Federal judge stalls Obama's executive action on immigration

[Ulysses G.]

We await Mother Jones' interpretation of the ruling.

In other words, their inevitable support of Obama's spin.

[JDGRUEN]

Amnesty - Definiton:

Amnesty to illegal aliens means the government will deliberately overlook their illegal entry to the country.

I believe obama is trying to do that unilaterally ... without any Congressional Legislation supporting his actions ... Dictatorial one might say...

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/amnesty

[Publicus]

Amnesty is not in the president's immigration executive action.

Amnesty is not in the courts order or memorandum.

Amnesty has nothing to do with this.

There is no connection or relevance whatsoever between the thread topic and amnesty.

[chuckd]

Failure to prosecute by executive decree is an effective amnesty.

Prosecutorial discretion is...A rose by any other name.

Edited February 19, 2015 by chuckd

[JDGRUEN]

Failure to prosecute by executive decree is an effective amnesty.

Prosecutorial discretion is...A rose by any other name.

Especially - the failure (actually refusal) to prosecute millions of illegal aliens in one fell swoop in disregard to the limits of the Executive office to fabricate or create legislation. obama's Narcissistic personality causes him to be driven to these kind of extremes. obama is an Emperor in his own mind handing out decrees to the peasants of one kind or another.

[Ulysses G.]

Failure to prosecute by executive decree is an effective amnesty.

Prosecutorial discretion is...A rose by any other name.

Prosecutorial discretion does not include allowing MILLIONS of illegal aliens to stay in the United States, get work authorizations, and obtain Social Security Numbers. That is enacting a new law and not up to the president. Judge Hanen ruled that "Exercising prosecutorial discretion and/or refusing to enforce a statute does not also entail bestowing benefits" and he is correct. There is an excellent chance that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will back him up.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

-snip-

Did I mention that the word "amnesty" is not in this case and that the word "amnesty" has no bearing on the case, and that the word "amnesty" is irrelevant and immaterial to the case.

Just to be sure about it, I'll say now for the record that the word "amnesty" is irrelevant and immaterial to this case and that the word "amnesty" appears nowhere meaningfully or significantly in the case. The word "amnesty" has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.

Maybe not, but the Federal Judge in Texas who issued the ruling used the term "illegal immigration" twice in just one paragraph - two sentences in a row - when writing his reasons for his decision and order against Obama.

That's a concept "some people" sure have trouble getting their heads around, but the judge didn't have a problem with it at all.

The judge is of course an attorney, and attorneys by definition are wordsmiths. Listen up, private Publicus:

"The court finds that the government's failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country," Hanen wrote. "Further, the record supports the finding that this lack of enforcement, combined with the country's high rate of illegal immigration, significantly drains the states' resources."

USA Today

Yes, and the term "undocumented alien" has been in common use as being synonymous to "illegal alien.

And the like term "undocumented immigrant" is another term that has currency as also being synonymous to the term "illegal alien."

The more traditional term is of course "illegal alien" but it in recent decades has also been joined by use of the "undocumented alien."

It's six of one and a half dozen of the other which total up to a baker's dozen for the obvious reason the word illegal has more emotive power and it is also more directly literal...but only more so.

In the NE of the US where I grew up the police often said they had arrested a "John Doe" or were looking for him. After I moved to the US South the police there were reported to be looking for "Bubba 1 and Bubba 2" and the like.

[Publicus]

Failure to prosecute by executive decree is an effective amnesty.

Prosecutorial discretion is...A rose by any other name.

Prosecutorial discretion does not include allowing MILLIONS of illegal aliens to stay in the United States, get work authorizations, and obtain Social Security Numbers. That is enacting a new law and not up to the president. Judge Hanen ruled that "Exercising prosecutorial discretion and/or refusing to enforce a statute does not also entail bestowing benefits" and he is correct. There is an excellent chance that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will back him up.

The political orientation of the current 14 judges of the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is by the statements of Obama opponents here strongly conservative. Of the 14 current judges (3 vacancies) nine were appointed by a Republican party president.

Yet many legal scholars and practitioners believe the court will swiftly stay the temporary injunction ordered by the lower US district court judge, meaning tell the district judge his order is invalid so he needs to pull it back in. Who knows....

The SCOTUS has over 238 years developed a body of case law interpreting the Constitution to say and to mean the federal government has exclusive authority and power over immigration and citizenship of aliens, and that the executive has 99.9% discretion in executing the laws enacted by the Congress. The central problem here btw is that Congress for several years now has failed to enact any laws despite the great need of at least one.

The SCOTUS and Article I of the Constitution are specific that the federal government has authority over immigration laws, that the states are excluded from the process.

Let me be absolutely clear about this point of immigration and aliens citizenship in the Constitution and in 238 years of SCOTUS case/common law.....the states have no authority, claim, grievance, power, recourse in anything pertaining to immigration or alien citizenship. The states have nothing in the Constitution that would allow them to bring this case or to prosecute it......nothing....zip....zilch....oogats....zero.

The SCOTUS as recently as 2012 said that again, in the Arizona case. The question in this case pertains to executive authority which means that sooner or later, the president will win the case. The 26 states led by Texas and its governor will lose this case.

Judge Napolitano at Fox isn't talking about these factors, for instance ...

DAPA applies only to the parents of US citizens / permanent residents, it doesn’t grant permanent status and it comes with a laundry list of qualification criteria.

DACA is explicitly termed as being temporary, not offering a pathway to citizenship and not granting legal status.

There is no evidence that either of these programs is creating permanent residents with the right of remain

It’s pretty clear then that these are temporary enforcement deferrals with temporary accommodations, which is well within the boundaries of executive discretion.

Moreover, every single one of these people under DACA or DAPA, IF granted, receive only temporary deferral from deportation. Granting of deferral is entirely discretionary, is revocable at any time, confers no guarantee of renewal, may not be appealed or contested if the application is denied, does not confer legal status and is not a path to citizenship. They remain deportable.

And finally for now.....

Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

“On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal. They are also eligible for work authorization. Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time. Deferred action does not provide lawful status. NOTE: On November 20, 2014, the President made an announcement extending the period of DACA and work authorization from two years to three years.”

In short then, the president's immigration executive action is a policy, and not a law. This administration can change the policy with a phone and a pen. The next administration can continue it or cancel it in part or entirely. The long of it however is that the Congress needs to enact legislation to provide new and revised immigration laws which would preclude all of this bs.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Publicus

[JDGRUEN]

-snip-

Did I mention that the word "amnesty" is not in this case and that the word "amnesty" has no bearing on the case, and that the word "amnesty" is irrelevant and immaterial to the case.

Just to be sure about it, I'll say now for the record that the word "amnesty" is irrelevant and immaterial to this case and that the word "amnesty" appears nowhere meaningfully or significantly in the case. The word "amnesty" has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.

Maybe not, but the Federal Judge in Texas who issued the ruling used the term "illegal immigration" twice in just one paragraph - two sentences in a row - when writing his reasons for his decision and order against Obama.

That's a concept "some people" sure have trouble getting their heads around, but the judge didn't have a problem with it at all.

The judge is of course an attorney, and attorneys by definition are wordsmiths. Listen up, private Publicus:

"The court finds that the government's failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country," Hanen wrote. "Further, the record supports the finding that this lack of enforcement, combined with the country's high rate of illegal immigration, significantly drains the states' resources."

USA Today

Yes, and the term "undocumented alien" has been in common use as being synonymous to "illegal alien.

And the like term "undocumented immigrant" is another term that has currency as also being synonymous to the term "illegal alien."

The more traditional term is of course "illegal alien" but it in recent decades has also been joined by use of the "undocumented alien."

It's six of one and a half dozen of the other which total up to a baker's dozen for the obvious reason the word illegal has more emotive power and it is also more directly literal...but only more so.

In the NE of the US where I grew up the police often said they had arrested a "John Doe" or were looking for him. After I moved to the US South the police there were reported to be looking for "Bubba 1 and Bubba 2" and the like.

You are spinning wildly ... the non offensive names only come about because political correctness is put into play so as to not offend and to make the crime less offensive. I suppose a drug dealer is an undocumented pharmacist - correct?

The U.S.Federal Code - legal statutes created the term -- legal immigrant granted a 'green card' after proper application and waiting in line is officially called a Resident Legal Alien ... Those who have broken U.S. law to enter - cross the border with no visa - actually not even a passport or those who overstayed a visa and decided to stay in America are officially called 'Illegal Aliens'. Liberals and Leftist and illegal alien sympathizers use politically correct euphemisms to lessen the seriousness of the crimes committed to soften the impact of their law breaking.

White House Fence Jumper = An Undocumented White House Visitor / Undocumented Immigrants = future Democrat voters,

[Scott]

Illegal and undocumented are NOT the same thing. The US has a presumption of innocence and when someone is picked up or identified they are not illegal until a legal process says that they are illegal. Thousands of people arrive in the US who are there for a variety of reasons, including seeking asylum and refugee status. They may arrive without the proper documents, but they are not illegal.

Although this may sound like splitting hairs, you can be assured that the courts, judges and lawyers are quite well aware of the difference.

[Publicus]

-snip-

Did I mention that the word "amnesty" is not in this case and that the word "amnesty" has no bearing on the case, and that the word "amnesty" is irrelevant and immaterial to the case.

Just to be sure about it, I'll say now for the record that the word "amnesty" is irrelevant and immaterial to this case and that the word "amnesty" appears nowhere meaningfully or significantly in the case. The word "amnesty" has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.

Maybe not, but the Federal Judge in Texas who issued the ruling used the term "illegal immigration" twice in just one paragraph - two sentences in a row - when writing his reasons for his decision and order against Obama.

That's a concept "some people" sure have trouble getting their heads around, but the judge didn't have a problem with it at all.

The judge is of course an attorney, and attorneys by definition are wordsmiths. Listen up, private Publicus:

"The court finds that the government's failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country," Hanen wrote. "Further, the record supports the finding that this lack of enforcement, combined with the country's high rate of illegal immigration, significantly drains the states' resources."

USA Today

Yes, and the term "undocumented alien" has been in common use as being synonymous to "illegal alien.

And the like term "undocumented immigrant" is another term that has currency as also being synonymous to the term "illegal alien."

The more traditional term is of course "illegal alien" but it in recent decades has also been joined by use of the "undocumented alien."

It's six of one and a half dozen of the other which total up to a baker's dozen for the obvious reason the word illegal has more emotive power and it is also more directly literal...but only more so.

In the NE of the US where I grew up the police often said they had arrested a "John Doe" or were looking for him. After I moved to the US South the police there were reported to be looking for "Bubba 1 and Bubba 2" and the like.

You are spinning wildly ... the non offensive names only come about because political correctness is put into play so as to not offend and to make the crime less offensive. I suppose a drug dealer is an undocumented pharmacist - correct?

The U.S.Federal Code - legal statutes created the term -- legal immigrant granted a 'green card' after proper application and waiting in line is officially called a Resident Legal Alien ... Those who have broken U.S. law to enter - cross the border with no visa - actually not even a passport or those who overstayed a visa and decided to stay in America are officially called 'Illegal Aliens'. Liberals and Leftist and illegal alien sympathizers use politically correct euphemisms to lessen the seriousness of the crimes committed to soften the impact of their law breaking.

White House Fence Jumper = An Undocumented White House Visitor / Undocumented Immigrants = future Democrat voters,

That's an interesting bloc of instruction there that you stumbled into at some point somewhere along the line.

It's probably of some value to somebody somewhere....

As for the here and now you'd need move it along now plse thx and take it somewhere else post haste thx again......

Have a good trip.

[Ulysses G.]

Illegal and undocumented are NOT the same thing. The US has a presumption of innocence and when someone is picked up or identified they are not illegal until a legal process says that they are illegal. Thousands of people arrive in the US who are there for a variety of reasons, including seeking asylum and refugee status. They may arrive without the proper documents, but they are not illegal.

Although this may be sound like splitting hairs, you can be assured that the courts, judges and lawyers are quite well aware of the difference.

It certainly sounds like splitting hairs to me - outside of a courtroom. There are numerous opinions on this. I prefer this definition:

illegal alien

noun

1.

a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegal+alien.

[Publicus]

Illegal and undocumented are NOT the same thing. The US has a presumption of innocence and when someone is picked up or identified they are not illegal until a legal process says that they are illegal. Thousands of people arrive in the US who are there for a variety of reasons, including seeking asylum and refugee status. They may arrive without the proper documents, but they are not illegal.

Although this may be sound like splitting hairs, you can be assured that the courts, judges and lawyers are quite well aware of the difference.

It certainly sounds like splitting hairs to me - outside of a courtroom. There are numerous opinions on this. I prefer this definition:

illegal alien

noun

1.

a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegal+alien.

Tell it to the judge.

Appeals judges.

Then the justices of the court.

Check back in again after that.

Refreshments will be served.

[JDGRUEN]

Illegal and undocumented are NOT the same thing. The US has a presumption of innocence and when someone is picked up or identified they are not illegal until a legal process says that they are illegal. Thousands of people arrive in the US who are there for a variety of reasons, including seeking asylum and refugee status. They may arrive without the proper documents, but they are not illegal.

Although this may sound like splitting hairs, you can be assured that the courts, judges and lawyers are quite well aware of the difference.

Illegal Alien is a status assigned by American Immigration Law.. same as Resident Legal Alien as I pointed out. These are the legal terms. What other terms one wants to use depends on their political and philosophical viewpoint.

[zydeco]

Illegal Alien

Also known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of status" and is deportable.

http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Immigration-Terms-and-Definitions-Involving-Aliens

I wouldn't bet my money on a court decision, especially when the IRS thinks otherwise.

Edited February 19, 2015 by zydeco

[Scott]

Illegal and undocumented are NOT the same thing. The US has a presumption of innocence and when someone is picked up or identified they are not illegal until a legal process says that they are illegal. Thousands of people arrive in the US who are there for a variety of reasons, including seeking asylum and refugee status. They may arrive without the proper documents, but they are not illegal.

Although this may be sound like splitting hairs, you can be assured that the courts, judges and lawyers are quite well aware of the difference.

It certainly sounds like splitting hairs to me - outside of a courtroom. There are numerous opinions on this. I prefer this definition:

illegal alien

noun

1.

a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegal+alien.

There are conditions under which a person can enter a country without documentation. Entering a country without documentation is not necessarily illegal. You may also enter a country legally but overstay and become illegal.

It is not splitting hairs, how people arrive, with whom they arrive and the conditions under which they remain are very important factors.

The fact that you don't like them and don't want any of them in your country does not make them something that they are not.

Please stay on topic.

[JDGRUEN]

No White House guess on immigration delay

“Our legal strategy going forward is something that’s going to be determined by the Department of Justice,” said White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest.

http://jamiedupree.blog.whio.com/2015/02/19/no-white-house-guess-on-immigration-delay/

[JDGRUEN]

Federal judge denies White House request for emergency lift of block on immigration order




http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/02/26/federal-judge-denies-white-house-request-for-emergency-lift-block-on/

[F430murci]

-snip-

Did I mention that the word "amnesty" is not in this case and that the word "amnesty" has no bearing on the case, and that the word "amnesty" is irrelevant and immaterial to the case.

Just to be sure about it, I'll say now for the record that the word "amnesty" is irrelevant and immaterial to this case and that the word "amnesty" appears nowhere meaningfully or significantly in the case. The word "amnesty" has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.

Maybe not, but the Federal Judge in Texas who issued the ruling used the term "illegal immigration" twice in just one paragraph - two sentences in a row - when writing his reasons for his decision and order against Obama.

That's a concept "some people" sure have trouble getting their heads around, but the judge didn't have a problem with it at all.

The judge is of course an attorney, and attorneys by definition are wordsmiths. Listen up, private Publicus:

"The court finds that the government's failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country," Hanen wrote. "Further, the record supports the finding that this lack of enforcement, combined with the country's high rate of illegal immigration, significantly drains the states' resources."

USA Today

The federal district judge in this case is a nutcase himself who only the extreme far right take seriously.....

Judge Andrew Hanen so obviously hates both Obama and his immigration actions that no one is going to take his decision seriously. It's a polemic, not a proper court ruling. The case will continue its dreary way through Hanen's docket, but I imagine an appeals court will stay the injunction pretty quickly, and then overrule his inevitable final ruling in short order. The right-wing plaintiffs in this case may have thought they were being clever in venue shopping to get the case before Hanen, but it won't do them any good. It might even backfire, given just how transparently political Hanen's ruling is.

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/federal-judge-who-issued-injunction

Holy crap, Pub. You use a website named Crooks and Liars to call a Federal Judge a nutcase?

Issues such as these may ultimately be heard en banc by the 5th. The Supremes may also accept due to matters of public importance.

Candidly, if Obama's law was such a great idea, he would not have by passed by executive order and circumvented proper routes for implementation.

Obama no longer tries to represent the will of the people. He is solely representing himself and his agendas. He is trying to cram these down our throats by any means possible. Hopefully both this and his Obama care get gutted so we can actually implement programs that benefit the majority, not Obama's chosen few.

[JDGRUEN]

Obama Believes He Alone Is The Law In America

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022715-741325-obama-says-hes-the-law-and-will-rebuke-anyone-who-says-he-isnt.htm

[CMNightRider]

Illegal and undocumented are NOT the same thing. The US has a presumption of innocence and when someone is picked up or identified they are not illegal until a legal process says that they are illegal. Thousands of people arrive in the US who are there for a variety of reasons, including seeking asylum and refugee status. They may arrive without the proper documents, but they are not illegal.

Although this may sound like splitting hairs, you can be assured that the courts, judges and lawyers are quite well aware of the difference.

Supporters of giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens always refer to illegal aliens as undocumented migrants. This is like calling a crack dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist." Obama's amnesty to illegal aliens is just another example of his contempt for the Constitution and the laws he was sworn to upheld. This is not about "splitting hairs," lol.

[sdanielmcev]

Illegal and undocumented are NOT the same thing. The US has a presumption of innocence and when someone is picked up or identified they are not illegal until a legal process says that they are illegal. Thousands of people arrive in the US who are there for a variety of reasons, including seeking asylum and refugee status. They may arrive without the proper documents, but they are not illegal.

Although this may sound like splitting hairs, you can be assured that the courts, judges and lawyers are quite well aware of the difference.

Supporters of giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens always refer to illegal aliens as undocumented migrants. This is like calling a crack dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist." Obama's amnesty to illegal aliens is just another example of his contempt for the Constitution and the laws he was sworn to upheld. This is not about "splitting hairs," lol.

Actually, what Scott gets wrong is 'presumption of innocence.' Entering the country undocumented is illegal. It is illegal before and after any court ruling. The court may decide not to convict if evidence shows outstanding circumstances.

[Publicus]

Gone almost unnoticed in the commotion of today, slippery John Boehner quietly announced before Netanyahu's speech that the Department of Homeland Security funding bill will be presented to the House as a clean bill, i.e., absent anything about immigration or the president's executive action in respect of immigration.

Boehner is hoping no one will notice the white flag flying over the House building of the Capitol complex when the 'clean' bill is brought to the floor for the expected yea vote in a day or two. Republicans in the House still have to salute it however no matter what.

BTW yes, an undocumented alien is present illegally whether convicted yet or not, and this legal principle applies across the laws. (A murderer is a murderer whomever he may be unless the person is determined by a court of law to be not guilty...so in this instance the murderer continues to remain a murderer.)

Yet, while an undocumented alien is by definition in the country illegally, s/he is a legal person who is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment provides that any person in the jurisdiction of the United States is a legal person who is therefore entitled to the "equal protection of the law."

At Guantanamo every person released without a trial was released because while under the jurisdiction of the United States he is a legal person. There is no question the US Naval base there is under the "sole" jurisdiction of the United States, albeit within the sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

-snip-

Yet, while an undocumented alien is by definition in the country illegally, s/he is a legal person who is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment provides that any person in the jurisdiction of the United States is a legal person who is therefore entitled to the "equal protection of the law."

At Guantanamo every person released without a trial was released because while under the jurisdiction of the United States he is a legal person. There is no question the US Naval base there is under the "sole" jurisdiction of the United States, albeit within the sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba.

Please show me where the protections of the 14th Amendment apply to anyone other than citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. End of.

Great rant though. I'm just happy that it's digital and not wasting ink and paper.

[Publicus]

-snip-

Yet, while an undocumented alien is by definition in the country illegally, s/he is a legal person who is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment provides that any person in the jurisdiction of the United States is a legal person who is therefore entitled to the "equal protection of the law."

At Guantanamo every person released without a trial was released because while under the jurisdiction of the United States he is a legal person. There is no question the US Naval base there is under the "sole" jurisdiction of the United States, albeit within the sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba.

Please show me where the protections of the 14th Amendment apply to anyone other than citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. End of.

Great rant though. I'm just happy that it's digital and not wasting ink and paper.

Please show me where the protections of the 14th Amendment apply to anyone other than citizens.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Which is necessary because conservatives are the most fast and loose when it comes to the civil rights provisions of the Constitution and in respect of the laws of immigration and naturalized citizenship. In other words, the 14th Amendment and its equal protection of the laws applies to each person under the jurisdiction of the United States.

In the ruling quoted below, the SCOTUS reaffirmed its previous rulings interpreting the Constitution by throwing out numerous severe provisions of the 1996 Gingrich-Clinton immigration laws which had attempted to deny illegal immigrants their Constitutional rights.

The Court reaffirmed its previous case precedents that "noncitizens" have the right of legal review in deportation cases. The ruling reaffirmed the legal rights of illegal aliens to appeal due process decisions of the government that otherwise adversely impact them. The Court also noted its ruling is intended to improve the government in the performance of its duties and responsibilities in these respects.

From an analysis of the Court's ruling concerning these issues....

In the final week of its 2001 term, the United States Supreme Court...reaffirmed the right of noncitizens to seek federal court review of legal interpretations made in deportation cases.

On the ability of deportable immigrants to seek federal court review of Justice Department legal interpretations...the Court held...that deportable immigrants could still seek habeas corpus review. Because a repeal of habeas corpus jurisdiction would have raised "substantial constitutional questions" given the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Court was not willing to infer such a repeal from the broad, sweeping language of the law.

http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/vol12_no2/art6p1.html

[NeverSure]

-snip-

Yet, while an undocumented alien is by definition in the country illegally, s/he is a legal person who is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment provides that any person in the jurisdiction of the United States is a legal person who is therefore entitled to the "equal protection of the law."

At Guantanamo every person released without a trial was released because while under the jurisdiction of the United States he is a legal person. There is no question the US Naval base there is under the "sole" jurisdiction of the United States, albeit within the sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba.

Please show me where the protections of the 14th Amendment apply to anyone other than citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. End of.

Great rant though. I'm just happy that it's digital and not wasting ink and paper.

Please show me where the protections of the 14th Amendment apply to anyone other than citizens.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Which is necessary because conservatives are the most fast and loose when it comes to the civil rights provisions of the Constitution and in respect of the laws of immigration and naturalized citizenship. In other words, the 14th Amendment and its equal protection of the laws applies to each person under the jurisdiction of the United States.

In the ruling quoted below, the SCOTUS reaffirmed its previous rulings interpreting the Constitution by throwing out numerous severe provisions of the 1996 Gingrich-Clinton immigration laws which had attempted to deny illegal immigrants their Constitutional rights.

The Court reaffirmed its previous case precedents that "noncitizens" have the right of legal review in deportation cases. The ruling reaffirmed the legal rights of illegal aliens to appeal due process decisions of the government that otherwise adversely impact them. The Court also noted its ruling is intended to improve the government in the performance of its duties and responsibilities in these respects.

From an analysis of the Court's ruling concerning these issues....

In the final week of its 2001 term, the United States Supreme Court...reaffirmed the right of noncitizens to seek federal court review of legal interpretations made in deportation cases.

On the ability of deportable immigrants to seek federal court review of Justice Department legal interpretations...the Court held...that deportable immigrants could still seek habeas corpus review. Because a repeal of habeas corpus jurisdiction would have raised "substantial constitutional questions" given the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Court was not willing to infer such a repeal from the broad, sweeping language of the law.

http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/vol12_no2/art6p1.html

I challenged you for saying "equal protection clause" and "14th Amendment".

You come back with a habeas corpus deal from Article I, Section 9, Clause 2.

Not only is it not in the 14th Amendment as you claimed, but it's a Supreme Court ruling on something else with no explanation from you as to how it's relevant or material in the instant case.

Still happy you aren't wasting paper and ink.

Try again.

[Scott]

Illegal and undocumented are NOT the same thing. The US has a presumption of innocence and when someone is picked up or identified they are not illegal until a legal process says that they are illegal. Thousands of people arrive in the US who are there for a variety of reasons, including seeking asylum and refugee status. They may arrive without the proper documents, but they are not illegal.

Although this may sound like splitting hairs, you can be assured that the courts, judges and lawyers are quite well aware of the difference.

Supporters of giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens always refer to illegal aliens as undocumented migrants. This is like calling a crack dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist." Obama's amnesty to illegal aliens is just another example of his contempt for the Constitution and the laws he was sworn to upheld. This is not about "splitting hairs," lol.

It's a nice deflection but it is incorrect. People enter the United States seeking refugee status. They may well be undocumented, but entering the US and seeking asylum is not illegal. They are undocumented, but they are not illegal.

Once a persons case has been rejected or denied, they may likely become an illegal alien.

Sometime ago, in a roundup of 'illegal aliens' several people were rounded up. They were legal in the US, but they were undocumented at the time of arrest. The same sort of thing has happened to people in Thailand who are detained pending producing documentation.

If you wish to split hairs, feel free to do so, but then do it correctly.

Do you wish to spend thousands and thousands of dollars to deport people who will be able to return to the US and in some cases, very quickly and legally, or should their situation be legalized within the US? An example is an undocumented (or illegal if you prefer) mother of children who were born in the US? Some of those children may be old enough to refuse to return to a foreign country and as a US citizen, they cannot be forced to do so, at least not easily. Should the mother be returned and leave the children without a parent? Should the US pay thousands of dollars to deport her and then hundreds of thousands of dollars to support her children in foster care (many years ago, that cost was around 250,000 per year per child in foster care).

If you say yes, then be aware that a petition can be filed on her behalf to return to the US and as the parent of minor children, her case will be handled immediately and she will likely be right back in the US.

I don't have a horse in this race, and I really don't care if that's how the US decides to spend it's money. But those who worry about the cost factors should be aware that deportation is a very, very expensive legal ordeal.

The majority of the people being discussed are probably illegal in every sense of the word and there may not be any mitigating circumstances, but each case still needs to be reviewed and looked at.

Both republican and democratic presidents have a history of not being heavy handed with these folks and there reasons are probably more pragmatic than political.

The solution is to try to keep people from entering illegally and if dealing with the situation in as expediently as possible.

[sdanielmcev]

Illegal and undocumented are NOT the same thing. The US has a presumption of innocence and when someone is picked up or identified they are not illegal until a legal process says that they are illegal. Thousands of people arrive in the US who are there for a variety of reasons, including seeking asylum and refugee status. They may arrive without the proper documents, but they are not illegal.

Although this may sound like splitting hairs, you can be assured that the courts, judges and lawyers are quite well aware of the difference.

Supporters of giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens always refer to illegal aliens as undocumented migrants. This is like calling a crack dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist." Obama's amnesty to illegal aliens is just another example of his contempt for the Constitution and the laws he was sworn to upheld. This is not about "splitting hairs," lol.

It's a nice deflection but it is incorrect. People enter the United States seeking refugee status. They may well be undocumented, but entering the US and seeking asylum is not illegal. They are undocumented, but they are not illegal.

Once a persons case has been rejected or denied, they may likely become an illegal alien.

Sometime ago, in a roundup of 'illegal aliens' several people were rounded up. They were legal in the US, but they were undocumented at the time of arrest. The same sort of thing has happened to people in Thailand who are detained pending producing documentation.

If you wish to split hairs, feel free to do so, but then do it correctly.

Do you wish to spend thousands and thousands of dollars to deport people who will be able to return to the US and in some cases, very quickly and legally, or should their situation be legalized within the US? An example is an undocumented (or illegal if you prefer) mother of children who were born in the US? Some of those children may be old enough to refuse to return to a foreign country and as a US citizen, they cannot be forced to do so, at least not easily. Should the mother be returned and leave the children without a parent? Should the US pay thousands of dollars to deport her and then hundreds of thousands of dollars to support her children in foster care (many years ago, that cost was around 250,000 per year per child in foster care).

If you say yes, then be aware that a petition can be filed on her behalf to return to the US and as the parent of minor children, her case will be handled immediately and she will likely be right back in the US.

I don't have a horse in this race, and I really don't care if that's how the US decides to spend it's money. But those who worry about the cost factors should be aware that deportation is a very, very expensive legal ordeal.

The majority of the people being discussed are probably illegal in every sense of the word and there may not be any mitigating circumstances, but each case still needs to be reviewed and looked at.

Both republican and democratic presidents have a history of not being heavy handed with these folks and there reasons are probably more pragmatic than political.

The solution is to try to keep people from entering illegally and if dealing with the situation in as expediently as possible.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Entering the US, and any other country undocumented is illegal. Even those seeking asylum.

The notion of separating children from their mothers, while heartrending, is no excuse for breaking the law.

[NeverSure]

Illegal and undocumented are NOT the same thing. The US has a presumption of innocence and when someone is picked up or identified they are not illegal until a legal process says that they are illegal. Thousands of people arrive in the US who are there for a variety of reasons, including seeking asylum and refugee status. They may arrive without the proper documents, but they are not illegal.

Although this may sound like splitting hairs, you can be assured that the courts, judges and lawyers are quite well aware of the difference.

Supporters of giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens always refer to illegal aliens as undocumented migrants. This is like calling a crack dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist." Obama's amnesty to illegal aliens is just another example of his contempt for the Constitution and the laws he was sworn to upheld. This is not about "splitting hairs," lol.

It's a nice deflection but it is incorrect. People enter the United States seeking refugee status. They may well be undocumented, but entering the US and seeking asylum is not illegal. They are undocumented, but they are not illegal.

Once a persons case has been rejected or denied, they may likely become an illegal alien.

Sometime ago, in a roundup of 'illegal aliens' several people were rounded up. They were legal in the US, but they were undocumented at the time of arrest. The same sort of thing has happened to people in Thailand who are detained pending producing documentation.

If you wish to split hairs, feel free to do so, but then do it correctly.

Do you wish to spend thousands and thousands of dollars to deport people who will be able to return to the US and in some cases, very quickly and legally, or should their situation be legalized within the US? An example is an undocumented (or illegal if you prefer) mother of children who were born in the US? Some of those children may be old enough to refuse to return to a foreign country and as a US citizen, they cannot be forced to do so, at least not easily. Should the mother be returned and leave the children without a parent? Should the US pay thousands of dollars to deport her and then hundreds of thousands of dollars to support her children in foster care (many years ago, that cost was around 250,000 per year per child in foster care).

If you say yes, then be aware that a petition can be filed on her behalf to return to the US and as the parent of minor children, her case will be handled immediately and she will likely be right back in the US.

I don't have a horse in this race, and I really don't care if that's how the US decides to spend it's money. But those who worry about the cost factors should be aware that deportation is a very, very expensive legal ordeal.

The majority of the people being discussed are probably illegal in every sense of the word and there may not be any mitigating circumstances, but each case still needs to be reviewed and looked at.

Both republican and democratic presidents have a history of not being heavy handed with these folks and there reasons are probably more pragmatic than political.

The solution is to try to keep people from entering illegally and if dealing with the situation in as expediently as possible.

Scott, I agree with your last sentence and other parts of it.

However, you are off topic.

The instant case before the Texas Court, the judge's ruling, and the first paragraph in the OP here are about Illegals. Let me quote you that first paragraph in the body of the OP:

"U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen's decision comes after a hearing in Brownsville, Texas, in January. It puts on hold Obama's orders that could spare as many as five million people who are in the U.S. illegally from deportation."

The topic is about illegal immigration.

Cheers

[NeverSure]

Please show me where the protections of the 14th Amendment apply to anyone other than citizens.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Which is necessary because conservatives are the most fast and loose when it comes to the civil rights provisions of the Constitution and in respect of the laws of immigration and naturalized citizenship. In other words, the 14th Amendment and its equal protection of the laws applies to each person under the jurisdiction of the United States.

In the ruling quoted below, the SCOTUS reaffirmed its previous rulings interpreting the Constitution by throwing out numerous severe provisions of the 1996 Gingrich-Clinton immigration laws which had attempted to deny illegal immigrants their Constitutional rights.

The Court reaffirmed its previous case precedents that "noncitizens" have the right of legal review in deportation cases. The ruling reaffirmed the legal rights of illegal aliens to appeal due process decisions of the government that otherwise adversely impact them. The Court also noted its ruling is intended to improve the government in the performance of its duties and responsibilities in these respects.

From an analysis of the Court's ruling concerning these issues....

In the final week of its 2001 term, the United States Supreme Court...reaffirmed the right of noncitizens to seek federal court review of legal interpretations made in deportation cases.

On the ability of deportable immigrants to seek federal court review of Justice Department legal interpretations...the Court held...that deportable immigrants could still seek habeas corpus review. Because a repeal of habeas corpus jurisdiction would have raised "substantial constitutional questions" given the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Court was not willing to infer such a repeal from the broad, sweeping language of the law.

http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/vol12_no2/art6p1.html

I challenged you for saying "equal protection clause" and "14th Amendment".

You come back with a habeas corpus deal from Article I, Section 9, Clause 2.

Not only is it not in the 14th Amendment as you claimed, but it's a Supreme Court ruling on something else with no explanation from you as to how it's relevant or material in the instant case.

Still happy you aren't wasting paper and ink.

Try again.

Please show me where the protections of the 14th Amendment apply to anyone other than citizens.

My post did that but then another of your posts went off and running yet again.

Habeas corpus applies across the laws to include immigrants of any category. This is so because any person under the jurisdiction of the United States has the equal protection of the laws provided in the 14th Amendment. That's what SCOTUS said in the ruling I quoted in my post. I even used Guantanamo as a illustration.

So here's the 14th Amendment language which is explicit in respect of citizens and equally to "all persons" so the emphasis is added, followed by the case law and the url cite in which the SCOTUS said the 14th Amendment applies to illegal aliens, which is so because illegal aliens are persons within the jurisdiction of the United States....

The Congress shall have power to make laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and to all persons in the several States equal protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property.

In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the 14th Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.

I reiterate that conservatives are the most fast, loose, wrongheaded -- and moreover negligent and callous -- citizens when it comes to the civil rights aspects of the Constitution.

Conservatives are moreover the most harsh and severe on immigrants and immigration while simultaneously being the least informed and educated in same. Conservatives want the immigrant labor, to include especially illegal immigrant labor, but don't want to pay a dime for it, and their values toward immigrant families reveal an absurd double standard.

This tea party federal judge down there in Texas is so strident against immigrants and immigration and equal protection of the laws that he is trying to write new law and has issued a temporary injunction against the government, both of which are radical actions for any federal judge, but are cosmic actions for a conservative federal judge, especially one who is dealing with a sensitive issue besides.

The tea party judge trying to write new and severe immigration law marks this judge as a radical activist conservative judge....yet another conservative and radical activist judge. So we'll see how things may go in the higher appellate courts.

OK, That's all I asked for. The rest of your insults about groups of people you disagree with are over the top and I won't reciprocate.