Federal judge stalls Obama's executive action on immigration

[Publicus]

That's being conservative about it.

[CharlieH]

A post containing over sized and bold fonts etc has been removed. Please do not post in this manner or it will be deleted.

Forum Netiquette

1. Please do not post in all capital letters, bold, unusual fonts, sizes or colors. It can be difficult to read.

[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.

My post did that but then another of your posts went off and running yet again, so here we are back at it again, but schooling is important and valuable to anyone so I'm pleased to oblige your skeptical demand.

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."

Further and more directly to the show-me demand stated in your post.....

"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.abo...legalrights.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."

Both statutory immigration law and the SCOTUS case/common law precedents draw on the 14th Amendment to guarantee legal constitutional rights to illegal immigrants because they are persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. Each state is therefore constitutionally obligated to bear the cost of public schooling of illegal immigrants to include the children of illegal immigrants. And not only public schooling. Each state is obligated under statutory immigration law and SCOTUS case law precedent to bear the medical costs of indigent illegal aliens and must bear the costs of other social security and public welfare and public safety responsibilities and obligations that are available or provided to citizens ourselves.

Which means the case brought by the 26 Republican controlled states has no standing and it has no merit, either in the entire history of statutory immigration law or in the SCOTUS case/common law and its legal precedents of the past 238 years.

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

The federal judge down there in Texas who is trying to write new and severe immigration law while enjoining the federal government calls attention to himself as the activist judge that he is. This judge is nothing more than another activist federal judge but he comes at us from the tea party far right. So we'll see how things may go in the higher appellate courts where the judges are on the whole diverse and have a respect of both statutory law and for the case law precedents of SCOTUS.

[sdanielmcev]

Judge Hanen is not writing new law, he is enforcing existing law. And, nowhere has the immigrants' rights been violated, so the 14th amendment does not apply, according to this case. The case is State of Texas vs the US. Once again you are off topic obfuscating

[Publicus]

Judge Hanen is not writing new law, he is enforcing existing law. And, nowhere has the immigrants' rights been violated, so the 14th amendment does not apply, according to this case. The case is State of Texas vs the US. Once again you are off topic obfuscating

Thank you for your unsupported and ill considered opinion.

It will be given every consideration that it deserves.

Provided, that is, it is presented in a respectable exposition of commentary and analysis.

Anyone can sit and carp to pronounce ex cathedra but as I'd advised others, even the pope when he pronounces has to produce his Bull.

The Papal Bull agree with it or not contains substance in support of the opinion and it takes down the other guy.

Or one can simply sit around and pronounce.

Up to you.

Some people don't know when to hold 'em or when to fold 'em, so maybe that's it.

[snarky66]

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.

Totally bogus. Wouldn't a real refugee declare themselves at the border? to my way of thinking anyone who is picked up prior to them buying their forged documents should be deported forthwith

[snarky66]

btw obama is not doing this for humanitarian reasons, he views these people as future democrats. FDR pulled the same kind of bs.

[Publicus]

btw obama is not doing this for humanitarian reasons, he views these people as future democrats. FDR pulled the same kind of bs.

The Democratic party has always been the party of immigrants, from President Andrew Jackson especially who promoted the 'common man' over the East Coast established elites that eventually after Jackson's presidency became the Republican party.

There is nothing new in what the Democratic party President Barack Obama is doing which is in the nature of democratic government and political systems. Political parties represent constituencies and the Republican party has always ignored immigrants except to mass deport them as was done notoriously in the instance of Prez Hoover.

Immigrants have always known which political party in office is in their best interests, and that is the Democratic party for going on 200 years.

[sdanielmcev]

Judge Hanen is not writing new law, he is enforcing existing law. And, nowhere has the immigrants' rights been violated, so the 14th amendment does not apply, according to this case. The case is State of Texas vs the US. Once again you are off topic obfuscating

Thank you for your unsupported and ill considered opinion.

It will be given every consideration that it deserves.

Provided, that is, it is presented in a respectable exposition of commentary and analysis.

Anyone can sit and carp to pronounce ex cathedra but as I'd advised others, even the pope when he pronounces has to produce his Bull.

The Papal Bull agree with it or not contains substance in support of the opinion and it takes down the other guy.

Or one can simply sit around and pronounce.

Up to you.

Some people don't know when to hold 'em or when to fold 'em, so maybe that's it.

So now you insult the Pope? And bring in Catholicism into the argument? Your obfuscating grows more ridiculous with each post.

You're entitled to your opinion, not your own facts.

[Publicus]

Judge Hanen is not writing new law, he is enforcing existing law. And, nowhere has the immigrants' rights been violated, so the 14th amendment does not apply, according to this case. The case is State of Texas vs the US. Once again you are off topic obfuscating

Thank you for your unsupported and ill considered opinion.

It will be given every consideration that it deserves.

Provided, that is, it is presented in a respectable exposition of commentary and analysis.

Anyone can sit and carp to pronounce ex cathedra but as I'd advised others, even the pope when he pronounces has to produce his Bull.

The Papal Bull agree with it or not contains substance in support of the opinion and it takes down the other guy.

Or one can simply sit around and pronounce.

Up to you.

Some people don't know when to hold 'em or when to fold 'em, so maybe that's it.

So now you insult the Pope? And bring in Catholicism into the argument? Your obfuscating grows more ridiculous with each post.

You're entitled to your opinion, not your own facts.

Thank you again for your opinion and for reading my posts to the point of responding to almost each one, albeit it pithily.

Your views will continue to receive every consideration that they deserve.

[NeverSure]

btw obama is not doing this for humanitarian reasons, he views these people as future democrats. FDR pulled the same kind of bs.

-snip-

Immigrants have always known which political party in office is in their best interests, and that is the Democratic party for going on 200 years.

And you succinctly make the point as to why the Democrats want these illegal aliens in the country. Thank you for your time.

[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.

Totally bogus. Wouldn't a real refugee declare themselves at the border? to my way of thinking anyone who is picked up prior to them buying their forged documents should be deported forthwith

Yes they would and that's why the case filed with the court, and the judge's ruling, and the topic of this OP are about illegal immigration only. Anyone claiming refugee status will be treated differently. The judge didn't address that.

Democrats are lawbreakers who will aid and abet the crime of illegal immigration to get voters regardless of what it costs society in other areas. The federal judge in this case sided with Texas as to what needs to be done when an illegal immigrant is found in the country.

Anyone American who is lawful by nature could not agree with Obama and his Democrats about this lawlessness. Obama is a runaway train wreck when it comes to following the laws.

[Publicus]

btw obama is not doing this for humanitarian reasons, he views these people as future democrats. FDR pulled the same kind of bs.

-snip-

Immigrants have always known which political party in office is in their best interests, and that is the Democratic party for going on 200 years.

And you succinctly make the point as to why the Democrats want these illegal aliens in the country. Thank you for your time.

As I have documented in a direct response to your ill informed conservative agenda, illegal immigrants are legal persons under the Constitution of the United States, and as such they are granted the same rights as citizens, so says the SCOTUS over the 238 year history of the United States (although the first SCOTUS ruling on this did not come until after the 14th Amendment was adopted post bellum).

SCOTUS and the 14th Amendment have made absolutely and unmistakably clear that "all persons" in the jurisdiction of the United States have the 14th Amendment equal protection of the law. All persons. Period. Aliens and citizens. Period. The SCOTUS says so because the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says so. End of.

Known as the "Reconstruction Amendment," the 14th Amendment forbids any state to deny any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/recon/jb_recon_revised_1.html

It is therefore fact that to oppose illegal immigrants, which are the most extreme instance of immigration, is to oppose immigration itself. The far and extreme right have exposed themselves during this dispute involving the tea party federal judge down in Texas as opposed to immigration itself, same as the judge is opposed to immigration itself, opposed to Prez Obama, opposed to the equal protection of the law for illegal immigrants, as provided in the Constitution and in the case law precedents of SCOTUS.

The Republican party is opposed to immigration and it finally made itself absolutely and unmistakably clear about that since the tea party was organized in February 2009, false pronouncements to the contrary by the right wing notwithstanding.

The states must pay the costs of immigration the same as the federal government must pay. This means the states in their lawsuit have no standing to sue the federal government and that both the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS case law precedent rulings based on it since its adoption in 1868 dictates that the states' case has no merit as well, period.

Today's conservatives and the Republican party refuse to accept this. The refusal is known as the doctrine of nullification and interposition, which is what the suit brought by the 26 Republican party controlled states are doing in this case that the tea party federal judge they chose down there in Texas is supporting and promoting.

Nullification: United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional.

Interposition: is closely related to the theory of nullification, which holds that the states have the right to nullify federal laws that are deemed unconstitutional and to prevent enforcement of such laws within their borders.

Though interposition and nullification are similar, there are some differences. Nullification is an act of an individual state, while interposition is undertaken by states acting jointly. Nullification is a declaration that a federal law is unconstitutional accompanied by a declaration that the law is void and may not be enforced in the state. Interposition also involves a declaration that a federal law is unconstitutional, but after the interposition that law would still be enforced in the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullifi...._Constitution)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interposition

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its Governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.

Transcript of speech by

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

August 28, 1963. Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.

http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/mlk.htm

Edited March 4, 2015 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

-snip-

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its Governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.

Transcript of speech by

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

August 28, 1963. Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.

http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/mlk.htm

Don't tarnish Dr. King with your off-topic rants. The blacks and others he was supporting were legal citizens.

He was a fine man and did great things which he died for.

You are outrageously presumptuous to imply he would support your position.

Dr. King fought for equal rights for all citizens. Citizens.

Dr. King championed the 1965 immigration act for legal immigration.

Don't imply the this fine man championed the crime of illegal immigration.

[Publicus]

-snip-

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its Governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.

Transcript of speech by

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

August 28, 1963. Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.

http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/mlk.htm

Don't tarnish Dr. King with your off-topic rants. The blacks and others he was supporting were legal citizens.

He was a fine man and did great things which he died for.

You are outrageously presumptuous to imply he would support your position.

Dr. King fought for equal rights for all citizens. Citizens.

Dr. King championed the 1965 immigration act for legal immigration.

Don't imply the this fine man championed the crime of illegal immigration.

The anti-immigration extreme right wing which is in the very receptive and accepted control of the also anti-immigration Republican party are in extreme denial, but that is not a news bulletin. John Boehner under the absolute control of the tea party Republicans in the Congress is living proof of the fact.

Just look at the Republican party today because it is obvious.

The attempt to deflect from the central theme of immigration, the 14th Amendment, the SCOTUS and its case law precedent since 1868, and the reality of the Constitution, immigration, "all persons," SCOTUS, fails.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Publicus

[sdanielmcev]

The central theme of illegal immigration is not the 14th amendment. It is the rule of law. Republicans are not opposed to immigration, they are opposed to illegal immigration. Using the 14th amendment as a cover to protect criminals gets around the fact that these people are stealing identities.

[Publicus]

The central theme of illegal immigration is not the 14th amendment. It is the rule of law. Republicans are not opposed to immigration, they are opposed to illegal immigration. Using the 14th amendment as a cover to protect criminals gets around the fact that these people are stealing identities.

People who say that, whether they believe it or not, are wrong.

The reading of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says they are wrong.

SCOTUS in all of its case law precedent ruling in interpreting the 14th Amendment says they are wrong.

Illegal immigrants are indeed illegal immigrants, however, they are legal persons because they are within the jurisdiction of the United States. As legal persons under the 14th Amendment and all of the subsequent rulings of the SCOTUS, illegal immigrants are granted the same fundamental, undeniable, constitutional rights granted to all Americans.

The states and the feds have to pay the costs of illegal immigrants who are entitled to the same rights and services as citizens. This means the states' lawsuit has no standing and the case has no merit on the substance of the claims made by the 26 (Republican controlled) states that filed suit. Moreover, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that in a conflict between federal and state laws or constitutions, the laws and/or the Constitution of the United States prevail as the superior and controlling statutes and document.

Face the reality of it, all who are out there on the right, in the tea party, in, or supporting, the Republican party. Read the 14th Amendment...again...and yet again....and then some more....

"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.abo...legalrights.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."

They are illegal aliens but under the 14th Amendment, they are legal persons because they are under the jurisdiction of the United States and the Constitution of the United States. Illegal aliens are therefore granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans. This is the rule of law.

[snarky66]

The way to stop this is to slap a 50,000 dollar fine on anyone who hires an illegal. Very shortly after that the mexicans will self deport.

Edited March 5, 2015 by snarky66

[sdanielmcev]

The central theme of illegal immigration is not the 14th amendment. It is the rule of law. Republicans are not opposed to immigration, they are opposed to illegal immigration. Using the 14th amendment as a cover to protect criminals gets around the fact that these people are stealing identities.

People who say that, whether they believe it or not, are wrong.

The reading of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says they are wrong.

SCOTUS in all of its case law precedent ruling in interpreting the 14th Amendment says they are wrong.

Illegal immigrants are indeed illegal immigrants, however, they are legal persons because they are within the jurisdiction of the United States. As legal persons under the 14th Amendment and all of the subsequent rulings of the SCOTUS, illegal immigrants are granted the same fundamental, undeniable, constitutional rights granted to all Americans.

The states and the feds have to pay the costs of illegal immigrants who are entitled to the same rights and services as citizens. This means the states' lawsuit has no standing and the case has no merit on the substance of the claims made by the 26 (Republican controlled) states that filed suit. Moreover, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that in a conflict between federal and state laws or constitutions, the laws and/or the Constitution of the United States prevail as the superior and controlling statutes and document.

Face the reality of it, all who are out there on the right, in the tea party, in, or supporting, the Republican party. Read the 14th Amendment...again...and yet again....and then some more....

"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.abo...legalrights.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."

They are illegal aliens but under the 14th Amendment, they are legal persons because they are under the jurisdiction of the United States and the Constitution of the United States. Illegal aliens are therefore granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans. This is the rule of law.

Once again the arguement is not about the 14th amendment. It is about rule of law. They are illegal, as you just admitted. Thereby subject to prosecution and deportation. Obama, by his executive action tried to forestall enforcement of proven law. Those 26 states have every legal right to sue the US federal government.

[Publicus]

The central theme of illegal immigration is not the 14th amendment. It is the rule of law. Republicans are not opposed to immigration, they are opposed to illegal immigration. Using the 14th amendment as a cover to protect criminals gets around the fact that these people are stealing identities.

People who say that, whether they believe it or not, are wrong.

The reading of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says they are wrong.

SCOTUS in all of its case law precedent ruling in interpreting the 14th Amendment says they are wrong.

Illegal immigrants are indeed illegal immigrants, however, they are legal persons because they are within the jurisdiction of the United States. As legal persons under the 14th Amendment and all of the subsequent rulings of the SCOTUS, illegal immigrants are granted the same fundamental, undeniable, constitutional rights granted to all Americans.

The states and the feds have to pay the costs of illegal immigrants who are entitled to the same rights and services as citizens. This means the states' lawsuit has no standing and the case has no merit on the substance of the claims made by the 26 (Republican controlled) states that filed suit. Moreover, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that in a conflict between federal and state laws or constitutions, the laws and/or the Constitution of the United States prevail as the superior and controlling statutes and document.

Face the reality of it, all who are out there on the right, in the tea party, in, or supporting, the Republican party. Read the 14th Amendment...again...and yet again....and then some more....

"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.abo...legalrights.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."

They are illegal aliens but under the 14th Amendment, they are legal persons because they are under the jurisdiction of the United States and the Constitution of the United States. Illegal aliens are therefore granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans. This is the rule of law.

Once again the arguement is not about the 14th amendment. It is about rule of law. They are illegal, as you just admitted. Thereby subject to prosecution and deportation. Obama, by his executive action tried to forestall enforcement of proven law. Those 26 states have every legal right to sue the US federal government.

Give up the ghost.

The 14th Amendment adopted in 1868 guarantees that every state will provide the equal protection of the laws to "all persons" in each state, citizens and illegal immigrants alike. This is called the rule of law.

Illegal immigrants are illegal, yes, everyone agrees on that...no problem. Yes, illegal aliens are subject to prosecution and deportation, you betcha, that's what the laws say and that is what is and has been done since the laws began...yep, for sure, everyone agrees.

Prez Obama's executive action delays (forestalls as some say) enforcement of existing law, yes, very good, everyone agrees.

The 26 Republican controlled states have every legal right to sue the federal government, yes, anyone can sue anyone...for sure, guaranteed...just be sure to pay your lawyers their fees no matter the outcome.

All of the case law and legal precedent of the SCOTUS says illegal aliens have equal protection of the laws same as citizens do. Anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States is automatically a legal person, which grants the person the protections of the Constitution and the laws.

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "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."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htmo

"While illegal aliens do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution , specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to U.S. citizens convicted of felonies. 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."

http://classroom.synonym.com/illegal-immigrants-protected-constitution-17260.html

So here comes Texas again, this time with its tea party federal judge whose ruling is already on appeal. The judge's ruling is contradicted by all of the case law and legal precedents of SCOTUS on the issue of illegal aliens, most specifically, in the Court's reading of the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the 14th Amendment. If I were a betting man, I'd take you to the cleaners on this one too. All you'd have left is the shirt on your back.

[chuckd]

For the life of me, I can't seem to find among all that bloviating, a single reference to the legality of government issuing to illegal immigrants such things as Driver's license, Social Security numbers, work permits, coverage under the Affordable Care Act, food stamp program, AFDC benefits, Medicaid, Medicare etc, etc, etc.

Where, exactly is all that covered in the Constitution in general and the 14th Amendment specifically?

It should also be noted that social security cards and driver's license are two federally recognized forms of identification to identify eligible voters.

When and where did the Secretary of DHS, Jeh Johnson, obtain the authority to enact these changes on the US government?

The President has no such power and chose not to try and exercise any, so why does a Cabinet Secretary suddenly feel he can decree something that Congress hasn't authorized nor wants done? Where is that power written in the Constitution?

[Publicus]

For the life of me, I can't seem to find among all that bloviating, a single reference to the legality of government issuing to illegal immigrants such things as Driver's license, Social Security numbers, work permits, coverage under the Affordable Care Act, food stamp program, AFDC benefits, Medicaid, Medicare etc, etc, etc.

Where, exactly is all that covered in the Constitution in general and the 14th Amendment specifically?

It should also be noted that social security cards and driver's license are two federally recognized forms of identification to identify eligible voters.

When and where did the Secretary of DHS, Jeh Johnson, obtain the authority to enact these changes on the US government?

The President has no such power and chose not to try and exercise any, so why does a Cabinet Secretary suddenly feel he can decree something that Congress hasn't authorized nor wants done? Where is that power written in the Constitution?

"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."

"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."

Meaning to include everything from a driver's license to a jury trial on a charge of murder. Equal treatment and application of the laws, to include equal eligibility unless otherwise stipulated in the law and only for reasons of sound public policy, rather than as an act of discrimination that would deny due process or equal protection of the laws solely because the person might be an illegal immigrant.

SCOTUS has consistently ruled that Illegal immigrants are protected and eligible under the equal application of the laws to all persons under the jurisdiction of the United States.

http://www.readingrockets.org/article/using-think-alouds-improve-reading-comprehension

[Publicus]

For the life of me, I can't seem to find among all that bloviating, a single reference to the legality of government issuing to illegal immigrants such things as Driver's license, Social Security numbers, work permits, coverage under the Affordable Care Act, food stamp program, AFDC benefits, Medicaid, Medicare etc, etc, etc.

Where, exactly is all that covered in the Constitution in general and the 14th Amendment specifically?

It should also be noted that social security cards and driver's license are two federally recognized forms of identification to identify eligible voters.

When and where did the Secretary of DHS, Jeh Johnson, obtain the authority to enact these changes on the US government?

The President has no such power and chose not to try and exercise any, so why does a Cabinet Secretary suddenly feel he can decree something that Congress hasn't authorized nor wants done? Where is that power written in the Constitution?

Conservatives have these issues.

Conservatives have these issues because they oppose illegal immigrants being present and having the equal protection of the laws and the equal treatment of the laws provided in the Constitution and in all of the case law precedent of the SCOTUS over 238 years.

Conservatives want to discriminate against illegal immigrants but the Constitution and the SCOTUS says you cannot.

SCOTUS has ruled illegal immigrants cannot vote nor can they own guns. Everything else in respect of illegal immigrants is Constitutional. The president's authority, the authority of the Executive, is being challenged in the federal courts so everyone will see how that turns out.

In the meantime, do try to keep up with the rule of law as explicitly stated in the Constitution and by the SCOTUS. Conservatives cannot discriminate against illegal immigrants, aka undocumented immigrants. Which also means conservatives are going to lose the current case they are pressing in the federal courts.

[chuckd]

Uh...the current case isn't about discrimination.

It isn't about the President's authority.

It is about the federal government not following their own law in changing the rules on immigration by following proper procedures.

To make my point yet again...there is NO Executive Order, NO Executive Memoranda and NO KNOWN e-mail that emanated from the Oval Office directing this action.

How could this case possibly be about the President's authority when no Presidential authority was ever exercised?

[sdanielmcev]

For the life of me, I can't seem to find among all that bloviating, a single reference to the legality of government issuing to illegal immigrants such things as Driver's license, Social Security numbers, work permits, coverage under the Affordable Care Act, food stamp program, AFDC benefits, Medicaid, Medicare etc, etc, etc.

Where, exactly is all that covered in the Constitution in general and the 14th Amendment specifically?

It should also be noted that social security cards and driver's license are two federally recognized forms of identification to identify eligible voters.

When and where did the Secretary of DHS, Jeh Johnson, obtain the authority to enact these changes on the US government?

The President has no such power and chose not to try and exercise any, so why does a Cabinet Secretary suddenly feel he can decree something that Congress hasn't authorized nor wants done? Where is that power written in the Constitution?

Conservatives have these issues.

Conservatives have these issues because they oppose illegal immigrants being present and having the equal protection of the laws and the equal treatment of the laws provided in the Constitution and in all of the case law precedent of the SCOTUS over 238 years.

Conservatives want to discriminate against illegal immigrants but the Constitution and the SCOTUS says you cannot.

SCOTUS has ruled illegal immigrants cannot vote nor can they own guns. Everything else in respect of illegal immigrants is Constitutional. The president's authority, the authority of the Executive, is being challenged in the federal courts so everyone will see how that turns out.

In the meantime, do try to keep up with the rule of law as explicitly stated in the Constitution and by the SCOTUS. Conservatives cannot discriminate against illegal immigrants, aka undocumented immigrants. Which also means conservatives are going to lose the current case they are pressing in the federal courts.

Please explain how these immigrants are being discriminated against. Here is your real problem. They aren't. They broke the law, and the states are trying to prosecute. Glad to see you getting your head out of the sand and finally seeing I'm right. Your insults only show your lack of backbone.

[NeverSure]

-snip-

"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."

American Citizens, even if you were right, are "entitled" to be prosecuted for things which are illegal. They are "entitled" to a jail cell for doing things which are illegal. They can be thrown into a jail cell before they get their day in court.

They can lose drivers' licenses and even the right to vote for doing things which are illegal.

Illegal means illegal and illegal aliens are criminals.

So far in the Federal Court, your score is 0 - 1.

[JDGRUEN]

The central theme of illegal immigration is not the 14th amendment. It is the rule of law. Republicans are not opposed to immigration, they are opposed to illegal immigration. Using the 14th amendment as a cover to protect criminals gets around the fact that these people are stealing identities.

People who say that, whether they believe it or not, are wrong.

The reading of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says they are wrong.

SCOTUS in all of its case law precedent ruling in interpreting the 14th Amendment says they are wrong.

Illegal immigrants are indeed illegal immigrants, however, they are legal persons because they are within the jurisdiction of the United States. As legal persons under the 14th Amendment and all of the subsequent rulings of the SCOTUS, illegal immigrants are granted the same fundamental, undeniable, constitutional rights granted to all Americans.

The states and the feds have to pay the costs of illegal immigrants who are entitled to the same rights and services as citizens. This means the states' lawsuit has no standing and the case has no merit on the substance of the claims made by the 26 (Republican controlled) states that filed suit. Moreover, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that in a conflict between federal and state laws or constitutions, the laws and/or the Constitution of the United States prevail as the superior and controlling statutes and document.

Face the reality of it, all who are out there on the right, in the tea party, in, or supporting, the Republican party. Read the 14th Amendment...again...and yet again....and then some more....

"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.abo...legalrights.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."

They are illegal aliens but under the 14th Amendment, they are legal persons because they are under the jurisdiction of the United States and the Constitution of the United States. Illegal aliens are therefore granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans. This is the rule of law.

So the 14th. Amendment covers everyone in the world who wants to just walk into the U.S. - without a proper Visa - Correct?

[Publicus]

For the life of me, I can't seem to find among all that bloviating, a single reference to the legality of government issuing to illegal immigrants such things as Driver's license, Social Security numbers, work permits, coverage under the Affordable Care Act, food stamp program, AFDC benefits, Medicaid, Medicare etc, etc, etc.

Where, exactly is all that covered in the Constitution in general and the 14th Amendment specifically?

It should also be noted that social security cards and driver's license are two federally recognized forms of identification to identify eligible voters.

When and where did the Secretary of DHS, Jeh Johnson, obtain the authority to enact these changes on the US government?

The President has no such power and chose not to try and exercise any, so why does a Cabinet Secretary suddenly feel he can decree something that Congress hasn't authorized nor wants done? Where is that power written in the Constitution?

Conservatives have these issues.

Conservatives have these issues because they oppose illegal immigrants being present and having the equal protection of the laws and the equal treatment of the laws provided in the Constitution and in all of the case law precedent of the SCOTUS over 238 years.

Conservatives want to discriminate against illegal immigrants but the Constitution and the SCOTUS says you cannot.

SCOTUS has ruled illegal immigrants cannot vote nor can they own guns. Everything else in respect of illegal immigrants is Constitutional. The president's authority, the authority of the Executive, is being challenged in the federal courts so everyone will see how that turns out.

In the meantime, do try to keep up with the rule of law as explicitly stated in the Constitution and by the SCOTUS. Conservatives cannot discriminate against illegal immigrants, aka undocumented immigrants. Which also means conservatives are going to lose the current case they are pressing in the federal courts.

Please explain how these immigrants are being discriminated against. Here is your real problem. They aren't. They broke the law, and the states are trying to prosecute. Glad to see you getting your head out of the sand and finally seeing I'm right. Your insults only show your lack of backbone.

Glad to see you getting your head out of the sand and finally seeing I'm right.

Delusional post.

For sure.

Along with the usual suspects of the far right that are in denial of reality as they flail about.

In their own world of denial, deflection, obfuscation.

There's no changing of it as they continue to carry on...and on....in denial.

[sdanielmcev]

For the life of me, I can't seem to find among all that bloviating, a single reference to the legality of government issuing to illegal immigrants such things as Driver's license, Social Security numbers, work permits, coverage under the Affordable Care Act, food stamp program, AFDC benefits, Medicaid, Medicare etc, etc, etc.

Where, exactly is all that covered in the Constitution in general and the 14th Amendment specifically?

It should also be noted that social security cards and driver's license are two federally recognized forms of identification to identify eligible voters.

When and where did the Secretary of DHS, Jeh Johnson, obtain the authority to enact these changes on the US government?

The President has no such power and chose not to try and exercise any, so why does a Cabinet Secretary suddenly feel he can decree something that Congress hasn't authorized nor wants done? Where is that power written in the Constitution?

Conservatives have these issues.

Conservatives have these issues because they oppose illegal immigrants being present and having the equal protection of the laws and the equal treatment of the laws provided in the Constitution and in all of the case law precedent of the SCOTUS over 238 years.

Conservatives want to discriminate against illegal immigrants but the Constitution and the SCOTUS says you cannot.

SCOTUS has ruled illegal immigrants cannot vote nor can they own guns. Everything else in respect of illegal immigrants is Constitutional. The president's authority, the authority of the Executive, is being challenged in the federal courts so everyone will see how that turns out.

In the meantime, do try to keep up with the rule of law as explicitly stated in the Constitution and by the SCOTUS. Conservatives cannot discriminate against illegal immigrants, aka undocumented immigrants. Which also means conservatives are going to lose the current case they are pressing in the federal courts.

Please explain how these immigrants are being discriminated against. Here is your real problem. They aren't. They broke the law, and the states are trying to prosecute. Glad to see you getting your head out of the sand and finally seeing I'm right. Your insults only show your lack of backbone.

Glad to see you getting your head out of the sand and finally seeing I'm right.

Delusional post.

For sure.

Along with the usual suspects of the far right that are in denial of reality as they flail about.

In their own world of denial, deflection, obfuscation.

There's no changing of it as they continue to carry on...and on....in denial.

Cannot see how I am in denial when you make a statement that you cannot support. How are they being discriminated against?

[Publicus]

Please explain how these immigrants are being discriminated against. Here is your real problem. They aren't. They broke the law, and the states are trying to prosecute. Glad to see you getting your head out of the sand and finally seeing I'm right. Your insults only show your lack of backbone.

Glad to see you getting your head out of the sand and finally seeing I'm right.

Delusional post.

For sure.

Along with the usual suspects of the far right that are in denial of reality as they flail about.

In their own world of denial, deflection, obfuscation.

There's no changing of it as they continue to carry on...and on....in denial.

Cannot see how I am in denial when you make a statement that you cannot support. How are they being discriminated against?

Had to delete chuckd btw to enable this post in which I must first note that of all the legal concepts and language I have presented in many posts from the real world of the Constitution and the case law precedent of SCOTUS, the only word or notion the uninformed reactionary right can identify and recognize is discrimination and wants to pursue that.

If that's the only way the right believes it can get a handle on this then let's go with it, and if that is in fact the actual concern of the conservatives around these parts.

SCOTUS has ruled that illegal immigrants are eligible for the same programs as citizens, so let's just leave the fact at that, and note that means the states cannot deny illegal immigrants equal access to education, employment, health and medical care, driver's licence, police protection and the like because they are illegal immigrants. Can't do it, that.

The states can prioritize spending and policies that impact illegal immigrants but only in the normal process of determining available resources and how to allocate those resources. How much can a state spend this year on education, police protection, driver's licenses etc. This would be the only valid reason to not fund programs that affect illegal aliens residing in a given state, or not fund them to the extent that might be determined would be 100% (but who gets 100% anyway).

If a state says illegal immigrants are, well, illegal immigrants and we can't -- or won't -- expend any resources on 'em because they illegal immigrants, it would be discrimination and under the 14th Amendment a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. And the 14th Amendment, which itself is the Equal Protection [of the law] Clause, as one should recall, 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."

And the explanation of the Supreme Courts ruling is that....

"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.abo...legalrights.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."

The 26 Republican controlled states that brought the suit have been and remain explicit, that they don't want to spend money on illegal aliens because, well, they are illegal aliens. Which brings myself and anyone else paying even a modicum of attention, to this: I'm not sure the 26 states that brought the suit have any actual lawyers in their employ who know what the 14th Amendment says and, more to the point, know the body of case law precedent of SCOTUS since adoption of the Amendment in 1868.

Nor did I see in the lawyer's filings or in the judge's Memorandum any reference concerning immigration as it affects foreign policy which is another connection the SCOTUS has recognized as real and of consequence.

Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts are especially strong in this respect, with Kennedy writing for the majority in 2010 when the Court struck down 3 of the 4 provisions of the severe Arizona anti-immigration law (Arizona doesn't like illegal immigrants as illegal immigrants either), that the Executive Branch has absolute discretion in implementing immigration laws and that one reason for this is that foreign policy and immigration law are necessarily intertwined.

If the SCOTUS were to rule for the states in the instant case, i.e., uphold the federal judge down there in Texas, the Court would have to reverse all of its immigration law rulings since the 14th Amendment came on in 1868. Or the Court would have to dance around and through them.

At any rate, I don't know anyone who expects SCOTUS to do such a complete or even a partial turnaround or about face....do you know anyone with such prescient insight as to foresee this strange development occurring....no you don't either.

No one in his right mind does.

The federal district judge down there in Texas is going to be reversed completely and entirely....it's just a question of which court, the appellate court or SCOTUS....or both. A lot of lawyers believe the appellate court will in fact reverse their district court judge. In which instance the states would appeal to SCOTUS. If the appellate court does uphold the district judge, the government will appeal to SCOTUS which as always will have the final word. Either way the states lose.

No one is hearing this publicly because lawyers and law professors don't talk or write of these realities in public. Number one, they well know never to predict a court or a jury because one really really never actually and absolutely knows for sure or for certain. But I'm neither a lawyer nor am I a law professor. I don't have a professional reputation or legal career to lose. I can say this and these things. If I'm wrong -- and I am not wrong -- I have only TVF posters to deal with which is anyway light work for me. But I'm not wrong. Bank on it.