is an interesting thought. I can, and I’d wager you could too, make a cogent argument that the North lost the war?

When Booth put .44 ball in Lincoln’s head, America was left with 100plus more years of Racism?

Jess

purveyor said:
Here is an interesting thought. I can, and I’d wager you could too, make a cogent argument that the North lost the war?

When Booth put .44 ball in Lincoln’s head, America was left with 100plus more years of Racism?

Well the north won the war and abolished slavery, which was one of the side goals..

And yes there was racism and there still is. I am OK with racism, that is freedom of expression. But having laws that encourage racism indirectly or directly is indoctrination.

And the Civil war was fought on the basis that The Confederates weren’t a sovereign entity and lacked legitimacy to proclaim its nationhood, and couldn’t secede from the union

In other words, the legitimacy of the South was questioned during the war and was fought against by the North. In that respect the North won. You can see this in the policies the North took and also the tactics that the US army took in this war.

carlinist said:
And yes there was racism and there still is. I am OK with racism, that is freedom of expression. But having laws that encourage racism indirectly or directly is indoctrination.

I used to say “I can hate anyone I want, its my right.”

Yet, as you can see, my fight is just the opposite. I despise “isms” Race-ism, sex-ism etc.

Lets call a day and I’ll see you in another Blog,

“Out on the perimeter, where there are no stars”

Jim Morrison

carlinist said:
that is also against the constitution.

As i said before, the constitution applies to the government on what are its rights and what rights it should allow the inhabitants of the country..

We don’t have extra territorial rights these days so basically if you are in Canada, you live in their jurisdiction, not American, even if you are an American citizen.

It doesn’t matter how criminal you are, you deserve the same rights as everyone else.

You, sir or madame, are WRONG! Here’s why: The Constitution applies ONLY to citizens of the United States of America! NON-citizend, i.e. CRIMINAL ALIENS have NO rights–Zip, Nada, Zilch, Zero–under the Constitution.

I omitted another thing our government is failing to do in upholding their oath of office and the Constitution: The border is porous as a sieve! The border should be sealed up tighter than ______________ (fill in your choice of euphemisms.) Anyone caught stepping across the border should be SHOT on the spot–they are invading our country.

X-3 said:
You, sir or madame, are WRONG! Here’s why: The Constitution applies ONLY to citizens of the United States of America! NON-citizend, i.e. CRIMINAL ALIENS have NO rights–Zip, Nada, Zilch, Zero–under the Constitution.

Prove it.

X-3 said:
I omitted another thing our government is failing to do in upholding their oath of office and the Constitution: The border is porous as a sieve! The border should be sealed up tighter than ______________ (fill in your choice of euphemisms.) Anyone caught stepping across the border should be SHOT on the spot–they are invading our country.

Prove where in the oath does it tell about that?

X-3 said:
You, sir or madame, are WRONG! Here’s why: The Constitution applies ONLY to citizens of the United States of America! NON-citizend, i.e. CRIMINAL ALIENS have NO rights–Zip, Nada, Zilch, Zero–under the Constitution.

And actually for your knowledge, the constitution applies to the government. Its a very common misconception. While the congress explicitly grants certain rights to citizens only (and some to natural born citizens), the bill of rights however are certain liberties that government doesn’t have the power to encroach on IN AMERICAN SOIL.

For any crimes committed in US, even ones committed by illegals, the defendants have all the rights given by the Bill of Rights(including the rights to due process). Thus the immigrants go through the regular court hearings that any normal citizen goes through, and then goes through immigration proceedings and from then on can be deported.
Illegally immigration is against the administrative law, not criminal law

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474976743890

purveyor said:
Lets call a day and I’ll see you in another Blog,

Agreed..

carlinist said:
And actually for your knowledge, the constitution applies to the government. Its a very common misconception.

???????

The Constitution both limits the powers of government & protects the rights of the citizens. Citizens…not criminal aliens, but citizens. Examples: Freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, protection against being forced to make a self-incriminating act. There are many more.

carlinist said:
Prove where in the oath does it tell about that?

Defend the Constitution and the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic; you might want to read Article IV, Section 4, for a start, and then Federalist 23 and 51. In addition to that, there is ample case law especially during the 1940s.

X-3 said:
The Constitution both limits the powers of government & protects the rights of the citizens. Citizens…not criminal aliens, but citizens. Examples: Freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, protection against being forced to make a self-incriminating act. There are many more.

You still don’t get my point.

In the constitution, there is a difference when it says PERSONS, PEOPLE and CITIZENS. This is not a word choice error by the framers. In certain clauses, wherever it says “citizens”, that clause directs explicitly at citizens. Here is the example from the immunity clause
“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

These rights explicitly belong to citizens, or citizens born in US.

Wherever it says PERSONS or people, it directs it at all
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
This applies even to illegals (however i believe license is needed for owning guns, for which one has to be a legal citizen)
or
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
here the congress doesn’t specify whether it is just for citizens, so it automatically applies to everyone.
and this one
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”

This notion has been upheld in these below supreme court cases

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
and more controversially,
Plyler v. Doe (1982) where Supreme court struck down a Texas law that barred illegals from enrolling their children in public school and stated that “The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents.”

Really in legal terms, there is no way to restrict illegal rights and forcefully deport them, because all those ways would be unconstitutional…

Best way is as as Pablo and I stated above, let them leave for economic reasons, not political.

I have proved my point.

I won’t reply on this post and hope to see you on other blogs.