Gingrich ignores Constitution in illegal alien debate, willing to take heat!

[Dot Com]

Rounding up 13 million illegals is like herding cats

Throw some employers in jail and watch the jobs dry up

EXACTLY! We know it ain't Libral's who hire most of them too.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Your thinking is not in harmony with the founder expressed intentions!

And again, your case law in support of this? I don’t recall seeing ‘johnwk’ in Marbury v. Madison.

Illegal aliens who are caught on our soil ought to be punished, perhaps with a minimum one year sentence to hard labor…cleaning our roadways, painting our public buildings, maintaining our city parks, etc., and then deported. When the word gets out that getting caught means a jail term, hard labor for food, and then deportation, instead of medical care, education of their children and other welfare benefits, self deportation will quickly start.

The snag here is the above is un-Constitutional. See Plyler v. Doe (1982) and Boumediene v. Bush (2008). Illegal aliens are entitled to due process rights, they may not be subject to punitive measures without due process, such as children not being allowed to attend school.

The Plyler Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment refers to only ‘persons,’ and illegal aliens are persons "in any ordinary sense of the term…"

The irony is, in spite of your supposed ‘devotion’ to the Constitution, you fail to realize the Framers composed the Founding Document with the likes of you in mind.

 

[rightwinger]

Rounding up 13 million illegals is like herding cats

Throw some employers in jail and watch the jobs dry up

EXACTLY! We know it ain't Libral's who hire most of them too.

I hire illegal Mexicans to do my taxes

I drive down Main Street where Mexicans hang out on the corner. I wave a 1040 and say "senor ......you do taxes.?"

I saved $300 last year and got a $2200 refund

 

[JamesMorrison]

That the federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate naturalization (path to citizenship) and immigration (the legal permission for aliens to live and work in the USA) is unquestioned. ; The former by the constitution itself and the latter by the many naturalization and immigration legislative acts passed by the congress from 1790 onward. The Page Act of 1875 was the first immigration Act that addressed (and restricted) who could actually legally be in the USA. Further, the 14th Amendment defines citizen rights.

I think any argument that ends up asserting that states are all powerful is misinformed. That the states retain most of governmental power over all issues varied and sundry does not grant them all power. The central government’s powers are constitutionally limited but, in that context, all powerful. I think that any law that deals with people’s privileges granted by the state there is every reason for that state to require certain conditions (like a driver’s permit or public schooling) such as ID, in order to attain or attend. It is perfectly acceptable for any state representative in his or her official capacity to demand the proper documentation given questionable circumstances.

State laws that run parallel to or seek to obtain the same result of federal immigration laws are thereby constitutional. My reading of the present Arizona law would find that law constitutional. What is obscene here is the narrative of an obviously leftist AG trying to use the constitutional argument of Federal Immigration Authority to strike down a state law that would merely help the Federal government enforce its own relevant law. Those who are simply naïve might ask why? (Ask a conservative for the answer)

Posing the question as to whether or not Newt’s proposals are constitutional makes for good copy but misses the point. What is important here is how, given any of the GOP candidates take office in 2013, that Executive would handle the result of the Federal Government’s failure to secure our border these last 50 years or so. That ‘result’ being the accumulation of the estimated 11 million or so of resident illegal aliens.

Further, the recent politicalization of Newt’s purposely numerically ambiguous proposal by such as Michelle Bachmann (Its Amnesty! Amnesty!), who herself in interviews before, has addressed the “What do we do with those 11 million?” question with the same ambiguity about the metrics of deportation, is transparent and unhelpful. But let's be honest, Bachmann's desired result here was never to be 'helpful'.

JM

 

[johnwk]

The irrefutable fact is, the provision you cite was never intended by its authors, nor the States when ratifying the Constitution to remotely suggest that immigration was to be regulated by the federal government.

And the case law in support of this is where?

I provided sufficient documentation, as expressed by the founders, which is necessary to establish legislative intent and thus be in compliance with the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which I cited at the top of the thread.

The irrefutable fact is, the provision you cite was never intended by its authors, nor the States when ratifying the Constitution, to remotely suggest that immigration was to be regulated by the federal government But if you have some documentation as expressed by the founders to support your contention, please feel free to post it to establish the legislative intent of the founders,

JWK


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

 

[johnwk]

Your thinking is not in harmony with the founder expressed intentions!

And again, your case law in support of this? I don’t recall seeing ‘johnwk’ in Marbury v. Madison.

Illegal aliens who are caught on our soil ought to be punished, perhaps with a minimum one year sentence to hard labor…cleaning our roadways, painting our public buildings, maintaining our city parks, etc., and then deported. When the word gets out that getting caught means a jail term, hard labor for food, and then deportation, instead of medical care, education of their children and other welfare benefits, self deportation will quickly start.

The snag here is the above is un-Constitutional. See Plyler v. Doe (1982) and Boumediene v. Bush (2008). ....

I have learned to not put too much confidence in the “opinions” of the court. I’m more interested in the documented legislative intent under which the Constitution was adopted as expressed by those who created it. So, let us review what the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment is as articulated by one of its supporters during the Congressional Debates. Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the 14th explains the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment in the following manner.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

The first part of the 14th Amendment readers as follows:

“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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The Amendment by its very words bestows citizenship upon those born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It then goes on to forbid the States from making or enforcing any law which shall abridge a “citizen‘s “privileges or immunities”. Section 1 then forbids the States to deprive “any person” [as contradistinguished from a citizen of the United States] life, liberty, or property, without the due process [which is uniquely defined statutorily by each State], nor may any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, which are also statutorily defined by each particular state.

As you can see, the Amendment’s wording does not create any new “privileges or immunities” within any particular State, but whatever a State’s “privileges or immunities” are, they are to apply to all “Citizens of the United States”, while all “persons”, such as aliens who may be in a particular state, are only guaranteed the equal application of a state’s “due process” prior to life, liberty or property being denied. And so, as Bingham, considered the father of the 14th Amendment has stated, “the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen . . . is in the States and not in the federal government.” and went on to say he “sought to effect no change in that respect.”


Now, what is it that you offer to establish the legislative intent of the 14th amendment to support your claims?

JWK