The Slaughterhouse Cases, the Key to Controlling Illegal Immigration?

US Supreme Court ^ | 1872 | MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court

[Carry_Okie]

This is the first interpretation of the 14th Amendment on record.
The following text is from the majority opinion (about 3/4 of the way down the page):

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+f_slavery!3A]/doc/{@6621}/hit_headings/words=4

Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)
Opinions
MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court

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.

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

Enjoy!

[nanny]

All I can say about your entire post is you don't know what is happening. You see what you read and you are mouthing the words of (a) Democratic Party (b) Republican Party (c)corporations that are getting cheap labor because it is being subsidized by taking it from working taxpayers.

I don't think anyone hoes beets anymore, do they? Don't we have machinery for that - we did about 50 years ago anyway. Silly? Not nearly as silly as y our post. Someone was doing the work when these people came - I saw it. The chickens were getting plucked the cows were being milked, the rooms were being cleaned - but gosh, they had to actually pay those people, collect-remit-and match taxes - voila! let's buy some politicians and they will import us some cheap labor and let the taxpayers worry about the rest of it. That is the long and short of it.

I saw the transformation - I say the people in chicken plants put out of work, I saw the dairy workers put out of a job, I saw the seamstresses put out of a job - so sell that to someone else - not me.

Another thing - if not for the cheap labor that does allow a lot of work, farming especially to lag behind in technology - we would have more machinery developed to do the work - but why develop it when the government will import you workers, the taxpayers will subsidize them. This is also one of the dark sides of the illegal immigration story - it keeps a country from progressing technologically.

No, it was not lack of workers - it was greed - pure and simple greed.

[american spirit]

I would add that those same cheap workers are NOT here to assimilate as did previous generations....no intent is colonize entire neighborhoods, towns, cities and whole regions such as the Soutwest aka AZTLAN. Along with all the welfare style bennies these illegals can use Motor Voter to get their reps elected so that the $ flowing to "their community" continues to grow.....at our expense.

[Regulator]

But the fact remains, for the first 100 years or so of this country, all you had to do is to be not a black or yellow, get in a boat and show up and presto, you were a citizen

Wrong. Naturalization was a defined process even before the United States was founded, and consisted of proving that you were a freeman (couldn't still be indentured, as many people were), and after a period of time -- different in different places -- going before a judge and swearing loyalty to the King of England, William Penn and his colony, the Earl of Granville, etc. And since these were monarchs, the notion of citizenship was restricted to "subject". All it mean't was that they would "allow" you to live on their property -- i.e., the places now called Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, you get the idea.

Where did you think the American colonists got the whole naturalization idea in the first place? That a "rule of naturalization" could be made was one of the first things written in the Constitution.

[Kenny Bunk]

With Karl Rove running the show, it is entirely possible that GWB will manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The man simply has to say "No to Rove," and back up us, his people in four ways:

CLEAN UP THE BORDER WITH MEXICO AND END ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
(Does Karl Rove really think that the offspring of illegal Mexicans are the Republicans of the future?

END ILLEGAL VOTING.
(Look what happened in Maryland and Missouri when the first straight elections in decades were held.)

BACK UP THE GOOD PEOPLE WITH SUPPORT FOR GUN RIGHTS.
Why back up-Chuck and Hellary on gun control? Does Karl Rove think these two clymers will ever be of any help to you or this country?

REDUCE TAXES BY MAKING GOVERNMENT SMALLER.
The first President who manages to close down a government department ...like Education ... will go down in history as a great president. How about a budget freeze one year? How about de-funding the Left? Does Bill Moyers and his son really need a $Million in taxpayer money every year?

Reagan showed the way to all Republicans. Come out with a simple program. And then execute it (and anybody who gets in the way... in a nice way of course.)

[NovemberCharlie]

No kidding. Have you read the full opinion? I haven't yet, but the history therein promises to be most interesting reading. The rise of corporations funded by European money just after the Civil War was the reason I had developed an interest in the 14th Amendment. A very admirable pursuit, especially considering the questionable ratification of that Amendment that has so consostently bedevilled conservatives. Excuse me, but that sounds just like the "living Constitution" crap we get from liberals...

...

I agree with you that the Slaughterhouse cases have not oft been cited, but the reason for that may well be more confirmation of its import than it is reason to ignore it.

What I meant is that the Court have been known to change their minds. Depending entirely on precedent can be a very bad thing when the original opinion was wrong. Still in all, I happen to wish the Court had stuck with the original in this case.

[Carry_Okie]

A very admirable pursuit, especially considering the questionable ratification of that Amendment that has so consostently bedevilled conservatives.

I have located two of the sources mentioned in the article in post 48:

A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest Upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union. [1st edition]. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1868. xlvii, 720pp. Reprinted 1999 by The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. LCCN 99-20589. ISBN 1-886363-92-7

Lawyers and the Constitution by Benjamin R. Twiss (1942) is available on Amazon.

[nanny]

I would add that those same cheap workers are NOT here to assimilate as did previous generations....no intent is colonize entire neighborhoods, towns, cities and whole regions such as the Soutwest aka AZTLAN. Along with all the welfare style bennies these illegals can use Motor Voter to get their reps elected so that the $ flowing to "their community" continues to grow.....at our expense.

So true - the only thing I can think to do is just stop paying for them. Restructure my lifestyle so I pay little or no taxes - and try to find some other state than Texas to live. Now it will be harder for me to leave Texas than it would to leave the US, I think. I once got on a plane in labor so my son would be born in Texas rather than Louisiana!!! Oh, nothing against Lousania - mind you.

[DBtoo]

Did you hear the tape of Hillary screeching away on FOX yesterday? I heard it from the other room and wondered who on earth that was. I thought to myself that sounds like one scary and evil woman. And lo and behold it was Hillary! Sorry to get a little off topic but I am still thinking about that today. That woman is extremely frightening.

[DBtoo]

I worry a lot about Hillary, I really do. I've been concerned for some years now that she will end up as our president. She will be like a female Pol Pot.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

"I am curious as to why the founding fathers, jefferson, washington, franklin, etc. are legal immigrants and people whom you don't like are not. Basically, these guys got in a boat and just showed up and presto, they were legal, while after 1920 or so, you could not do that."

Where did you get your information? And where are you coming from with this kind of comment? The following are facts regarding the three "founding fathers" you slander:

Benjamin Franklin was born in Boston in 1706 to a tradesman and a homemaker,

George Washington was born in 1732 into a Virginia planter family.

Thomas Jefferson was born in 1743 in Albermarle County, Virginia.

No boats. Not immigrants. Americans by birth. Immigration and Naturalization law is based in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 states: "The Congress shall have power...to establish a uniform rule of naturalization...". Immigration and Naturalization law began a long time before 1920.

And are you not aware that the Constitution establishes certain criteria that must be met for one to become President of these United States? It is found in Article 2, Section 1: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

This land, this country, is ours; it belongs to We The People of these United States. It is by grace that we extend privileges of immigration to those not born here. Immigration is not a "right" except as we choose to grant it. Those who choose to come into this country illegally have no rights.

Now that we have all that stated, what is your real beef? Whom should we be letting into this country without regard to immigration law? Why would you not want controls on immigration?

[liberalnot]

that's rude.

i grew up on a farm and i can tell you for sure that a lot of weeding is still done by hand. just the other day cal- osha proposed making bending over by mexican immigrants in california fields illegal.

and so on.

your hate is not appropriate to this forum.

[judgeandjury]

I am curious as to why the founding fathers, jefferson, washington, franklin, etc. are legal immigrants and people whom you don't like are not. Basically, these guys got in a boat and just showed up and presto, they were legal, while after 1920 or so, you could not do that.

You need to determine what immigration laws existed at the time that our founding fathers "got in a boat and just showed up". If there were no immigration laws in place to be violated, then no immigration laws could have been violated. Thus, it was not "illegal" for our founding fathers to "get in a boat and just show up", as they did. After 1920 or so, the United States had immigration laws in place and thus there were immigration laws that could be violated.

[judgeandjury]

rest assured that the recliner racists on this forum are not going to drop their ice cream and leave their tv's to go do work that illegals do.

Would you quit your current job to work at minimum or sub-minimum wages? Most Americans couldn't afford to. By the way, race mongering doesn't reflect well on you.

[liberalnot]

i've read these rants against immigrants on this forum for years, and stand by my observation.

why don't you address the real issue, as i mentioned in my original post--the problem is that baby boomers and succeeding generations do not have enough children to keep our economy humming. and the politicians know that.

that's why, as i was driving home tonight and was listening to john and ken on radio kfi rant and rave about immigation, as they said, neither the republicans nor democrats will do anything about immigration.

immigrants contribute to our economy and buy things. from the point of view of american business immigrants are more necessary to the economy than a 50 year old, sitting in a recliner, eating ice cream, bitching about immigrants.

the american birthrate actually dropped below replacement in the late 1970s. that's the cause. the effect is what you're arguing over now.

it was common for americans of the ww2 generation to have 3,4, and 5 kids. not anymore.

if you want to solve the problem, then have children!

[Grampa Dave]

I have not heard that tape. I would probably have to get an iv of Versed before I heard it to keep my BP down.

She is an absolute Facist, and she is one of the most scariest people on earth not just in America.

[Carry_Okie]

why don't you address the real issue, as i mentioned in my original post--the problem is that baby boomers and succeeding generations do not have enough children to keep our economy humming. and the politicians know that.

immigrants contribute to our economy and buy things. from the point of view of american business immigrants are more necessary to the economy than a 50 year old, sitting in a recliner, eating ice cream, bitching about immigrants.

The real issue in this thread is about how the government of the United States has used a false and twisted interpretation of the Constitution, the supreme LAW of the land, to force law-abiding citizens to accept these problems against their will. It's not about how illegals work hard doing jobs Americans supposedly won't do.

Excuse me, but I weed my land (500 hours of it so far this season) and I have never hired an illegal alien. Many illegals make $10-15 per hour doing the work I do. Those ARE jobs Americans will take.

Not a few are Arabs, Central and South Americans, and Chinese; people who PAID coyote smugglers to be here. They commit a disproportionate amount of crime. They are overwhelming our hospitals and are a public health hazard. They are taxing the resources that support our schools. Not a few mean to harm our country, not just work a job. Many run drugs. A few mean to complete acts of terrorism.

None of those problems respect a country of origin. It isn't a race problem. It's a rate problem, it's a crime problem, and it's a public health problem. There are more than we can clothe, feed, heal, and educate because so many are NOT self-supporting. They are a danger to this country.

The United States government is acting in the interest of criminal, financial, and political interests, ADVERSE to the will of the people. The vast majority of Americans oppose illegal immigration, including a large proportion of first-generation legal immigrants. Those facts mean that in this respect, the government is acting in an illegal fashion and everybody knows it. It produces a climate in which the respect for the rule of law decays. History teaches that when a government loses its legitimacy with the prople, its society descends into chaos.

Your obstinately single-sided view of this matter betrays your own obsessive racism and is an abuse of this forum. Take your viscious race baiting elsewhere.

[Carry_Okie]

Sorry, I forgot you. I think you'll find the data on this to be thread of interest.

[skeeter]

And where are you coming from with this kind of comment?

I am convinced that a good percentage of open border advocates are fixated on race themselves, meaning they don't like the racial makeup of the country as it is, and assume that anyone who disagrees with their point of view must be doing must be similarly motivated. Its called "reflecting".

[skeeter]

... uh, that is "projecting".

[liberalnot]

this country has seen your nativism before.

the cause was that american women stopped having the number of children necessary to support our economy.

the effect is illegal immigration.

no doubt george w bush, the republican party, and of course, the democrat party do not agree with you.

do not expect either political party to do anything you say.

thank god! the leaders of this country understand economics.