Posted on 02/21/2005 12:28:44 AM PST by JohnHuang2
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Newt Gingrich is demanding that the Bush administration get serious about stopping illegal immigration. The former House speaker wants the United States to completely seal off its border along Mexico and Canada, deport illegal aliens within 72 hours of their arrest and exclude U.S. courts from reviewing such deportations. "Let's be serious about sealing off our borders or [else] have open borders," Mr. Gingrich told more than 1,000 cheering conservatives on Saturday.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
<< Try 100,000 >>
My point, exactly.
But then, why stop at 100,000?
Aw, shucks (blush), nice of you to say so.
Amazing how many people around here want to bash Newt. I like his ideas and what he said. Now we need some follow up!
news travels fast. (/s)
Interestingly, the 14th Amendment was used to legalize abortion, as well.
The 1973 USSC Roe v Wade decision specfically states that under the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment, the unborn child is not considered a "person" and therefore has no legal rights under US law (14th Excerpt: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof......").
Roe v Wade author Justice Blackmun wrote that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense" and are not entitled to constitutional protection until birth.
What's it going to take to convince the Prez that he's on the wrong side of this major issue? Newt is right! Send them home now! Then they can try come in legally. Everyone else is asked to do just that.
Well, that's not entirely true. Remember the immigration reform act of 1996? Largely ineffectual, yes, but it was something. Anyway, the political climate today is rather different than it was in 1996.
The tide is turning. I predict all GOP candidates will move significantly to the right on immigration in 2008. I doubt we'll have someone like Tancredo nominated, but it will be a significant improvement.
I don't view Gingrich in the same light as I did in 1994, when I thought he would be President some day.
Now, I think he just says things to get attention.
"Interestingly, the 14th Amendment was used to legalize abortion, as well."
Good point and another reason to change it! LOL
I owe you an apology and since I made the statement in public, I will apologize in public.
I was wrongly thinking that you were making the racist charge.
Nothing quite like eating your own words, but.... pass the salt? :)
"House Chief of Staff Karl Rove "
Rove is just pimping for the hispanic vote, with absolutely no regard for the horrible consequences.
If I understand the material you posted, it implies the citizens of other nations are not subject to constitutional provisions. It seems clear they were not covered by the 14th ammendment. It also seems clear, that unless one used contortionist logic, that the children of foreign subjects, which were born on U.S. soil (refering to the children here), would not be covered by the 14th ammendment either.
Am I reading too much into this? Is that your take on both counts?
See what you think of this post, in reference to the 14th.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1347679/posts?page=75#75
They are not citizens. They are foreign subjects. Their children born here are foreign subjects. That much is clear in the text I cited, which is important because it is contemporary with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, thus Justice Miller HAD to know what the drafters of the Amendment intended.
I don't think your first point, which is entangled with the distinction between "person" and "citizen" is addressed in that part of the opinion. HOWEVER, the opinion from which I quoted contains a complete exposition on the 14th Amendment. There may be language that addresses your first question therein.
To the former question then, I refer to the section of the opinion that refers to equal protection of "persons":
As you can see, in Miller's opinion, the ONLY inclusion to which the equal protection clause applied was racial, because it was written to address that particular injustice. He further added that the restraining nature of the Constitution, as confirmed by the Bill of Rights, did not permit a wider interpretation of "persons," including corporate "persons" as it does today which (as I understand it, not having read the entire morass) was the question the Slaughterhouse Cases were to determine)."Nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In the light of the history of these amendments, and the pervading purpose of them, which we have already discussed, it is not difficult to give a meaning to this clause. The existence of laws in the States where the newly emancipated negroes resided, which discriminated with gross injustice and hardship against them as a class, was the evil to be remedied by this clause, and by it such laws are forbidden.
If, however, the States did not conform their laws to its requirements, then by the fifth section of the article of amendment Congress was authorized to enforce it by suitable legislation. We doubt very much whether any action of a State not directed by way of discrimination against the negroes as a class, or on account of their race, will ever be held to come within the purview of this provision. It is so clearly a provision for that race and that emergency that a strong case would be necessary for its application to any other. But as it is a State that is to be dealt with, and not alone the validity of its laws, we may safely leave that matter until Congress shall have exercised its power, or some case of State oppression, by denial of equal justice in its courts, shall have claimed a decision at our hands. We find no such case in the one before us, and do not deem it necessary to go over the argument again, as it may have relation to this particular clause of the amendment.
In the early history of the organization of the government, its statesmen seem to have divided on the line which should separate the powers of the National government from those of the State governments, and though this line has [p82] never been very well defined in public opinion, such a division has continued from that day to this.
The adoption of the first eleven amendments to the Constitution so soon after the original instrument was accepted shows a prevailing sense of danger at that time from the Federal power. And it cannot be denied that such a jealousy continued to exist with many patriotic men until the breaking out of the late civil war. It was then discovered that the true danger to the perpetuity of the Union was in the capacity of the State organizations to combine and concentrate all the powers of the State, and of contiguous States, for a determined resistance to the General Government.
Unquestionably this has given great force to the argument, and added largely to the number of those who believe in the necessity of a strong National government.
But, however pervading this sentiment, and however it may have contributed to the adoption of the amendments we have been considering, we do not see in those amendments any purpose to destroy the main features of the general system. Under the pressure of all the excited feeling growing out of the war, our statesmen have still believed that the existence of the State with powers for domestic and local government, including the regulation of civil rights the rights of person and of property was essential to the perfect working of our complex form of government, though they have thought proper to impose additional limitations on the States, and to confer additional power on that of the Nation.
But whatever fluctuations may be seen in the history of public opinion on this subject during the period of our national existence, we think it will be found that this court, so far as its functions required, has always held with a steady and an even hand the balance between State and Federal power, and we trust that such may continue to be the history of its relation to that subject so long as it shall have duties to perform which demand of it a construction of the Constitution or of any of its parts. [p83]
"See what you think of this post, in reference to the 14th."
Good stuff and right on target. I use the Cornell ref. often and think that's where I found the opposing view?
Don't get me wrong. I live in Tx and it's my money at stake!
Thank you for the extensive response. I'll bookmark the thread and spend some time on the issue over the next few days.
This is certainly a different take than I had been lead to believe over the years. Quite interesting...
Thanks. Glad you liked it. Nice work by Carry_Okie.
Pretty much. But you've got to admit, he can be amusing sometimes.
Like when he's telling Bush how to conduct foreign policy.
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.