Posted on 01/14/2003 8:01:56 AM PST by JackelopeBreeder
As to abortion, talk is cheap, action speaks louder than words. Do the right thing beats say the right thing anytime.
If you haven't found posts as to substance on the thread by me, you cannot or will not read. I have spent a lot of time over the last three days doing precisely that and the fact that those posts do not thrill those terriblky concerned about the doings on our border with Mexico does not mean that the arguments and facts have not been posted.
The constitution passes itself on to future generations if the nation lasts. We have no obligation to resist any and all constitutional changes. What we need to do is see to it that the constitution is changed only according to the methods prescribed therein and then only wisely. No one died and left SCOTUS as a permanent ongoing constitutional convention without need for ratification.
Responsible just begs further definition. Whence derives these obligations.? Your definition suggests that one may not be a conservative and a citizen of any country but ours (which is pure nonsense although we enjoy greater freedom than most).
There is no constitutional provision regarding "invasion" particularly of the non-military sort. We had no immigration laws whatsoever for many years after the rereal of the Alien and Sedition Laws of the 1790s which destroyed the Federalist Party and cost John Adams the presidency despite his lack of enthusiasm. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were encouraging the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions to suggest dire action unlkess the Alien and Sedition Acts were repealed.
It is certainly conservative to demand that the government itself adhere to the limitations of power placed upon it (that being the entire point of the Bill of Rights) by said document. I gather that you mean that a conservative should uphold and obey the demands that the constitution places on government. Most of the demands, if that is a proper word, are negative as in the Bill of Rights. Many of the rest have to do with exercises of discretion such as the grant of legislative power to Congress subject to the limitations of the Bill of Rights and of the constitution generally or the grant of the power of commander-in-chief to the president. Congress may pass or not pass the proposed tax cuts in its discretion. Congress must enact budgets which, as money bills, must begin the House (although this is often violated). The president may send military troops into action in Albania or he may not. It is up to him. The Fifth Amendment is a restraint on the federal government and provides due process of law to persons.
If you agree that those crossing the border are persons, then a conservative would, in your definition and objectively, demand that government provide due process to "illegals."
If that is not your demand, then you are not a conservative according to your own definition, nor are you upholding the constitution since you are rejecting a very important part of it that resulted from the War Between the States at rather high cost in blood. Whether you are a conservative so defined or not, the Fifth Amendment still restrains the federal government nonetheless. The Fourteenth Amendment likewise restrains state governments and their subsidiary regional, county and municipal governments. That's the law.
Class dismissed!
Your immigration lawyerese is about to hit a dead end on what "is", is and what "person" is. The Constitution gives the government the ability and obligation to support a military to repel invasions. You will not be allowed to play games with the definition of "invasion" invasion is, a) an entering or begin entered by an attacking military force. b) an intruding upon others. The day has come and gone for you immigration lawyers to continue to be allowed to play your word games.
Considering you set the tone of this thread with your slurs of racism and clasim, not to mention your claiming that the border groups were acting illegally without supporting information (and those posts were yanked by the moderators), you have no grounds to complain about any insuing insults.
There is ample due process given to illegals, and I am quite familiar with much of the process, as I used to help out friends of mine who have a law practice in immigration law (and who are real lawyers, as opposed to some who say the law should not be enforced). That's not the point - the point is, the government is refusing to act against those who clearly have been identified as such. Once again, you attempt to obfuscate the issue by claiming we seek new law when the old law is more than sufficient - what is lacking is the will to enforce such.
Ah, more righteous indignation from the man who set the tone of this thread by calling the border groups racist. Oh, and BTW, I am nowhere near close to being a border obsessive (another proganda ploy to add to the list you have amassed on this thread - call into question the sanity of those who disagree with you). I have many, many issues that I follow, but despite this I still am far better informed than an amateur disinformation specialist like you.
This also goes for dirtboy who has not proven worthy of more extensive response. Let's hear something about the specific language of the Fourteenth Amendment and what it says of "persons" if you expect response to the border disorder.
Go wallow in your own worthless drivel, BlackElk. You have yet to provide ANYTHING of either substance or merit on this thread. I, however, have proven you to be nothing more than a two-bit disseminator of propaganda, lies and slurs, so my work here is done...
If BlackElk's arguments were correct regarding the 14th Amendment, we would be legally unable to deport illegal aliens. An illegal alien may technically be allowed to collect welfare benefits, but if immigration law were followed they should not be allowed to stay in the country to collect them. The one exception would apply to anyone with an outstanding asylum application, which allows them to stay in this country pending a hearing regardless of immigration status.
Wrong. From the FAIR website:
THE PRUCOL LOOPHOLE
Some think that illegal aliens cannot receive welfare benefits, but they can, as a result of a provision known as PRUCOL (Permanently Residing Under the Color of Law). PRUCOL means a status that has the appearance of, but not the substance of, a legal right. This is not a status created by legislation, but rather one created by the courts. When an alien is designated as PRUCOL, it means that he/she technically has no right to be here, but is allowed to stay anyway. And, since the illegal alien is allowed to stay, he/she gets the same rights as if he/she were here legally. The exception is that a PRUCOL alien is not a legal permanent resident and may not apply for U.S. citizenship. This means that the PRUCOL alien may not sponsor the immigration of family members.
WHO IS GIVEN PRUCOL STATUS?
In general, aliens are considered PRUCOL if:
- they are in the United States illegally, and
- the INS knowingly permits them to remain in the U.S. rather than enforce departure.
HOW IS PRUCOL DETERMINED?
This designation, created by federal agencies in conjunction with the courts, applies to four federal programs to determine whether an illegal alien is eligible for benefits:
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC);
Supplemental Security Income (SSI);
Medicaid, and
Unemployment Insurance benefits.
Each program determines for itself which aliens it considers to meet the PRUCOL criteria. In this way, the federal government uses taxpayers' money to subsidize illegal immigration. Furthermore, many state governments follow the federal government's lead, and give benefits to PRUCOL aliens.
Examples of illegal aliens who might qualify as PRUCOL include:
- aliens who have been here for more than twenty years;
- aliens who have been granted stays of deportation by the courts;
- aliens who are not being deported because of U.S. citizen children;
- aliens whom, for political reasons, the government is not deporting (such as Salvadorans and Cubans).
PRUCOL is just one of the ways that illegal immigration to the United States is encouraged and rewarded by our present sytem, and a demonstration of why we need comprehensive reform.
--------------
I'm not going to further this thread with supposed legal arguments or understandings of the 14th amendment...
Then why did you chime in? BlackElk is trying to claim that the 14th Amendment somehow comes into play with what the border groups are doing ... when it does nothing of the sort.
I was simply refuting your claim:
illegal aliens cannot get welfare benefits...
Are you now trying to move the first down marker as to how far I need to go to disprove your initial point? I can see why you are prone to agree with the likes of BlackElk.
and what type of welfare or aid programs MIGHT they qualify for?
It's all there in what I posted had you bothered to read that far.
Part Three: What Public Benefits Can My Client Get?
Unrestricted Federal Benefits
Congress specifically exempted certain programs from any immigration status restrictions and gave the Attorney General the power to designate other federal benefits programs that may not impose such restrictions. Congress also gave states the option to provide WlC (a nutrition program for pregnant women) to all noncitizens, including the undocumented.
The law exempts:
Emergency Medicaid (including labor and delivery during childbirth), testing and treatment for symptoms of communicable diseases, immunizations, and short-term, in-kind, non-cash emergency disaster relief.
-----
In addition, the law allows states to set additional benefits available to aliens regardless of immigration status.
What do you call these:
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC); Supplemental Security Income (SSI); Medicaid
Last I checked, those were part of what folks consider the welfare system.
You can always use the option given to you as a citizen and change the eligibility requirements as to who and why they are eligible...
Uh, I hate to tell you this, but it's already against the law for them to be here. I shouldn't have to change squat, they should be deported under existing federal law instead of receiving welfare benefits!
And if you had bothered to read my first post to BlackElk you would have realized that this is probably the first position upon which we have agreed...
I'm trying to keep the infection from spreading...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.