Ruling on deportation mystifies abortion foes (unborn child US citizen with Const. rights-what?)

The Kansas City Star ^ | 6-6-04 | DONALD BRADLEY

[EdReform]

Ditto! Bump.

[steplock]

Rep. Ed Emery attacks judicial activism by: e-emery
Updated: 2004-04-02 12:30:35-07
http://www.joplinindependent.com/display_article.php/e-emery1080930635


We took a step closer this week to stopping judges who want to legislate from the bench. We also took a step forward to protect marriage from those who would pervert and destroy it as an institution. These steps are closely related. They are both designed to protect us and our families from judicial activism.

I presented House Resolution 263 to the House Rules committee on yesterday. HR 263 is a resolution from the Missouri House of Representatives to the United States Congress requesting that Federal Judge Scott O. Wright be investigated and impeached for violation of his Constitutional responsibilities. Author and national speaker, Bill Federer, testified in support of the resolution. If the committee agrees that Judge Wright should be investigated, then the entire House of Representatives will vote. That vote could send the resolution to Washington to request the U.S. House Judiciary committee to initiate a Congressional investigation. I am convinced that if investigated, Judge Wright will be impeached.

The second success this week was when the House voted 128 to 20 in favor of a constitutional amendment to secure the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The proposed amendment is now subject to a vote of the people, who will decide whether it will become part of Missouri’s Constitution.

Our State law already forbids same sex marriages, so why amend the Constitution? The answer is to defend marriage from activist judges like Judge Scott O. Wright. Without this amendment, a single activist judge could unilaterally declare our law unconstitutional and legislate sodomite marriage “from the bench.”

We are living in perilous but exciting times. There is nothing more critical to our nation or to our state than the fundamental institutions of Family and Government. The choices we make today are determining our future success or failure. That is why your prayers and involvement are essential.

Editorial comment:

Judge Wright was appointed by President Jimmy Carter to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri in 1979. Emery's measure cites Wright's 1999 decision blocking enforcement of a new Missouri law banning a procedure that opponents call "partial-birth abortion" and doctors call "intact dilation and extraction." The resolution also cites a temporary injunction Wright issued last year blocking a state law that requires a 24-hour waiting period before having an abortion.


The House took no action on Emery's resolution.

[cpforlife.org]

Great Point! Hey, lets ask John Frenchie Kerry he knows everything!

[Coleus]

Yep, it's the MOTHER's right to "choose" not the baby's or God's right to life. If she want's to abort she still can.

[cpforlife.org]

Who are the unborn?

I AM:

A CHILD OF GOD

THE HEART OF A MARRIAGE

THE NEXT GENERATION OF A FAMILY

THE FUTURE OF OUR REPUBLIC

A CITIZEN--WAITING AND WANTING TO BE BORN

A PERSON

DESTROY ME--AND YOU DESTROY THE FUTURE

[Blood of Tyrants]

Even worse is how this judge is completely willing to say that an unborn child is a US citizen and protected by the Constitution yet it is still legal to kill it if it's mother gets a fleeting notion to do so.

[longtermmemmory]

that involves logic. Under doublethink rules no.

Its never about abortion, open borders, 99% income tax rates, or even homosexual marriage. For the left it is about degrading the USA, destroying the king of the mountain status of the USA.

This ruling is already making ripples because it brings back the ANCHOR BABIES. Something eliminated by previous immigration laws. Minor US citizens were sent back with illegal alien babies.


Thus the LOGICAL thing for this judge to have do was declare it a US citizen and deport the mother anyways.

[Askel5]

Don't be fooled. This is just a case of competing interests.

It's more important that the US be reseeded with Mexicans and the Chicom/Former USSR baby trade than it is to win EVERY ruling, hands-down, for the pro-aborts.

To wit ... the Republicans look after the trial attorneys where damages for unborn "wanted" fetuses are concerned while defining quite clearly the window of "Non-Personhood" in the wake of Bush's ESCR decision.

It's calling eating your cake and having it too.

[longtermmemmory]

Big Nanny Loves YOU!!!!(/s)

[johnb838]

In this case the baby is the child of an american citizen, so I have no problem with it being allowed to stay. If Mama can't stay, that's just too bad. But still, if you're married to an american and have an american child, I would think that would get you a green card, as long as it wasn't a sham marriage.

[CindyDawg]

IMO , one has nothing to do with the other and the judge is talking out both sides of his mouth. To me, it seems he is pro-abortion and anti immigration and is using the baby to fight deportation. My question would be that if the mother who is allowed to stay in the states to protect this citizen decides she wants an abortion, will this judge rule for the child?

[MineralMan]

"This judge is weird. Without looking it up, I'm almost sure that a non-citizen's baby has to be born in this country to automatically be a citizen. Otherwise, someone who conceived their child here, then went home and had the baby, would still be able to claim that the baby was a citizen."

---

Not exactly. Since this woman was married to an American citizen, the baby will be entitle to U.S. citizenship, whether born in this country or outside of it. Children of U.S. citizens are entitled to citizenship.

I think the reporter got this wrong. Once the baby is born, it will be entitled to be a U.S. citizen. Therefore, deporting the woman makes no sense, since the child will need to be with its mother after its birth, and will be a U.S. citizen. Therefore, deporting the mother would be a hardship for the soon-to-be born baby.

This has nothing to do with anchor babies at all. It also has little to do with the status of a fetus. The reporter, I think, has misunderstood the ruling.

[arthurus]

And that's it, then. A few judges and bureaucrats get intent on enforcing "the letter of the law" in isolated cases even when the particular letter is bogus and allow great gouts of violations to pass unhindered.

[swilhelm73]

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." --George Orwell, Animal Farm

[ScottFromSpokane]

Hey, I'm a busy man! I don't have time to read stuff before I respond to it.

[Dante3]

Judge Scott Wright is wrong. He's truly a crazy man, belongs to the Judges' Hall of Shame. Next he won't deport someone because his sperm were formed in this country.

[arthurus]

I wouldn't even qualify a "sham" marriage unless a divorce occurs pretty much immediately on entry. I'd hate to leave it to bureaucrats and judges to define a sham marriage.

[San Jacinto]

I imagine it is a judge just looking for a reason not to deport the woman. It's probably still okay to abort, just as long as you don't deport. I'm sure it's all perfectly logical to the left-wingers.

[gitmo]

I wonder: Since fertilized eggs are citizens, how about unfertilized eggs? How about sperm?

[cpforlife.org]

This bovine scatology does not fool me for a second. However it does offer some fuel (low-yeild) for the lifers.