Never figured he was on the establishment bandwagon....
What a twat. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! ILLEGAl IS ILLEGAL!
This guy doesn’t understand the issue
Sorry, Judge N. I have a lot of respect for Judge Napolitano, but he’s wrong here.
You can’t decouple natural rights from responsibility. When the government forces people to support invading aliens, regardless of their backstory, it is committing oppression. People have a natural right to life and liberty, and to self-defense and self-determination.
Napolitano’s interpretation would mean that what’s mine is theirs, but not vice-versa. Also, he’s a learned judge—why is he ignoring the discussion that occurred in Congress before passage of the 14th amendment? Why is he blowing off the “and subject to thereof” language?
Why not quote the Justice who said “The Constitution is not a suicide pact?”
Never figured he was on the establishment bandwagon....
I would argue that the possession of a Mexican Consular card makes them effectively agents of Mexico, and not under American jurisdiction. “Invaders” may be a harsh term for most contexts, because it conveys a sense of violence, occupation and plunder. But in terms of the legitimacy of illegal immigration vis a vis the Mexican government, it is accurate. More the most part, these people aren’t fleeing their government; they are acting with the active support of their government. They do not intend to become Americans, but to change America’s laws and customs to suit their demands. And, inasmuch as most either receive taxpayer-funded benefits or send money home, and the Mexican government now relies on such relief, it may even accurately be said they do seek to plunder.
There. Fixed it.
Again, it IS NOT IMMIGRATION, it is invasion. These people are not here to stay and assimilate. They have no intention of learning our language, culture or anything other then directions to the welfare office.
This is an invasion and not only from the south, it is also coming from the mid-east. Using the term immigration is a distraction and not what is happening. As long as we keep discussing whether they are here as immigrants, legal or otherwise, we are being led astray from the facts of the issue.
Lets re-frame the issue to what it is and not some vague legal point.
ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL. And the libtards LOVE illegals for the reason set forth below.
The "progressive" left -- which either ignores or cannot deal with facts -- grasps this one quite well as it is integral to their plan to take complete control of the political system here. The vast proportion of these "immigrants" will immediately take advantage of the comfy welfare "hammock" the left has put in place, often AHEAD of indigenous citizens. These new welfare recipients will -- once the left does away with voter ID -- develop a warm/fuzzy feeling for and become supporters of the Democrats. When the system finally collapses under the burden (Cloward-Piven), the ensuing unrest and turmoil will soon have all of the poor, most of the now devastated middle class and much of the very wealthy leftists who created and will be orchestrating the mess demanding that someone RESTORE ORDER! And ORDER we shall have. But it will NOT be the sort most older citizens would recognize. The exceptions would be those from Germany, Soviet Russia under Stalin, Cuba under Castro...you get the idea!
It’s a constitution, not a suicide pact.
Some well-intended folks have argued that the language "all persons" doesn't really mean "all" because it is modified by "and subject to the jurisdiction (of the United States)." But that language refers to the offspring of mothers who, though here, are still subject to a foreign government -- like foreign diplomats, agents or military. It does not refer to those fleeing foreign governments. It does not -- and cannot -- impose an intent requirement upon infants.
It can and it does refer to the intent of the parents of infants. The suggestion here is that the infants have an intent distinguishable from their parents. This is a tyrannical assumption, actually - it denies parents the natural right to raise their children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” - or not to. The suggestion is that if a foreign power were to occupy a portion of the US - as the Japanese did in fact occupy two Aleutian Islands, part of the Territory of Alaska, in 1942 - the children of any such invading colonizers would be “Americans.”Of course, the idea of obtaining American citizenship for their descendants was the furthest thing from the mind of the Japanese in 1942 - but whether that is or is not the system of the Mexican government in 2015 is a question to be addressed. Trump’s candidacy is in fact primarily a debating point: “Resolved, that by the time one in three Mexicans is living in the US, the US has the right and duty take note, and take action.”
I noted above that the conceit that infants have an intent distinguishable from their parents is tyrannical. And indeed, the “anchor baby” concept explicitly rejects it by asserting that the foreign national who procreates in America must not note well, not may not but must not - be separated from their “American” baby by deportation.
So the fallacy of the “anchor baby” concept is that its proponents claim both that the baby has an intent to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and must not be separated from its parents who are “living in the shadows” because they (hence, their baby) would not be in the US if they were not avoiding “subject(ion) to the jurisdiction thereof.
The judge is indulging in a very low form of demagoguery and slur-mongering. He seems oblivious to the "very dangerous and ugly results" that lawless immigration policies have led to and will exacerbate as long as the lawlessness continues. A judge of all people should have some appreciation of that.
Does he think that all those in the world who'd like to come to the USA should be allowed to come?
Nappy is off the reservation.
Nappy says the right to travel is a natural right. True enough I suppose but how come I can’t drive from Indiana to Kentucky without a driver’s license? Under his theory, if I was an illegal alien, seeking asylum, I would be untouchable. Sorry Nappy, all aliens are “touchable.”
Oh, man!
What a sstudpid idea.
Let’s try flooding Mexico with Anglos, and see how far that argument takes us.
What a colossal pile of BS
Mexican laws states... U.S. citizens should avoid all election-related demonstrations and other activities that might be deemed political by the authorities. The Mexican Constitution prohibits political activities by foreigners; such actions may result in detention and/or deportation.