Immigration will be Trump's undoing

 

In a country of justice for all,

What Trump says should only appall.

If you have  privilege

Then  be building a bridge

Instead of erecting a wall.

 

Filed under: politics

Comments

Leave a comment
  • As I indicated in my comment to the last post, other things are going to be Trump's undoing.

  • In reply to jack:

    Undoing? Why not, you really nailed it up to this point...

  • As I indicated in my last post, you guys don't get it.

    You can't eat platitudes.

    Illegal immigration is illegal, but far as a bridge goes Trump has said he would build a big beautiful door for immigrants to come in legally.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Since you keep repeating the last point, why don't you:
    1. Post a source for that?
    2. Explain why that part of the message has gotten lost, especially since his part of the message that native born children should be deported hasn't been?

  • In reply to jack:

    Beautiful door.

    Native born children? That's a scam and you know it. The 14th Amendment is being exploited for purposes it wasn't intended. I suggest you research the arguments on anchor babies and give me your opinion.

    Why has the message gotten lost? Because 'one in the hand is worth two in the bush.' They like what they've reaped with our ludicrous immigration policies and don't want risk losing anything. They would have to look at their 'shadow' and admit they did something wrong.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    The shadow is simply the black side of someone's self personality. What is black is always known only indirectly through projection upon others. This is why the first meeting with the shadow is considered to be a moral effort. -Carljung.net

    So anyone that points out this shadow becomes the receptacle for it's projection. No one likes peeling back the curtain.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Sort of like The Wizard of Oz, I take it.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    It may be a scam, but just like the Illinois Constitution bars doing anything about the pension entitlement mess, unless Trump has a plan whereby he can effect the repeal of the 14th Amendment, he is a charlatan. But the yahoos aren't listening to that kind of logic.

    His definition of "good people" also seems vague. I guess that's where the Hispanic media got the idea that he said that most Mexicans are criminals. Still is going to deport the 11 million, because by his definition they are criminals and not good people.

  • In reply to jack:

    Well it appears you are no better than Trump by disparaging people that have a legitimate beef with illegal immigration. Middle class people who not only have to pay for it, but have to follow the law while those above it and below it don't.

    What's your vision Jack? Or are you just addicted to the fight?

  • In reply to 4zen:

    I guess you didn't read what I posted in the prior topic. I said then that if Trump were serious about it, he would tell Boehner to put the immigration bill on the floor of the House for debate. Ask Boehner why he wants the issue rather than a solution, and if there is any connection between his actions and Trump's only issue.

  • In reply to jack:

    Screw Boehner, (pun intended). I'm not going to argue Trump's seriousness, but I'll tell his supporters are serious, the issues he's tapped into will not go away. This is the meat of the story, get to chewing.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Here this might help explain, and definitely read the comments and their scores.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    4zen: I also believe that Mrs. Michelle Obamae will send me the $2 million that Benin fraudsters have scammed from me if I send $75 to Mr. John Ogene via Western Union, with the password Trust God. At least some of the people interviewed in that article do.

    But these rallies must be putting a heck of a kick in the teeth to Canada's own Ted Cruz's rallies to defund Planned Parenthood as part of his presidential campaign.

  • I can't resist pointing out that some of the same people who erased the first phrase of the Second Amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,") now want to erase the first sentence from the 14th (" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.") They hope that, since it worked in 2008 it may work again.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    While Scalia was able to do the former by construction, I don't see how the latter can be done in that matter, without infuriating many groups other than the intended targets. Clarance Page pointed out that he belongs to a group that certainly is interested in the 14th Amendment.

  • In reply to jack:

    But, as the Heller 2d Amendment case demonstrated, when he wants to, Scalia will let his selective reading of "original intent" lead him to ignore that plain text of the Constitution. He may conclude that the "original intent" of the 14th Amendment was only to overrule the Dred Scott decision and confer citizenship on African-Americans.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    In the Second Amendment case, he doesn't claim to have ignored a plain reading of the amendment, but claims that certain grammatical usages got him there. From that opinion:

    "The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The amendment could be re­phrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” "

    There isn't a prefatory clause to the 14th Amendment, so he would have to do something else. Also, I don't think your interpretation would sit well with Clarance Page, either.

  • But, saying that "The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause" is itself an example of selective "original intent." Since 1791, the Supreme Court never called the first phrase merely a prefatory clause until Scalia used it in 2008 as he spoke for five members of the Court. Having said that of it, he said it could be ignored.

    I don't endorse the argument that newly discovered original intent may be used to erase portions of the Constitution, I merely note how Heller could be used by supporters of Trump's position on "anchor babies."

  • In reply to jnorto:

    But, as I pointed out, not in the manner Scalia used to construe the Second. Clearly, there isn't any modifier to the first sentence of the Fourteenth. Either certain people are citizens, or the Fourteenth is meaningless. Scalia certainly would not take the position that an entire amendment had no purpose, and clearly the Fourteenth is not prefaced by "Having been aggrieved by the Dred Scott decision, and intending to give some, but not full rights to Africans formerly slaves..."

  • I don't know. In 1990 Scalia joined an opinion by Rehnquist saying, "These cases, however, establish only that aliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country."

    United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271, (1990)

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Note the word aliens. I take it legal analysis is not your profession. You can guess what mine is.

  • In reply to jack:

    Are you trying to present an analysis, or are you trying to bluster?

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack, what I am trying to point out is that your assumption that "all persons" in the 14th Amendment includes everyone born in the U.S. is subject to some question. The 4th Amendment speaks of "the people," the 5th Amendment uses the term "person." The 14th "all persons." They seem to suggest universal rights under American law. However, the Supreme Court in 1990, in an opinion joined by Scalia, found that they are not universal, but limited ones. Advocates of limiting birthright citizenship will probably argue that the apparently universal terms used in the first section of the 14th Amendment are similarly limited by the original intent of the drafters.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Sorry, you are now a sophist. The 14th Amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." It doesn't say "persons" in isolation. It is a tenet of legal interpretation that all words are to be given meaning if it is possible to do so. As I noted above, there isn't any qualifying phrase.

    You wanted an analysis you got it. You don't have any analysis and don't establish that you have the background to provide one. Thus, this is the last I'll deal with this, unless you write a legal brief showing the factual context, holding, and rationale of the Verdugo case and how it is relevant to this issue.

  • In reply to jack:

    Do you think I would write a legal brief to be wasted on you? In the unlikely event you are interested in more information, Peter Schuck of Yale Law School has written about it, including a book, "Consensual Citizenship" and expanded on it several articles by or about him. He summarizes his position in an op-ed in the New York Times,
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14schuck.html?_r=0

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Do you think I want to pay to get behind the NYT paywall? When you are too lazy to defend your interpretation of a case you cited of questionable relevance?

  • In reply to jack:

    Both the book and the article should be available through your public library. You do have that, don't you? Try it, you might learn something.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Then I suggest that you go to the Daley Center and do the legal research from primary sources. A professor's opinion is not a primary source. Remember all the professors who said Ryan and Blago didn't do anything?

  • fb_avatar

    hello my name is ramazan recber this is my website please visit my website thanks... http://www.gazete-ilan-verme.com

  • In reply to Ramazan Recber:

    At least just spam.

  • In reply to jack:

    In United State v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court interpreted the citizens clause of the fourteenth Amendment for the first time.

    Joseph F. Menez and John R. Vile in their "Summaries of Leading Cases on the Constitution" have these comments on the case:
    "The fundamental principle of the common law was birth within the allegiance of the king. Children of aliens born in England were natural-born subjects, as were children of ambassadors representing England, although born on foreign soil. Children of foreign ambassadors or diplomats or of alien enemies were not natural-born subjects since they were born outside the obedience of the king. This was the rule in all the English colonies up to the Declaration of Independence."

    BTW, this idea of being a natural-born citizen if born in the U.S. is called jus soli (law of the soil).

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Notice that even in this decision, the Court did not state a rule as unqualified as that proposed by Jack. A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, "who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States," and not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity by China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. This is quite similar to the 1990 Verdugo-Urquidez decision discussed before.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    1. jnorto, no it isn't.
    2. For the both of you, neither quoted a primary source.

  • In reply to jack:

    Wouldn't the Supreme Court decision, ipso facto, be a primary source?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    The Supreme Court opinion itself is the ONLY primary source. "Summaries of whatever" is not. To put it in your frame of reference, it is like if you relied only on Cliff's Notes for your impression of Thomas Carlyle. Not quite as unreliable as Wikipedia, but I was taught in high school not to do that. The only teacher who ever said to rely on encyclopedias turned out to be selling World Book on the side. Legal research isn't any different. You'll note that I quoted the 14th Amendment and Scalia's opinion in the 2nd Amendment case directly.

  • In reply to jack:

    Thanks, Jack, for your rigorous enlightenment. I will henceforth act accordingly.

  • In reply to jack:

    The full citation to United States v. Wong Kim Ark is 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The portion from which I quoted was at 705.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    That's fine, but you certainly didn't distinguish it from the anchor baby situation. It sure sounds like an anchor baby to me. Distinguishing is another skill you are supposed to learn in a legal research course, if you had taken one.

    I don't think you should engage in a charade of knowing what you are doing when you don't. I caught Eric Zorn and Dennis Byrne in that trap, and I don't think you are more proficient than they.*

    _______
    *I'll leave it to Margaret Serious to figure out the usage of the last word.

  • In reply to jack:

    Never affirm, seldom deny, always distinguish. An axiom from logic.

  • In reply to jack:

    You must be a terrible advocate. Rather than presenting a rational argument against an opponent's argument, you attack him with ad hominem condemnations. Not a winning formula, especially in appeals.

  • In reply to jack:

    jnorto:
    1. You assume too much. You haven't figured out what my line of work really is.
    2.You must not have been in a courtroom, because most that goes on is ad hominem, such as that the rape victim was asking for it.
    3. I didn't say anything ad hominem. I simply stated the fact that you demonstrated that you didn't understand legal reasoning. AW's comment on "an axiom of logic" shows that he gets it.

    So, I was correct, you are engaged in sophistry. What that makes you personally is up to you to decide.

Leave a comment