Since when is it “doing Justice” to have a second set of legal circumstances apply to a special class of people?
We have a constitutionally republican form of government. This means, “of the people, by the people, for the people”. Our immigration laws are the result of The People’s desire for orderly immigration of foreign nationals, particularly to avoid the kind of travesty we now have and should correct immediately by enforcing our laws. To imply, as you have, that it is unmerciful iw flat-out wrong. What part of illegal don’t you get?
Right now, in many communities, there exist two levels of laws: one for citizens, another for illegal aliens. Two citizens in my community were murdered by illegal aliens. The then Chief of Police, a Hispanic, let them go on their own recognizance before all the evidence was in, and of course the two perps vanished.
Does that sound like the families of the victims have Justice?
I have been in line at the DMV and witnessed people who could not speak English and who did not have a green card, getting a drivers license. My nephew stepped up to get his license, and had to present a birth certificate! That is not Justice, it is preferential treatment and in my state ordained by law!
Does this strike you as “just” and equitable?
Newt Gingrich would invent an extra-Constitutional form of citizenship for illegal aliens, and anyone with sense knows that it is only to satisfy employers who do not want to pay a living wage to U.S. workers. SCOTUS would strike it down in a heartbeat.
I do not advocate splitting up families because the whole family should be deported. Children go with parents. Just because a person is born here doesn’t automatically mean they’re a citizen.
The 14th Amendment has bee misinterpreted time and again.
From the Holding of the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
Per Leo Donofrio - This holding has been the subject of enormous dispute in the United States. The “holding”, which is controlling US law, contradicts much of the “dicta“, which is not considered legal precedent...the actual holding of the court is limited to “the single question” of whether the children of aliens who have a “permanent domicil and residence in the United States” are 14th Amendment citizens.
The holding does not specifically grant 14th Amendment citizenship to persons born in the US of illegal aliens, or even of those here temporarily (tourists and students). Numerous legislative attempts have been made on both sides of the Congressional aisle – as well as in a multitude of States – to clarify this holding by statute as to the children of illegal immigrants (aka “anchor babies”).
Of course those anecdotes you provide are not justice. They are a product of a PC culture and willful violation of the law. But mass deportation will not solve that. And even Gingrich’s paths to legality will not solve that. It is corruption plain and simple and will always exist.
As for Wong, no amount of argument that the Supremes got it wrong is going to change it. It will take another case (and I seriously doubt that any case related to Obama’s citizenship is going to be the one.)
And I simply disagree that guest worker visas would be a separate class of citizenship.
I don’t think Newts plan is perfect. But at this point i prefer it to any I have seen. I do not believe this nation is ready for the civil unrest that will accompany the forced deportation of 11 million people. But a reasoned path to legality along with strict guidelines as to who becomes eligible may work. I know that the response will be that we already have strict guidelines—if you. Are illegal that’s it. But I do not think that a.pproach is feasible, affordable, or, as Newt put it, humane. Anyone is free to disagree.