Court backs Texas in dispute with Bush

Yahoo ^ | March 25, 2008 | MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

[muawiyah]

BTW, the other part of the argument is the existing legislation that's been on the books "since forever" (we don't know when it showed up) about children born to aliens who are visiting the United States.

The law requires that such children be ADDED TO the family visa.

At the same time no American law requires an American citizen to have a visa to enter the United States.

So, is the kid a citizen who needs no visa and need not be entered on the family visa, or is he just another foreigner who needs to be entered on the family visa?

We are lucky Roberts didn't put an addendum in his decision about special status of persons without visas ~ he may turn out to have been the WRONG MAN at the WRONG TIME!

[definitelynotaliberal]

Loud Mime and I have talked about the 14th ammendment. I have read it, I do understand it, and I did read (and post) this original thread. I just didn’t understand what you were saying. Perhaps I’m more linear in my phrasology. I understood your concerns right away when Loud Mime expressed your thought in different words.

I will have to think about this some more. I hope that the 14th gets challenged in court. But this particular case, in my estimation, is more a 10th ammendment argument than 14th. I’m not a scholar, but I think that in some way, the 10th was underscored yesterday. And I’m glad for it.