New law barring non-citizens as airport screeners found unconstitutional

In a follow-on decision, the Ninth Circuit will mandate that Al Qaeda provide all the screeners.

The Constitution protects every "PERSON" in the US ...
Go look it up....!

and

Remember no citizenship is required for flight attendants, airline mechanics, pilots or "members our military"!

Citzenship is only required for High and very sensitive National Security jobs.

The Constitution protects every "PERSON" in the US ...
Go look it up....!
and
Citzenship is only required for High and very sensitive National Security jobs.
That 's why no citizenship is required for flight attendants, airline mechanics, pilots or "members of our military"!
( Yes....they have to be legally here )

The Constitution protects every "PERSON" in the US ... Go look it up....!

The Constitution was written when the population of the US was small, there was more land and opportunity than could be utilized by the citizens of the time, and enemies couldn't come and go in a few hours time with weapons that could anihilate the country. Take it in context of the times...maybe now, more than 200 years later, "PERSON" should be changed to "CITIZEN" by ammendment.

Remember no citizenship is required for flight attendants, airline mechanics, pilots or "members our military"! Citzenship is only required for High and very sensitive National Security jobs.

"Members of the military", flight attendants, airline mechanics, and pilots are not "very sensitive National Security jobs"? Uhhhh...aren't all of these people who could cause real chaos? The laws need changing, that's for sure. Are you defending these conditions just because they exist?

What all of this demonstrates is that precedence is a powerful argument. The only answer, at this juncture, is for our government to get serious about the borders and entry/continued residence in the US for non-citizens.

Since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in IN 1868, "the U.S. Supreme Court has -- in a long line of decisions -- emphasized what the amendment states, in part: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The high court has been clear that the Fourteenth Amendment protections are "not confined to the protection of citizens," (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 1886).

I am and always will defend the Consititution !

CONSTITUTION AND CONGRESS PROTECT ALIENS' RIGHTS

Everyone deserves equal protection of laws
By CHARLES LEVENDOSKY
Casper Star-Tribune

We are a nation of immigrants. Unless you are an American Indian, you or previous generations of your family came to the United States as aliens.

There exists a number of misunderstandings about whether aliens -- meaning those persons who are not citizens or nationals of the United States -- have constitutionally protected rights once they are in this country. The issue is significant enough to clarify for our readers.

Article I, Sections 8 of the U.S. Constitution has granted Congress broad power regarding immigration and naturalization, over who may enter the United States and under what conditions they may remain here. However, during the time aliens reside in the United States, they enjoy a number of important constitutional protections.

Since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the U.S. Supreme Court has -- in a long line of decisions -- emphasized what the amendment states, in part: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The high court has been clear that the Fourteenth Amendment protections are "not confined to the protection of citizens," (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 1886).

The court in Yick Wo decision wrote: "These provisions are universal in application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws."

In 1948, the high court struck down a California law that banned fishing licenses to "any person ineligible to citizenship," because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment, (Torao Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission). The court wrote that "all persons lawfully in this country shall abide in any state on an equality of legal privileges with all citizens under non-discriminatory laws."

In Graham v. Richardson (1971), the Supreme Court struck down Arizona and Pennsylvania laws that denied welfare benefits to resident aliens and aliens who have not resided in the United States for a specified number of years. The law, the high court stated, violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress has passed a number of laws protecting the civil liberties of aliens and over the years revised those laws to make them more inclusive.

Title 18, Section 242 of the U.S. Code, entitled "Deprivation of rights under color of law," spells out the punishment for depriving aliens of constitutional rights. It states, in part: "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned... ."

In general, the Supreme Court has protected the right of aliens to public education, public welfare, right to earn a livelihood, to engage in licensed profession, to own property, to the equal protection of the law and to due process of law.

If the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the expression of a universal, inherent right to be free, then those same documents apply to all men and women who arrive on our shores legally.

Copyright Casper Star-Tribune
December 27, 2001

http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.lev.alienliberties.html

Once the homeland bill gets passed can't Bush fire whoever is a risk?

indeed, claim national security and keep these foreigners our

Back in the 60's my ex-wife ( a non-citizen) couldn't get a job w/ the phone co. because of her status.

Wonder if the judge would feel the same way about Federal Court house screeners?

"Mark Rosenbaum, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, compared the government's attempt to fire non-citizens from screening jobs to the World War II internment of Japanese-Americans."

But of course! A little examination of the Judge's life explains why this lawyer would take such an approach:

(Warning: Contains BARF material)

The Honorable Judge Robert M. Takasugi

Jackie Robinson, the Brooklyn Dodger great who helped integrate our country through baseball, said "the right of every American to first-class citizenship is the most important issue of our time." No person has taken this issue to heart more than Robert M. Takasugi.

A twelve-year old Robert M. Takasugi and his family were uprooted from their home in Tacoma, Washington, relocated, and interned along with 130,000 other Japanese Americans pursuant to President Order 9066. Describing the ordeal as "an education to be fair" and one of many challenges he faced, Takasugi went on to receive degrees from UCLA and USC Law School. Thereafter, his commitment to equal justice took him to the streets of East Los Angeles, where he represented many indigent arrestees of the Watts Riots, East Los Angeles Riots, and other civil rights protestors in the sixties'.

After serving on the Los Angeles Municipal and Superior Court benches, Judge Takasugi became the first Japanese American appointed to the federal bench in 1976. As both a district court judge for a quarter century and an invitee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Takasugi's work has consistently been marked by a high degree of integrity and a commitment to equal access to justice.

Judge Takasugi has authored numerous cutting edge opinions including: Bouman v. Pitchess (court trial finding discrimination against female sheriffs in sergeant promotional exam); Lyons v. City of Los Angeles (issuing a preliminary injunction against LAPD for its use of choke holds); Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Marsh (environmental protection action by Native Americans against federal and state governments); Asian American Business Group v. City of Pomona (finding unconstitutional the city 's ordinance requiring all business signs be partially in English); People for Community Empowerment v. City of Long Beach (questioning the constitutionality of the city's public-gathering permit process); Weiner v. FBI (releasing FBI documents under FOIA related to the politically motivated surveillance of John Lennon); Gonzales v. McEuen (due process for high school students facing expulsion); and US v. DeLorean (high profile criminal drug case against auto maker including allegations of evidence held by publisher Larry Flynt).

It was in DeLorean that the The American Lawyer had this to say about Judge Takasugi:

It would be impossible to come away from an examination of this trial and its jury without renewed appreciation for the role of judge. Takasugi's good humor, scrupulous fairness, and attention to the jurors gave them the appreciation for the process and the inspiration to make it work that impelled them to meet a very high public calling. He raised the level of the proceedings to the highest plane, and his jurors met him there.

Robert M. Takasugi is truly an extraordinary person who is, as the Los Angeles Times described him, a jurist who "swims against the national tide." In 2002, he gained national media attention for his dismissal of several indictments against Iranian and Iranian American defendants, alleged to be members of a cell of the Moujahedeen Khalq, a group seeking to overthrow the current Iranian government. The defendants challenged the government's unilateral characterization of the Iranian opposition group as a terrorist organization.

In the face of post-9/11 public sentiment, Judge Takasugi ruled that the government's procedure for classifying the group as a terrorist organization was unconstitutional because the classification was made without due process of law. Judge Takasugi opined, "When weighed against a fundamental constitutional right which defines our very existence, the argument for national security should not serve as an excuse for obliterating the Constitution."

Through his service on the Judicial Affirmative Action and Indigent Panel Committees, Judge Takasugi has always strived to expand the participation in law of women and people of color. He was the first judge in the Central District of California to hire a female law clerk.

But perhaps Judge Takasugi's greatest contributions have occurred outside the courthouse, in his role as teacher, mentor and role model to thousands of law students and attorneys. By personal example and leadership, Judge Takasugi has tirelessly labored to encourage each of his students and mentees to reach their full potential and to give back to the community.

In the sixties, Judge Takasugi founded a pro bono bar review course for public interest and minority law students. Although the course is no longer taught in his home, Judge Takasugi still takes time to teach various bar review subjects. He is assisted by a who's who of local attorneys as teaching alumni who share his vision of community service, such as Erwin Chemerinsky and Charles Whitebread. The bar review course continues to have a 90% passage rate.

Judge Takasugi also mentored the founders of the Asian Law Caucus who battled for the vindication of all Japanese Americans in Korematsu v. US (reversing the conviction of a Japanese American refusing to be interned and finding that the internment had been based on misleading information about Japanese Americans).

The diversity of groups which have honored Judge Takasugi - including the American Bar Association, the Mexican Bar Association, the Pilipino Bar Association, the Japanese American Bar Association, the Korean American Youth Foundation, the Criminal Courts Bar Association, the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, and the Coeur de' Alene Indian Reservation, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, just to name a few - is a testament to his commitment, not only to the Asian American community, but to justice and expanding opportunities for all.

http://k2pr.net/takasugi/takasugi.html

I also believe the Constitution is the basis for our government, and our laws should be based on its tenets.

One thing its writers provided (wisely) was a process to amend it. Your examples clarify the need for that. We simply cannot have security at home if non-citizens have so many rights. It's obvious that no one group can be targeted; the precedence of these laws will protect them

I really don't understand why people are using the argument "we're all immigrant children". My ancestors came here when there was a need, in a growing country, for farmers, laborers, and factory workers. That need no longer exists.

The other point is that when my ancestors arrived, entering the country and becoming a citizen was a rigorous procedure. That is hardly the case now, and that is why it has gotten out of hand. At this point, what we need to do is stabilize our population, for security, cultural/language, matching jobs with opportunities and the the environment. I just don't see how we can have security with the status quo on entry into the US without severe curtailment of our freedoms.

That's part of the discomfort with the Homeland Security Act. A lot of measures are being taken which will quite probably cause a loss of freedoms and more surveillance of law-abiding citizens and present a real danger to our futures in the hands of the wrong officials. A lot of this could be avoided if those in charge identified the real problem and solved it. That problem is that people who want to destroy the US and everything we represent can pretty much enter the country at will.

....Unless the consitution is amendented ,,,,,It;s very clear what it says.........

I bet you , no one will ever amend this part of the consititution.........

Also, Remember BUSH v GORE was decided on this part of the Constitution...........
Would you like to reverse that too?

Since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in IN 1868, "the U.S. Supreme Court has -- in a long line of decisions -- emphasized what the amendment states, in part: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The high court has been clear that the Fourteenth Amendment protections are "not confined to the protection of citizens," (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 1886).

Also, there is a difference between an LEGAL and An ILLEGAL ALien........

Ford...

A poor analogy-
How is it that you think something that is IN the constitution can be found to be unconstitutional?

I am not certain as to the point you are trying to make. Care to expand?