Posted on 09/29/2007 6:12:59 AM PDT by Josh Painter
That's not what the 14th says, and its not what it means, either. More importantly, its not what the drafters say they meant, and it's not what the ratifiers thought they were ratifying, either. There are records of the debates in the various state legislatures, and it has been researched.
Not hard at all for me to believe.
Really? Ya REALLY want to go down that road, eh? Ok.
From the appeal case…
"the Texas statute imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children"
"that might justify the State in denying these children an elementary education"
Looks like they are referring to the children (siblings) to me. You know, that is the most likely explanation for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to put the text "Texas has classified appellees on the basis of their own illegal status, not that of their parents. directly into the decision.
So, if the appellees are not the parents there is only one "class of people" left that are petitioning the Court for relief. And that would be the children, AKA "siblings." Which would also explain the Chief Justice use of the phrase "including the siblings"
Of course, if you are of the opinion that a phrase "including the siblings" actually means the siblings are not included, you should be giving Bill Clinton logic lessons.
But let us not stop there! After all, this is an Appeal case.
The original case (you have been quoting from the appeal) is very clear on this issue. You did read the original case, right? Let’s take a look…
PLYLER, SUPERINTENDENT, TYLER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. DOE, GUARDIAN, ET AL.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
457 U.S. 202; 102 S. Ct. 2382; 72 L. Ed. 2d 786 December 1, 1981, Argued June 15, 1982, Decided * * Together with No. 80-1934, Texas et al. v. Certain Named and Unnamed Undocumented Alien Children et al., also on appeal from the same court.
From the first page (I hope you read at least the first page)...
"This is a class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in September 1977, on behalf of certain school-age children of Mexican origin residing in Smith County, Tex"
"After certifying a class consisting of all undocumented school-age children of Mexican origin residing within the School District, the District Court preliminarily enjoined defendants from denying a free education to members of the plaintiff class. "
And from the Appeal Decision...
The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases..."
Plaintiffs filed the appeal, making them appellees, which are described by Chief Justice Burger as "Mexican citizens."
So.
When you state something as blatantly ridiculous as "The America-born siblings of the illegal immigrant appellees are not among the appellees." after including the actual quote from the Chief Justice's Opinion included in the appeal "Children born in this country to illegal alien parents, including some of appellees siblings," and obviously not even bothering to look at the original case, I can not help but believe that you are really not up to continuing this discussion.
Thye system is insane, it took my brother in law almost 10 years to get a green card. He did everything by the book. He has his own private insurance, he collects nothing from our government, he is self supporting. The system punishes those that play by the rules and rewards the law breakers. It is just plain damn nuts.
Listen, idiot. Here is the only transformation you and your ilk will be "ALLOWED" to do:
1- Transform your 40-100 million collective asses somewhere else. If you don't want to go back to the hellholes you came from you will be treated like the racist a$$holes that you're until you do.
2- There are millions of high power transformers in the US. Why don't you and La Razza buddies go and worm up your a$$es on them? Si, weeentaaar is coooomeeeeeen.
You better behave yourselves and learn from most of the legal resident Hispanics or American citizens who don't want you here illegally, comprende?????
That my friend has become the new American way of doing things....
That is for sure.....
The Chief Justice did not put any text in the court's ruling. He wrote the dissent. The decision is binding precedent; the dissenting and concurring opinions are not.
That said, this is what Burger wrote in the dissent:
However, Texas has classified appellees on the basis of their own illegal status, not that of their parents. Children born in this country to illegal alien parents, including some of appellees' siblings, are not excluded from the Texas schools. Nor does Texas discriminate against appellees because of their Mexican origin or citizenship. Texas provides a free public education to countless thousands of Mexican immigrants who are lawfully in this country.
Let's look at the sentence in bold above. Children born in this country to illegal alien parents were not excluded under the Texas law that was being challenged. They had no standing to sue. They were not part of the class that brought the suit. And they are therefore irrelevant to the discussion in both the majority's holding and Burger's dissent.
It is reasonable to construe that the Texas law made a distinction between American-born and foreign-born children because the Texas legislature believed that the American-born students are legally distinct from the foreign-born stusents -- that they are, or at least might be, citizens.
The original case (you have been quoting from the appeal)
I have been quoting from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, because it is the relevant precedent. It is the law.
Of course, if you are of the opinion that a phrase "including the siblings" actually means the siblings are not included, you should be giving Bill Clinton logic lessons.
Some people in my family, including my sister, have blonde hair, but most of my relatives and I have brown hair.
Does the phrase "including my sister" above indicate that my sister is one of my brown-haired relatives? Of course not. The phrase "including the siblings" in Burger's dissent is in a discussion of people who are not covered by the Texas law, and therefore not under discussion.
When you state something as blatantly ridiculous as "The America-born siblings of the illegal immigrant appellees are not among the appellees." after including the actual quote from the Chief Justice's Opinion included in the appeal "Children born in this country to illegal alien parents, including some of appellees siblings," and obviously not even bothering to look at the original case, I can not help but believe that you are really not up to continuing this discussion.
I'm starting to wonder if I'm up to continuing this discussion, because you seem to be so completely missing the point. You are trying to claim that there is a precedent of some sort in what SCOTUS didn't say about people who weren't parties to a case about something else entirely. It's like arguing with a blind man in a dark room about a black cat that isn't there.
He dares mention the elephant in the living room, eh?
I left out the "or naturalized" because it's not relevant to the discussion, and the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" because I discussed it elsewhere in the post. It was not a verbatim quote, I did not present it as such, and giventhat most folks in the thread are quite familiar with the text, I didn't think there was much risk anyyone would mistake it for one.
More importantly, its not what the drafters say they meant,
What the drafters want is not always the law they get. Based on the blog article you posted -- which, as I wrote before, is interesting and sheds a lot of light on the issue -- the drafters were clearly aware that the citizenship status of children born here to foreigners. They were aware of the very issue we're talking about, and while they expressed their opinion on the issue, while they were clearly aware of its importance, they did not write the law in such a way that it clearly and succinctly addressed it.
They coud have ncluded language that addressed the question of someone who owed allegiance to a foreign power; or about an explicit renunciation of same. They did not.
That is called wiggle room. In my experience, when a law contains ambiguous language, it's because the folks who wrote the law couldn't get enough votes to get exactly what they wanted. So they fudged a little here, a little there, to build a sufficiently broad range og support among people who had their own range of ideas.Get the basics adopted, and leave the rest to be fleshed out by future legislation and litigation.
The crux is the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The drafters of the amendment, quoted in the linked article, explained their definition of that phrase. But that was not a universal or even a consensus definition even then, and for a century or so SCOTUS has been pretty consistent in saying that if you're in a state and not explicitly excepted (say, diplomatic immunity), you're under the jurisdiction.
My basic point is that when a law contains a phrase that is subject to interpretation, it is often because it is subject to interpretation, and that is how they get folks on the bandwagon. The fact that it will be interpreted later is built into the law, and is a feature, not a bug. That's why I'm more a literalist than an originalist. A law is a building, not a statue; it is meant to be used, and everything but the frame will change to meet the need.
For clarification:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
The Constitution Of The United States Of America, Amendment XIV {1868}Section I, 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 do process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I will attempt to examine and, thereby, clarify the meaning of the first sentence only.(for now)
key words:
Or: 1. used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives
Note: it’s amusing that OR is used in the above definition exactly the way it is defined IN the definition!
And: (1) Used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses; along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover
Naturalized: One who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States Under the constitution and laws.
Jurisdiction: Refers to the power of a state to affect persons, property, and circumstances within its territory.
Thereof: 1. Of or concerning this, that, or it. 2. From that cause or origin; therefrom.
Note: Thereof is a composite of there and of.
Jurisdiction: refers to the power of a state to affect persons, property, and circumstances within its territory.
Naturalized: One who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States Under the constitution and laws.
Analysis:
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.
Persons born:
(1) All Persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
(2) All Persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction there of (of the united states)are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
(3) All Persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction there of, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Sub-translation: All Persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction there, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Persons naturalized:
(1a) All Persons naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
(2a) All Persons naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction there of, (of the United States)are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
(3a) All Persons naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction there of, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Sub-translation: All Persons naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction there, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Thus: All Persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction there, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Comments:
I have attempted to clarify the language in the IX Amendment in the most straightforward way — in keeping with the brevity displayed by it’s framers.
ReignOfError writes:
“They could have included language that addressed the question of someone who owed allegiance to a foreign power; or about an explicit renunciation of same.”
(Snip)
“Get the basics adopted, and leave the rest to be fleshed out by future legislation and litigation.”
In any case, it looks like the “fleshing out” needs to be done pronto before we are engulfed in a “tsunami of Mexicans.” (as someone earlier described it)
Mexico — Whether our government “leaders” want to acknowledge it or not — has declared war on the people of the United States.
We need to take decisive action now!
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.