Say hello to my little friend:
Posted on 10/22/2020 8:35:31 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
Richard R Clifton is a Smirking Chimp (Dubya) “judge” on the Ninth Circus Court of SquealsLikeAPig.
While I agree with the President's position, the Constitution is very clear with it's specific wording in Article 1 Section 2. The wording calls for an “actual enumeration” (actual count, so no approximations) and “... the whole number of free persons”.
Changing this can be done but would require a constitutional amendment. So while I support the concept, I believe it needs to be done in a different manner.
To add a log to the fire, I would assert that “free persons” does NOT include those that are incarcerated, or are wards of the state (mental institutions).
This as tough one. There is common sense. And then there is a poorly worded(in this case) US constitution. I think the thing to concentrate on is the difference between a legal non resident alien and Illegal Aliens. I am not sure that Illegal Aliens even existed when the constitution was written.
This is the Big Prize - CA will lose at least 15-20 house seats
Say hello to my little friend:
Yes!
Do you know if there is an updated version with current data?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_California
It hasn't been updated since September 2018 [it's a Clinton-Bammy court, and the Old Chink Puppet and the Hoe have to sign off on new judges].
The thing that I add to the table is "age at a glance" [first column], which is one of the most important parts of any Federal court.
Article III judges typically take senior status between 65 and 70.
Absolutely. Non-citizens have the same constitutional rights as anyone else.
Evidence obtained via an illegal search would be thrown out by the court no matter the immigration status of the defendant.
Same applies to all the Constitutional rights.
In this case the opinion, linked in post 20, cites overwhelming proof that the issue of immigration status was explicitly considered by the framers and they clearly meant to include all residents regardless of citizenship status.
This panel and the NY Court that also shot the idea down were both unanimous and bipartisan, and said the Constitutional case isn't even difficult.
Yes, especially under 14th Amendment protections. Courts are correct (Post Civil War/Reconstruction laws/14th Amendment are spoils of the victorious strong-central State/a.k.a our Federal government), heck, if you are allowed to send your non-citizen child to public schools, then you should be able to count your non-citizen household in the census as well by logical default.
I believe that a good argument could be made that the 14th amendment replaced “free persons” with “citizens.”
It then further clarifies citizens as “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.”
Would SCOTUS buy it? Don’t know.
“Non-citizens have the same constitutional rights as anyone else”
Gee, really?
Then by what right do we deport illegal aliens?
Or reject their attempt to buy or possess a gun?
If an invasion force from Sonora shows up in Columbus, NM, bearing arms ( 2A, right? ), then by what right do we stop them with force of arms? If they didn’t shoot up the town, would the military/sheriff of Dona Ana County simply let them ride in and set up camp?
The opinion by the Chinese Nationalists Koh and Chen along with the notorious fellow traveler Richard Clifton is littered with their clever concealment of ordinary legal precedent: they use “undocumented immigrants” instead of the legal term of art “illegal aliens” to attempt to submarine the concept into jurisprudence.
Defending the counting of illegal aliens by invoking the counting of legal immigrants not yet naturalized is a clear attempt at clouding the question of status, intentionally conflating the two illegitimately. Nice try, but equating someone who walked through an arroyo in Naco behind a Cartelista carrying a Kalashnikov with someone who filled out the forms, interviewed with a Consular Officer, and patiently waited for years before arriving with all his paperwork in order is not just deceitful, but dishonest.
Just because strident anti-American “judges” appointed for their ethnicity on the two coasts in some of the most heavily legal/illegal alien occupied areas come up with a twisted treatise buttressing their prejudice doesn’t make it true, or viable as a decision.
The question was about non-citizens, not illegals, but even so the issues are the same.
The Constitution gives the Congress the right to regulate immigration so they can write laws to deport offenders.
Or reject their attempt to buy or possess a gun?
The Congress has written some laws to put restrictions on the 2nd Amendment and federal background checks are one of them. In many states illegal immigrants can perfectly legally purchase firearms from private parties and can legally carry them.
There's no law against non-citizens possessing guns and there's damn sure no such prohibition in the Constitution.
If an invasion force from Sonora shows up in Columbus, NM, bearing arms ( 2A, right? ), then by what right do we stop them with force of arms?
Because they're deemed hostile invaders. We have the right to stop them even if there are a couple of US citizens mixed in with them. It certainly isn't because they have guns.
Defending the counting of illegal aliens by invoking the counting of legal immigrants not yet naturalized is a clear attempt at clouding the question of status, intentionally conflating the two illegitimately.
Take it up with the framers.
I'm not defending it as a policy, just pointing out that the Constitution is unambiguous and clear.
The framers were capable of crafting provisions that don't work so well today, you know. The answer is an amendment, not railing at judges.
An interesting argument that I have not heard before. I will have to look into this.
“In many states illegal immigrants can perfectly legally purchase firearms from private parties and can legally carry them”
Name one. Even if the codes are silent on the specific issue of illegal aliens, the federal code is not and you know it. § 922(g)(5)(A).
Don’t BS me with conflations of non-immigration aliens and illegal aliens. One is admitted legally and the other is not. That’s the difference. As far as non-immigrant aliens, lawfully admitted, I’m all for them being allowed 2A rights. Before 1968 it was perfectly ordinary for Europeans to come to the US with their beautiful hunting rifles for sport. Even now there is exemption for that.
But if you barge the gates you’re nobody. You just left your rights behind you when you crossed the line.
“Because they’re deemed hostile invaders”
How would one go about making such a determination in enough time to respond? Villa’s raids were resisted immediately by the 13th Cavalry, encamped in Columbus. If the Villistas had ridden into town, invoked their 2nd Amendment rights and told the Army guys to stand down, should they? Or would it make more sense to disarm them by force if necessary immediately? (That’s called “fighting back”).
If you think they’re in the country illegally you disarm them immediately, since the act of entering illegally is itself a hostile act.
And back to the census. The Chinese judges in San Jose are just acting on behalf of their brethern who seethe at the idea that the impudent whiteys think they have a right to prevent entry on demand to anyone of the Celestial Race. So they intentionally blur the distinction between legally admitted aliens vs illegal aliens, and work up their little screed from there. They aren’t interested in apportionment. They’re interested in obliterating borders and overwhelming whitey where he lives. You can bet your butt they wouldn’t say that about the Chinese border.
We have no obligation to either count, feed, house, clothe, educate or employ anyone who enters illegally. The fact that for 50 years now activist judges have encroached on all these things - Plyler v Doe being the worst - is just more evidence of the failure of the “government” to do what it’s supposed to.
“You can bet your butt they wouldn’t say that about the Chinese border”
PS, that means I think Chen and Koh are racist trash who have a deranged hatred of anyone Caucasian. The idea that they are on the Federal Bench is almost as absurd as Mazie “Tojo’s Grrl” Hirono being a Senator from an American state.
You're right, federal law prohibits it. My bad.
Don’t BS me with conflations of non-immigration aliens and illegal aliens.
Wait a minute. I was responding to a question about Constitutional rights for non-citizens. You're the one who rode your illegal immigration hobby horse into the conversation.
How would one go about making such a determination in enough time to respond?
Why would you respond if you didn't deem them hostile?
If you think they’re in the country illegally you disarm them immediately, since the act of entering illegally is itself a hostile act.
No, it isn't necessarily a hostile act but even if it was you disarm them by force because of the hostility, not their immigration status.
Also funny that you don't think there's time to determine whether they're hostile but assume you can determine their citizenship.
The Chinese judges in San Jose are just acting on behalf of their brethern who seethe at the idea that the impudent whiteys think they have a right to prevent entry on demand to anyone of the Celestial Race...
Well, all three judges in CA are native born Americans but what about Wesley, Hall and Furman who ruled the same way in NY?
Are they also under the sway of the Middle Kingdom or is it enough that they're following the clear, unambiguous text and accepted meaning of the Constitution?
Congress has constrained some of those rights because of the immigration laws but absent some statute they have Constitutional protection.
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.