Posted on 04/27/2025 10:04:48 AM PDT by Morgana
A mother who has lived in the US since she was a child was detained during a green card interview and now faces deportation for missing a court hearing decades ago.
Rosmery Alvarado applied for permanent residency after her husband, Nixon Alvarado, became a US citizen on March 19 and had her first interview on Wednesday.
Her daughter Carina Moran said she waited at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services office in Kansas City while her parents went inside.
'I sat outside expecting both of them to walk out later. After an hour, I watched my dad and lawyer walk out without my mom,' she said.
'We were lied to, and our family has been torn apart.'
Rosmery was born in Guatemala and Nixon arrived from El Salvador when he was 18. Their four children are all American citizens, and the family lives in Pittsburg, Kansas.
Moran believes the interview was a trap to detain Rosmery, and claimed USCIS officers let Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents into the office.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I’m sure there are those that legitimately rate sympathy.
But, we have been screwed by the open borders crowd for so long & so many millions of illegals....and the number of assaulted, raped, murdered Americans has destroyed my ability to feel for any of them. Do the sad stories of a few justify the economic and human carnage suffered by Americans from the rest of them.
NO
Supposed to have been, but they wrote it so badly that people turn it into a Christmas tree.
He will lose. The current court system is absolutely indoctrinated with the nonsense interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction."
No independent thought amongst them.
Did you not read the thread, or could you just not pass up a chance for a cheap shot?
Based on our history, I think we both know the answer to that one.
Convenience.
It's not just that it has wording designed originally with slavery(former slaves) in mind, but it's also due to the fact that [at least in my experience] the idea of applying originalism to the 14th amendment is one of the most unpopular ideas in the United States.
Progressives most certainly don't want to be all originalist with the 14th amendment.
Here is a clue. Most conservatives don't want to be all about the originalism with the 14th either. I don't see it. Typically, originalism is only supposed to apply to the first authoring of the Constitution, and perhaps by extension encapsulated by the inclusion of those amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. Originalism for some odd reason ends there.
Originalism could have put an end to a lot of our problems decades ago. It's not hard to go reading the debate notes from when they created the 14th amendment. Guess how many times in 1865 they discussed gay marriage, for example?
NOT CITIZENS
Yeah, I know. Don't blame the liars. We've been through this.
Supposed to have been, but they wrote it so badly that people turn it into a Christmas tree.
LOL. This should be a Bee article.
I'm getting a visual of a broken bone that hasn't been set correctly.
Oddly enough the phrase which comes to my mind is a mantra of the Democrats. No one is above the law. So what does the law say here?
I want to be originalist to the original constitution. You know, the one that doesn't allow occupation armies to "vote" for the people of states, but one that lets the citizens of those states vote for themselves.
In such an originalist interpretation, the 14th amendment doesn't get ratified, because all the citizens of those occupied Southern states would not vote for a legislature that would ratify it.
Allowing the post civil war amendments to proceed as they did was a violation of the original intent of the US Constitution, which Ironically is the very thing they claimed to want to impose on those Southern states.
I guess violating the constitution is okay when they do it.
But the 14th amendment could have been written better, and much deliberate misunderstanding would have been avoided had they done so.
I’m still not interested in debating the Civil War.
I’ve seen you and the same 10 people go 10,000 posts deep and not get anywhere. Nah. That’s not for me.
She blew off a court date and now it came back to bite her...
You don't want to acknowledge that letting fake legislatures "ratify" an amendment is the worst violation of "originalism" in history?
I guess there are limits to how strongly you feel about originalism.
They actually are, but the Anchor Baby policy may be changing soon, and for good reason. Way back when, the nation needed bodies. Before we booted the Monarchy, they'd offer free lands to anyone who would relocate to the Colonies. Early in our Founding, our westward expansion had very similar policies.
But there were less than 1 billion people in the world before 1804. The world now has 8 billion, and most major nations have overpopulation concerns, not under-population. Obama's Science Advisor famously wrote in the 1960s that America was already grossly overpopulated, and we would no longer be able to feed itself by the time we hit 225m in the year 2000. We hit 225m in 1980, and we still are the largest net food exporter on earth even at 330m.
Please, spare me the twisted history lesson. It has little bearing on the current situation.
Adults criminally sneaking into the country do not support American Freedoms and notions of the Rule of Law.
They are here ONLY to take.
When they arrive in time to deliver their offspring, then the child inherits their criminality, not US Citizenship.
I know that is not a popular notion, and has not been ‘policy’ for a very long time.
That does not make it less real.
The fact remains, gay marriage was not debated during the 1865 debates, therefore gay marriage could not have come from the 14th amendment and it doesn't matter how awful a claim to any language can be made. The language simply is not that bad. Ditto school prayer, ditto all the rest of the Santa Claus.
The lying judges are purely making it up. I have no need to go 10,000 posts with you. I can prove it in 5 words.
They didn't discuss gay marriage. See how simple that is? 5 words. No black hole required. That's all I need. 5 words.
You wouldn't need any more than 5 words either. A wise man (not me) once said, K.I.S.S. Let's just keep it simple.
You are trying to refocus the "originalism" argument on one of your pet peeves. I am pointing out that the problem goes way beyond the 14th amendment.
It is a departure from "originalism" that caused the 14th amendment in the first place.
Should we be surprised that this bastard child led a no good life afterward?
Originalism as a word is short for the phrase "original intent of the authors"
The authors of the 14th amendment did not discuss gay marriage in the 1865 debates. Nor any of the other Christmas Tree items you and I commonly swap back and forth, they're all basically interchangeable.
I refocus nothing. Learn your words.
They didn't discuss gay marriage.
I have no idea why this statement causes you so much fear, but there it is.
They didn't discuss gay marriage.
Exactly. I've read many of the "Federalist Papers", and I've also read many of the "anti-Federalist Papers", and I can very much assure you, the idea of passing constitutional amendments with an occupation army holding back the actual will of the citizens and installing puppet governments to "ratify" amendments completely against the will of the people, was *NOT* part of the original intent of the Framers of the US Constitution.
It is despotism. It is contrary to a government by "consent of the governed."
It is the worst abuse of Constitutional intent in the history of our nation.
The authors of the 14th amendment did not discuss gay marriage in the 1865 debates.
You had a coalition of *LIBERAL* Republicans who wrote this piece of crap, and they used the Army to *FORCE* 11 states to ratify it against their will, and the thing would have never been ratified voluntarily.
And you are upset that *LIBERAL* Judges have take the horribly written amendment and abused it? It was born from abuse of the Constitution. Using it to abuse the constitution further is just baked into the cake.
They didn't discuss gay marriage.
You are leaving me with the impression that you don't grasp the enemy's arguments as to how the 14th does this.
Are you familiar with the "incorporation doctrine"?
That 14th amendment directly imposes upon the states all the rules that previously only affected the US Federal government. Prior to the 14th, states *COULD* impose their own official state religion. Some still had an "official" state religion after the US constitution was ratified, but most had eschewed it, though it is important to remember they still had the *RIGHT* to have an official religion if a state so chose.
Well after the 14th "passed", States were required to adhere to Federal constitutional standards, and could no longer require an official state religion. They had to abide by all official Federal positions on discrimination, which *NOW INCLUDE F@GGOTS AS A PROTECTED CLASS!*
Since Federal Judges now *IMPOSE* Federal rules on the States, and since the Federal government recognizes nothing wrong with *FAGGOTRY*, the courts now impose FEDERAL recognition of *FAGGOT* marriage on all states.
So the "incorporation doctrine" has backdoored faggot marriage into the United States. The incorporation doctrine is entirely the consequence of the 14th amendment.
Now this is a brief explanation as to how they used the 14th, and I expected you to already know this, but judging by your comments, it didn't seem like you did, so I hope this helped you grasp how the 14th was involved in imposing faggot "marriage" on the states.
The problem is the 14th, not wacko liberal judges lying.
The 14th opens the door to ridiculous "interpretations" by Federal Judges, and so what happened was inevitable when the 14th was "ratified."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.