Posted on 05/28/2004 3:06:37 PM PDT by walford
While attorneys on Thursday argued fingerprints and other details of the U.S. government's deportation case against a pregnant Raymore woman, the judge introduced a new party to the fray.
Isn't that child an American citizen? asked Senior U.S. District Judge Scott O. Wright.
The judge rejected the government's request that a stay be lifted and that immigration officials be allowed to deport Myrna Dick to her native Mexico. Wright cited a new federal law enacted after the Laci Peterson murder in California that gives legal protection to unborn children.
Wright ordered that Dick be allowed to stay in the country for the time being and told both sides to begin preparing for possible trial.
Dick, 29, is accused of claiming false American citizenship during a border crossing in 1998, a violation punishable by immediate and permanent removal from the United States.
Dick is five months pregnant and married to an American citizen. In all likelihood, her baby would be born an American citizen before the case is decided unless Wright's action is overturned.
The law Wright referred to is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, also named Laci and Conner's Law, named for Laci Peterson and her unborn son. Peterson's husband is charged in their deaths.
The law, basically, grants unborn children equal protection under the law. Wright said the government has no grounds to deport Dick's unborn baby.
During Thursday's hearing, Wright asked Dick if she knew the gender of the baby.
A boy, she answered.
Then I can call him he,' Wright said. If this child is an American citizen, we can't send his mother back until he is born.
Dick's attorneys hadn't raised the issue.
Our focus has been on the misidentity of our client, Rekha Sharma-Crawford said after the hearing.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey P. Ray indicated the action would be appealed to the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
Earlier in the hearing, Sharma-Crawford challenged the government's position that officials have long known that Dick was the person who lied during the border crossing.
Dick was arrested in April when she went to immigration offices to renew her work permit.
If they knew it was her, why did they wait until she appeared at their doorstep? Sharma-Crawford asked.
Ray told Wright that the government had solid evidence, including fingerprints, that Dick is the person who lied at the border.
If this case is going to be decided on sympathy, then I'm in a lot of trouble, Ray said. But I do have the law on my side.
Dick, who has epilepsy, had a large group of supporters in the courtroom.
On the courthouse steps afterward, Dick maintained that she is innocent.
America has great laws, but they need to make sure they have the right person, she said.
She and her husband, Brady Dick, know the case is far from over, but said they were relieved by Wright's action.
Our baby is a person now, Brady Dick said.
To reach Donald Bradley, call (816) 234-7810 or send email to dbradley@kcstar.com.
I think that serious consideration should be given to re-evaluating the nationality of newborns to illegals. That would eliminate the potential of this sort of problem. As it is, pregnant women are being encouraged to illegally enter this country so that they can give birth to naturalized citizens. That is bad for a lot of reasons , not the least of which the mother and child's health.
Another aspect is the growing immigration of people from the Middle East. We could have a terrorist found here who could potentially complicate the situation by claiming citizenship because he knocked up a local woman.
Isn't that child an American citizen?
As the great groper and rapist in chief once stated, "depends on the meaning of is( n't)"
It is a child, if the illegals and the liberals seek to use it for political purposes to score points. But, if it serves no such purpose, it is just a thing, not a human being, so kill it, and the government will use your tax dollars to pay for the abortionist hit man to murder it.
Ah, the liberal morals go forth ever flip flopping and never ending into the this brave new world on the meaning of is, & isn't. Courtesy of one B.J. Klintoon
By this logic, assuming that many other nations shared US policy as envisioned by this judge, then a baby could end up as a citizen of 100 nations if the mother were well traveled.
Or, if the judge would respond "no, it's only if you remain in the nation with the fetus" then they can deport her, and the fetus becomes an "un-citizen" instantly.
I, for one, would have no trouble in separating this mother from her child after birth. Deport her and give the care of the infant to the "American" father. This child does not need to be raised by a lying ILLEGAL criminal. If dad loves her so much, he can go to mexico with her.
If she goes back, it's not so terrible. She would be barred from applying for a visa for ten years if I am correct. The husband can go live with her,etc. and then she can reapply or IF she voluntarily goes back, the reapplication process is more lenient.
A new concept here--the "anchor fetus." If this flies, and you want to get on the American gravy train, just have a one-night stand (doesn't even have to be with a legal citizen) and wave your pregnancy test around. Does anyone know anything about this judge?
This is bull. Citizenship comes with a birth certificate. This baby has none.
The Lacy Peterson law has to do with a person being a victim of a crime. It not necessary to be a citizen in order to be a victim of a crime. A person who kills a non-citizen is just as guilty of murder as one who kills a citizen.
INFO.....
Published April 2, 2004
Lamar lawmaker seeks to remove U.S. district judge
Rep. Ed Emery objects to Wright's abortion rulings; House took no action on measure.
"I'm 81 years old. If they're going to impeach me, they'd better get at it."
-- Scott O. Wright, Senior U.S. District Judge
News-Leader Staff and Wire Services
A freshman state House member wants Congress to impeach Senior U.S. District Judge Scott O. Wright, who he says has exceeded his authority in rulings on abortion.
Rep. Ed Emery, R-Lamar, presented a resolution to a Missouri House committee Thursday that asks the U.S. Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Wright.
In a telephone interview later Thursday, Wright was not very concerned about Emery's effort.
"I'm 81 years old. If they're going to impeach me, they'd better get at it," joked Wright, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri in 1979.
The House Rules Committee took no action Thursday on Emery's resolution, which has no force of law.
Emery's measure cites Wright's 1999 decision blocking enforcement of a new Missouri law banning a procedure that opponents call "partial-birth abortion" and doctors call "intact dilation and extraction." The resolution also cites a temporary injunction Wright issued last year blocking a state law that requires a 24-hour waiting period before having an abortion.
Both cases still are pending in court.
Emery, a Baptist who opposes abortion, said his intent behind the resolution is to reassert the legislative branch's power in the check-and-balance system.
Legislators have long acquiesced to the judiciary by not responding to court decisions such as Wright's, Emery said. The result has been a hijacking of the U.S. Constitution, he said.
"We have individual judges who are single-handedly overriding everything that the people say because (the judges) don't like what's going on," Emery said. "And they don't have a constitutional basis frequently for what they're doing.
"The issue here is governmental jurisdiction and recognizing that one of our branches will seek to overreach if the other two branches don't keep it in check."
Wright countered: "Judicial activism is in the eyes of the person. Some people might think I'm too conservative. On these abortion cases, all I do is follow the law."
Bill Federer, a Republican running for the St. Louis area congressional seat being vacated by U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt, testified in favor of the resolution. He said it's the legislature's job to tell Congress when judges cross the line.
"This one federal judge has usurped your power," he said.
Members of Congress can't track the decisions of hundreds of federal judges, so it's up to state legislatures to keep federal legislators informed, Emery said.
"This is just saying, let's start keeping our eyes open," he said of his resolution.
If it doesn't pass the General Assembly, Emery said he and other like-minded legislators might send a letter on their own asking the U.S. House of Representatives to investigate Wright.
Wright couldn't be removed from the bench unless a simple majority of the House voted to impeach him and two-thirds of the U.S. Senate voted to remove him.
Missouri legislature
"The law, basically, grants unborn children equal protection under the law. Wright said the government has no grounds to deport Dick's unborn baby."
Upon reflection, I'm beginning to suspect that the judge is a Lefty who is trying to encumber the law with absurdly unintended attributes. The judge IS required to interpret the intent of the law.
Using his logic, a pregnant woman cannot be incarcerated, because it would entail imprisoning an innocent person without Due Process. I could certainly understand not executing a pregnant woman. [Let her have the kid first, then fire up ol' Sparky.]
Further, the judge would have to decide where the unborn's natural origin is. Is it in the place of conception? Wherever mom urinated on a piece of blotter paper and got a positive reading? Wherever she first got morning sickness?
This is a classic example of the wide separation between the law and common sense.
Actually, the Constitution says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are US citizens. Since the child has been neither born nor naturalized he/she is not a US citizen per the US Constitution. However, the child does have equal protection under the law. Does it need to be established as a fact by a court that the child is not a US citizen in order to deport him/her?
I like the way this judge thinks. He is simply conferring rights on the unborn child. It should be fairly easy for the government to demonstrate that the child has not been born or naturalized in the US -- and therefore not a US citizen. But give the kid a hearing. Then deport mother and child.
I dunno SSS. If the above stands, then by definition, EVERY unborn child (at least in CA at this time) is an American citizen. From there it stands to reason that they have the full protection of the US constitution. This includes the amendment against cruel and unusual punishment, hence invalidating partial birth abortion. It should also, by way of the amendment about the due process clause invalidate Roe v. Wade as unconstitutional since this child is being killed without due process.
There might be some things to consider here. Just the blanket, "Isn't this an American citizen?" negates a lot of the lefty weasel-words about trimesters, fetus vs embryo, conception and the like that they've managed to work into such a gigantic wedge in the courts.
Just thinking out loud.
Not until it is "born" on American soil. If the illegal alien mother delivers on Mexican soil, it is a citizen of Mexico. Deport before delivery.
The unborn child has rights with respect to whether it can be murdered or not. Ditto for the illegal alien mother. That is a fundamental question of being a living human, not a question of citizenship. The "judge" certainly demonstrates a lack to good logic on this issue.
Actually the child is surrounded by his nationality of origin. He has never stepped foot on US soil or breathed US air.
Isn't that part of the terrorist game plan? To have a child here, bring him back to Iran or wherever, brainwash him, then send him here as a fifth columnist/homicidal maniac.
If the child is an American citizen, then abortion should be completely illegal everywhere in the US.
If the child is a human being, then abortion should be completely illegal everywhere in the US. Murder laws do not distinguish between US and non-US citizens. If you maliciously kill *anyone*, you are guilty of murder.
Liberals must deny the humanity of unborn children. What this judge is doing is acknowledging the humanity of the unborn child by suggesting (incorrectly) that he/she is a citizen. Conservatives should acknowledge the humanity of the child but also demonstrate that he/she is not a citizen due to the fact that he/she has not been born or naturalized in the US.
This judge is doing a disservice to the liberal cause and being helpful to conservatives by acknowledging the humanity of the child. The judge unfortunately does not seem to know the qualifications for citizenship.
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.