Keep the new law. Ban illegal criminal border jumping aliens from residing in the town and give them a new place to live in a detainee camp until they are transported back across the border.

Quoted: Keep the new law. Ban illegal criminal border jumping aliens from residing in the town and give them a new place to live in a detainee camp until they are transported back across the border.

You would have to build detainee centers across the country and staff them. The cost would be astronomical.

height=8

Quoted: height=8 Quoted: height=8 Quoted: height=8 Quoted: height=8 Quoted: ya know.  It's times like this when a court blatantly disregards common sense, the law, and the will of US CITIZENS, that people get the irresistible urge to riot and burn a F-ing courthouse down!  hat   One thing I was taught in schools that has always stuck with me is "The will of the majority shall not infringe on the rights of the minority." Does the term ILLEGAL mean anything to you? They should be treated just as any other invader of our country should be treated. Maybe it means to him more than we catch on and that is why his answers seem to lean that direction.Hardly. I'll refer you to Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution of 1789.  I'll also refer you to Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 2; Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 3; and Article 2, section 1, Paragraph 5. Also, if you'd bother to research the debates regarding the Bill of Rights or even the explicit language of the amendments you will clearly see that such protection were intended to be a limit on the power of the central government, not the state governments.

Quoted: Quoted: Keep the new law. Ban illegal criminal border jumping aliens from residing in the town and give them a new place to live in a detainee camp until they are transported back across the border. You would have to build detainee centers across the country and staff them. The cost would be astronomical.

the cost of them being here is astronomical as well.

Quoted: Quoted: holee smokes, I've never seen such widespread misapprehension regarding the scope of the Constitution's protections. Having been here awhile, that's saying a lot! Care to elaborate?

Short answer: Absolutely not.

Long answer: You cannot teach the unwilling. I will say this, however. The scope of the Constitution relatively clear and open to little debate. The opinion in this thread is mostly contrary to established principles of law whose development is hundreds, if not thousands of years in the making.

(I realize that the Constitution is not thousands of years old but the seeds that spawned it and the body of constitutional law that now exists are at least a couple thousand years old.)

That having been said, I'm not going to get into some half assed pissing match about how long lines of intelligent and well-educated jurists don't know shit because Jim Bob or Jon Boy  read some stuff on the web, listened to Rush Limbaugh, read the Constitution a few times and are now supreme constitutional scholars that know far more than those bonehead morons on the SCOTUS. I'm not going to add anything because the response will be at best, ungrateful, if history tells us anything.

The legal theory and case law is well developed, you need merely read it for yourself. I'm not going to be the whipping boy for a group of people who take issue with that law despite the fact that they have absolutely no training in the field. What a pointless exercise. Thanks for the invite, though.

Legal theory is meaningless if it is wrong or conflicts with the explicit black letter law of the constitution.  The Constitution clearly establishes a class of non-citizens who receive NO protections under it.  Also, the Constitution does explicitly require citizenship for the most fundamental protections: voting and holding office.  That the courts have (for at least the past 70 years--hundreds of years is a disingenuous comment to say the least) ruled contrary to the letter of the law and the clearly defined rational of the Founders does not make the courts right.  It makes them consistently wrong.  From 1791 to 1946 the courts consistently ruled that religion on public schools was protected.  Now that it is prohibited, does that mean the Founders meant that to happen?  Clearly not.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Keep the new law. Ban illegal criminal border jumping aliens from residing in the town and give them a new place to live in a detainee camp until they are transported back across the border. You would have to build detainee centers across the country and staff them. The cost would be astronomical. the cost of them being here is astronomical as well.

After our experiences with japanese detention centers in WW2, you'll never see new ones being built that the public approves of, in spite of the thread the other day about Bush contracting with Haliburton to start construction.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: holee smokes, I've never seen such widespread misapprehension regarding the scope of the Constitution's protections. Having been here awhile, that's saying a lot! Care to elaborate? Short answer: Absolutely not. Long answer: You cannot teach the unwilling. I will say this, however. The scope of the Constitution relatively clear and open to little debate. The opinion in this thread is mostly contrary to established principles of law whose development is hundreds, if not thousands of years in the making. (I realize that the Constitution is not thousands of years old but the seeds that spawned it and the body of constitutional law that now exists are at least a couple thousand years old.) That having been said, I'm not going to get into some half assed pissing match about how long lines of intelligent and well-educated jurists don't know shit because Jim Bob or Jon Boy  read some stuff on the web, listened to Rush Limbaugh, read the Constitution a few times and are now supreme constitutional scholars that know far more than those bonehead morons on the SCOTUS. I'm not going to add anything because the response will be at best, ungrateful, if history tells us anything. The legal theory and case law is well developed, you need merely read it for yourself. I'm not going to be the whipping boy for a group of people who take issue with that law despite the fact that they have absolutely no training in the field. What a pointless exercise. Thanks for the invite, though.

Translation:

I only came into this thread to tell you what an asshole you are, I know the truth, you dont and I dont care to add to the conversation other than to tell you you are an asshole.

Thanks for posting

Quoted: I have a real simple solution to the problem.  Shoot every single one that is confirmed an illegal alien, shoot them as they come across the border, I don't care if they are man woman, or child (well, not the child, but don't let them across, they'll probably run after daddy has been shot anyways). I'm tired of the fact that every single freaking prek school I look at to put my daughter in (which I will pay for out of my pocket) has a MANDATORY spanish class, which as I understand is mandated by the state of Texas.  I'm tired of seeing spanish billboard signs when I drive down the highway, I'm tired of hearing, for english press 1 and for spanish press 2.  I'm tired of having to foot the bill for welfare and for public schools that use my money to teach the children of people who are only here because their parents committed a felony.  I'm tired of having this issue brought up and talked about by everyone that I know, and the federal government that is supposed to be OUR government for us and by us, getting in bed with the government of another country and giving their poor my money that should be going to my kids.  I don't give a flying shit about political correctness or compassion.  My state is being over run as is my whole fucking country and no one wants to do a damn thing about it in the government.  They encourage it and say it's going to help stop it.  Bull shit x 999999999999999  I'm fed up with it.  Anyone disagrees?  I don't give a flip.  Take your disagreement elsewhere and shove it up your ass.

Bravo! I absolutly agree

HAHAHAH! In short, I pretty much agree. Tired of it, period.

Quoted: Translation: I only came into this thread to tell you what an asshole you are, I know the truth, you dont and I dont care to add to the conversation other than to tell you you are an asshole. Thanks for posting

Oh you want to play this little game?

Let me translate your last prior post:  "I can see you don't agree with me. Why don't you post something that I know I don't agree with and upon a subject which I will not change my mind becuse I NEED to start an internet fight today because I can't possibly lose! If you post ANYTHING at all, I WILL pick a fight with you"

And look, you've done it! Someone take your milk money yesterday and you're looking to even the score on the internet, right?

Quoted: Quoted: Translation: I only came into this thread to tell you what an asshole you are, I know the truth, you dont and I dont care to add to the conversation other than to tell you you are an asshole. Thanks for posting Oh you want to play this little game? Let me translate your last prior post:  "I can see you don't agree with me. Why don't you post something that I know I don't agree with and upon a subject which I will not change my mind becuse I NEED to start an internet fight today because I can't possibly lose! If you post ANYTHING at all, I WILL pick a fight with you" And look, you've done it! Someone take your milk money yesterday and you're looking to even the score on the internet, right?

Not at all..... I wasn't looking for a fight, I thought someone who was versed in Constitutional law could elabrorate why we are wrong in our understanding of the constitution.

ETA- You are the one who has the condescending attitude, not me. If you weren't prepared to give a least a slight definition of why we are wrong than why did you post in the first place?

Quoted: What's everyone so upset about?  The judge's position is the same as George W. Bush's, right?

Judges aren't supposed to have positions.  They are only meant to rule on matters of law, as written by elected representative bodies.  

Quoted: Legal theory is meaningless if it is wrong or conflicts with the explicit black letter law of the constitution.  The Constitution clearly establishes a class of non-citizens who receive NO protections under it.

1) Legal theory MAY be meaningless but once it is put in to practice (i.e. case law) it is quite the opposite. It is purely practical. I speak not of pie in the sky theory, case law is what it is. Unless you consummate a revolution, it is anything but meaningless.

2) The SCOTUS has CLEARLY indicated that the Constitution applies as to ALL 'found within' its borders. You can debate, you can argue, you can cry, you can pout, you can decry hundreds of years of legal development but you can't change that very practical fact unless you either A) get appointed to the SCOTUS b) revolt c) become an attorney and convince the SCOTUS otherwise.

There is no legal theory, hocus pocus or mumbo jumbo involved. Them are the facts, jack. All the arcommer mental masturbation in the world won't change that.

P.S. please cite where the Constitution explicitly (black letter law, right?) creates a closs of non citizens who are not protected? Cite the Article and Section with the words non-citizen. I anxiously await your citations.

height=8

Quoted: height=8 Quoted: height=8 Quoted: Translation: I only came into this thread to tell you what an asshole you are, I know the truth, you dont and I dont care to add to the conversation other than to tell you you are an asshole. Thanks for posting Oh you want to play this little game? Let me translate your last prior post:  "I can see you don't agree with me. Why don't you post something that I know I don't agree with and upon a subject which I will not change my mind becuse I NEED to start an internet fight today because I can't possibly lose! If you post ANYTHING at all, I WILL pick a fight with you" And look, you've done it! Someone take your milk money yesterday and you're looking to even the score on the internet, right? Not at all..... I wasn't looking for a fight, I thought someone who was versed in Constitutional law could elaboarte why we are wrong in our understanding of the constitution.

He thinks you're wrong because he looks to precedent before he looks to the actual wording and published logic behind the wording.  He also fails to recognize the history of the colonies leading into statehood and the justification and tactics of the Revolution.  As the courts themselves have clearly stated numerous times, precedent is only ruling if the precedent is RIGHT.

Quoted: Quoted: I have a real simple solution to the problem.  Shoot every single one that is confirmed an illegal alien, shoot them as they come across the border, I don't care if they are man woman, or child (well, not the child, but don't let them across, they'll probably run after daddy has been shot anyways). I'm tired of the fact that every single freaking prek school I look at to put my daughter in (which I will pay for out of my pocket) has a MANDATORY spanish class, which as I understand is mandated by the state of Texas.  I'm tired of seeing spanish billboard signs when I drive down the highway, I'm tired of hearing, for english press 1 and for spanish press 2.  I'm tired of having to foot the bill for welfare and for public schools that use my money to teach the children of people who are only here because their parents committed a felony.  I'm tired of having this issue brought up and talked about by everyone that I know, and the federal government that is supposed to be OUR government for us and by us, getting in bed with the government of another country and giving their poor my money that should be going to my kids.  I don't give a flying shit about political correctness or compassion.  My state is being over run as is my whole fucking country and no one wants to do a damn thing about it in the government.  They encourage it and say it's going to help stop it.  Bull shit x 999999999999999  I'm fed up with it.  Anyone disagrees?  I don't give a flip.  Take your disagreement elsewhere and shove it up your ass. Bravo! I absolutly agree

+1 PLEASE RUN FOR SOME HIGHER OFFICE!

Quoted: Not at all..... I wasn't looking for a fight, I thought someone who was versed in Constitutional law could elabrorate why we are wrong in our understanding of the constitution. ETA- You are the one who has the condescending attitude, not me. If you weren't prepared to give a least a slight definition of why we are wrong than why did you post in the first place?

My initial refusal was polite. People here tend to reject out of hand what they do not wish to hear. I have been called a liberal, a commie, a scumbag, etc. just about every time I tried to be informational on one of these threads. It always ends up with a pissing match about what the law "ought to be" versus what it is.

To begin with, they are apples and oranges comparisons. Furthermore, people tend to confuse my explication of the law with my personal opinions. It's maddening and so I avoid doing it but I couldn't help but put my two cents in about the direction of the thread as a Constitutional law professor You're probably right, however. I shall just refrain from saying anything in the future. I apologize.

Quoted: Quoted: Not at all..... I wasn't looking for a fight, I thought someone who was versed in Constitutional law could elabrorate why we are wrong in our understanding of the constitution. ETA- You are the one who has the condescending attitude, not me. If you weren't prepared to give a least a slight definition of why we are wrong than why did you post in the first place? My initial refusal was polite. People here tend to reject out of hand what they do not wish to hear. I have been called a liberal, a commie, a scumbag, etc. just about every time I tried to be informational on one of these threads. It always ends up with a pissing match about what the law "ought to be" versus what it is. To begin with, they are apples and oranges comparisons. Furthermore, people tend to confuse my explication of the law with my personal opinions. It's maddening and so I avoid doing it but I couldn't help but put my two cents in about the direction of the thread as a Constitutional law professor You're probably right, however. I shall just refrain from saying anything in the future. I apologize.

As you know I did not call you a commie, a liberal or a scumbag. That was not the direction I wanted to go in.

However, do not assume because someone asked you to elaborate on your position that they are looking to rip you to shreds, start a fight, call you names or blindly reject your arguements.

When your students ask you to elaborate on something that perhaps they are not understanding or are misinformed on, you dont tell them I dont want to get into with you, right?

It is a shame, I wanted to hear from someone who has expertise on the matter coment.

Quoted: He thinks you're wrong because he looks to precedent before he looks to the actual wording and published logic behind the wording.  He also fails to recognize the history of the colonies leading into statehood and the justification and tactics of the Revolution.  As the courts themselves have clearly stated numerous times, precedent is only ruling if the precedent is RIGHT.

You are wrong, too. Precedent can control a case even when it is clearly erroneous. Please research the phrase stare decisis. History, which you claim I ignore, makes that very clear. Obviously the SCOTUS is never BOUND by precedent. Precedent is merely a consideration in making decisions for the SCOTUS.

I am still waiting for a citation to the part of the Constitution where it is "actually worded" that non citizens are afforded no protection by the Constitution.

If a foreigner comes to visit our land he can be tortured, detained without trial, raped by the Governor and deprived of all his property without due process of law? Is that the brilliant legal theory at work here? I'm SO SURE the initial founders thought that to be a TERRIFIC idea

The theory that all non-citizens are unprotected by the Constitution has more holes in it than fine swiss cheese. Regardless, the law on this topic is clear, like it or not. You don't have to like my recognition of that and you can fail to recognize it until your heart's content. If you want to live in fantasy land, be my guest.

Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 1 states: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."  This was an unprotected class of citizens defined by the states as slaves.

Also, the Dredd Scott decision stated that, under the Constitution, the slaves had no rights.  And, in the parts I referred to, all non-citizens are disenfranchised by the Constitution.

And, again, SCOTUS has many times said its own precedent is wrong and changed decades of case law on a whim.  Just look at the Warren court.

And, would you stop with the hundreds of years thing?  If you are refering to judicial precedent in the colonies, that is just wrong.  The Colonial compacts were extremely limited in terms of citizenship.  Also, if you are refering to British Common Law, then you must remember that the protections only applied to those who were subjects of the Crown.  Visitors or foreign-nationals were NOT equally protected under BCL.  In many cases, even subjects were not protected (think Fairfax Admiralty Court leading up to the Revolution).

So, I am wondering where you get this hundreds of years nonsense in this specific issue.  The earliest case I can think of off the top of my head regarding this issue was from, I think, land taking in the Pacific (Phillipines?) where SCOTUS ruled that "where the flag goes, the Constitution goes" with no basis in law.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Judges rule because people let them. . . . time to vote from the roof tops??? My ballots are printed by Federal. How about yours?

Home-Grown

legalese77, so what you are saying is that if my car is T-Boned and the Hispanic looking driver gets out and runs away, leading a "reasonable man"  to believe he is here illegally, has no liability insurance and no drivers license (based upon numerous prior events), then I have no right to do a Junior Walker ("Shoot 'em while they run, now...") on him, since he isn't afforded the same rights I have? Since he's illegal.

Just fishing for some free legal advice.

Hazleton City Council, (Pennsylvania), passed the "Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance" in 2006. The measure has become a model for other U.S. towns that blame illegal immigrants for a range of social problems.

That BLAME???

BLAME??!!!!

Nobody is BLAMING THE ILLEGAL CRIMINAL ALIENS for a range of "social problems" - the ILLEGAL CRIMINAL ALIENS are here illegally and need to be removed, furthermore, many of them are committing more crimes such as TAX AVOIDANCE, WORKING WITHOUT PERMITS, not to mention other criminal activity such as drugs, rape, gang violence, murder, etc.

sorry, double post

Quoted: As you know I did not call you a commie, a liberal or a scumbag. That was not the direction I wanted to go in. However, do not assume because someone asked you to elaborate on your position that they are looking to rip you to shreds, start a fight, call you names or blindly reject your arguements.

I cannot help but do otherwise here. As you can see, the opposition is already building. I've done this enough times to know.

When your students ask you to elaborate on something that perhaps they are not understanding or are misinformed on, you dont tell them I dont want to get into with you, right?

It depends. If it does not serve to advance class discussion I will not debate it with them during class, necessarily. That, however, is an entirely different atmosphere. I am generally treated with a degree of respect in class that I do not receive here.

height=8

Quoted: height=8 Quoted: He thinks you're wrong because he looks to precedent before he looks to the actual wording and published logic behind the wording.  He also fails to recognize the history of the colonies leading into statehood and the justification and tactics of the Revolution.  As the courts themselves have clearly stated numerous times, precedent is only ruling if the precedent is RIGHT. You are wrong, too. Precedent can control a case even when it is clearly erroneous. Please research the phrase stare decisis. History, which you claim I ignore, makes that very clear. Obviously the SCOTUS is never BOUND by precedent. Precedent is merely a consideration in making decisions for the SCOTUS. I am still waiting for a citation to the part of the Constitution where it is "actually worded" that non citizens are afforded no protection by the Constitution. If a foreigner comes to visit our land he can be tortured, detained without trial, raped by the Governor and deprived of all his property without due process of law? Is that the brilliant legal theory at work here? I'm SO SURE the initial founders thought that to be a TERRIFIC idea he

Stare Decisis is only applicable if the court WANTS it to be.  Just look at the apportionment cases of the Warren Court--clearly in violation of almost 200 years of Stare Decisis.  Look at Brown.  Look at the flimsly precedent (which does exist) leading up to Kelo.  Or, goodness, look at ex parte Bollman (1807) in which the explicit precedent set by Chief Justice Marshall himself in US v. Burr was overturned by Marshall!

Quoted: Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 1 states: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." This was an unprotected class of citizens defined by the states as slaves.

Hmmm, still waiting for a citation rather than your bald and unsupported assertion.

Also, the Dredd Scott decision stated that, under the Constitution, the slaves had no rights.  And, in the parts I referred to, all non-citizens are disenfranchised by the Constitution. And, again, SCOTUS has many times said its own precedent is wrong and changed decades of case law on a whim.  Just look at the Warren court.

Ok... what's your point? You haven't told me anything that I don't know.

And, would you stop with the hundreds of years thing?  If you are refering to judicial precedent in the colonies, that is just wrong.  The Colonial compacts were extremely limited in terms of citizenship.  Also, if you are refering to British Common Law, then you must remember that the protections only applied to those who were subjects of the Crown.  Visitors or foreign-nationals were NOT equally protected under BCL.  In many cases, even subjects were not protected (think Fairfax Admiralty Court leading up to the Revolution).

Actually, I said thousands. If you think that the Magna Carta and even Hammurabi's code have zero to do with modern jurisprudence, you're sadly mistaken. While royal and colonial law differed IMMENSELY it is foolish to think that the mode development of our modern law did not rely and borrow heavily from both.

So, I am wondering where you get this hundreds of years nonsense in this specific issue.  The earliest case I can think of off the top of my head regarding this issue was from, I think, land taking in the Pacific (Phillipines?) where SCOTUS ruled that "where the flag goes, the Constitution goes" with no basis in law.

It isn't nonsense. I am not talking about immigration law specifically. In fact, as I recall, we are talking about the Constitution, not the INA. I am speaking of jurisprudence generally. Once again, I am completely disconnected from the audience. This owes, in my opinion, mostly to a complete and utter lack of legal training from the audience.

You offer no response at all to my point regarding the absurdity of yout legal theory. Legal reality aside, you believe that is not only the proper result but that intended by the drafters and signatories to the Constitution? wow

The Constitution applies to all "people"; not just Americans, and not just Americans that happen to be in the National Guard. Non-Americans have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but their rights are repressed by their respective governments, which is why we call such governments "tyrannies".

Now, before people get their panties in a bunch (oops, too late!) please read the next sentence.

-There is nothing in the Constitution that says anyone can immigrate here simply by walking into this country.-

So lets apply a little arithmatic type logic;

(ie: 2 + 2 = 4)

The Constitution applies to all people + there is nothing in the Constitution that says anyone can immigrate here simply by walking into this country = it is perfectly legal to deport illegal immigrants.

Yes, their home countries are tyrannies, but *we* aren't oppressing them in their home countries. They can immigrate, but they need to immigrate here legally.

We obviously hold very different opinions in regards to the nature or the Constitution and what it set out to accomplish.  I honestly don't know where you get this idea that non-citizens have been protected in the same manner as citizens throughout history.  Look to Jewish law, Roman law, again British or colonial law.  There were protections, but they were NOT the same as protections for citizens.  Also, the definition of "citizen" is truly only about 200 years old.  Prior to this, ALL were subjects.  I think that's where we are having a difference of opinion here.

And the quote about the slave importation portion of the Constitution recognized the existence of a non-citizen class that was explicitly unprotected until the 13th Amendment was ratified.  The Dredd Scott decision merely supports this.

Quoted: Quoted: Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 1 states: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." This was an unprotected class of citizens defined by the states as slaves. Hmmm, still waiting for a citation rather than your bald and unsupported assertion. Also, the Dredd Scott decision stated that, under the Constitution, the slaves had no rights.  And, in the parts I referred to, all non-citizens are disenfranchised by the Constitution. And, again, SCOTUS has many times said its own precedent is wrong and changed decades of case law on a whim.  Just look at the Warren court. Ok... what's your point? You haven't told me anything that I don't know. And, would you stop with the hundreds of years thing?  If you are refering to judicial precedent in the colonies, that is just wrong.  The Colonial compacts were extremely limited in terms of citizenship.  Also, if you are refering to British Common Law, then you must remember that the protections only applied to those who were subjects of the Crown.  Visitors or foreign-nationals were NOT equally protected under BCL.  In many cases, even subjects were not protected (think Fairfax Admiralty Court leading up to the Revolution). Actually, I said thousands. If you think that the Magna Carta and even Hammurabi's code have zero to do with modern jurisprudence, you're sadly mistaken. While royal and colonial law differed IMMENSELY it is foolish to think that the mode development of our modern law did not rely and borrow heavily from both. So, I am wondering where you get this hundreds of years nonsense in this specific issue.  The earliest case I can think of off the top of my head regarding this issue was from, I think, land taking in the Pacific (Phillipines?) where SCOTUS ruled that "where the flag goes, the Constitution goes" with no basis in law. It isn't nonsense. I am not talking about immigration law specifically. In fact, as I recall, we are talking about the Constitution, not the INA. I am speaking of jurisprudence generally. Once again, I am completely disconnected from the audience. This owes, in my opinion, mostly to a complete and utter lack of legal training from the audience. You offer no response at all to my point regarding the absurdity of yout legal theory. Legal reality aside, you believe that is not only the proper result but that intended by the drafters and signatories to the Constitution? wow

I'm afraid you are choosing to ignore the current climate in the nation.

1. The constitution is honored more in the breech than anywhere else. The feeling exists that the 'war on terror' allows any excesses that the government might choose to commit.

2. If no law exists that casts doubt on the constitutionality of an action exists, enact that law ex post facto, and deal with the judicial consequences later.

3. As a last resort, pack the SCOTUS with nominees who, hopefully, will allow new cons full reign to implement manifest destiny both outside and within the borders of the US.

Anything is possible when you have the ability to ignore the law and not pay a price. Our system of checks and balances breaks down when all 3 branches of government get their marching orders from the same place.

So I don't need a Green Card to move to Philli....



I'll go pack my bags

Taffy

Quoted: We obviously hold very different opinions in regards to the nature or the Constitution and what it set out to accomplish.  I honestly don't know where you get this idea that non-citizens have been protected in the same manner as citizens throughout history.

I don't. I am obviously not effectively communicating what I mean by "development of jurisprudence" as opposed tothe "development of immigration jurisprudence. Roman law  obviously is not an effective or appropriate lens through which to view the United States' Immingration and Naturalization Act.

Look to Jewish law, Roman law, again British or colonial law.  There were protections, but they were NOT the same as protections for citizens.  Also, the definition of "citizen" is truly only about 200 years old.  Prior to this, ALL were subjects.  I think that's where we are having a difference of opinion here.

I don't think we do have much difference of opinion. I believe that we're talking about two entirely separate things. I am talking about common threads found in ALL jurisprudence. I am not referring to historical treatment of foreign nationals by analogy. How the Romans or Brits actually treated foreign nationals under some other law not at issue here is really not terribly relevant, by itself. The methods by which they developed law, read legal documents, read code and intepreted them are far older than our Republic. THIS is what I mean by development of jurisprudence. I'm speaking of legal history, not political history.

And the quote about the slave importation portion of the Constitution recognized the existence of a non-citizen class that was explicitly unprotected until the 13th Amendment was ratified.  The Dredd Scott decision merely supports this.

You know that Dred Scott is no longer good law, obviously. Apart from that, I don't remember 'non-citizen' or 'slave' appearing anywhere in your quote. You made reference to 'actual wording' and black letter law. You have cited none. You cite to a decision (now bad law and therefore legally invalid) that INTERPRETS that portion you cited, nothing more.

Blackletter (one word) law is defined as follows:One or more legal principles that are fundamental and well settled. Find me one published treatise that has been cited in any published opinion (that is still good law) of any United States Court as controlling authority that supports your contention that the Constitution establishes a class of individuals that can be found within the U.S. borders but are not entitled to any Constitutional protection and I will apologize publicly and have a vasectomy performed on myself with a butterknife.

Quoted: i wonder how much longer a small town of 10,000 can survive with an illegal population of 25%. somehow, i suspect they are not producing a large financial surplus.

Read more carefully, glasshoppa.

About a third of Hazleton's 31,000 residents are immigrants from Central America. According to local civil rights activists, about a quarter of the town's immigrant population is in the United States illegally.

The town has a population of 31,000.  About 33% of that are immigrants, or 10,333.333.  About 25% of the immigrants are illegals, or 2,588.88888.  Illegals are therefore about 8.3333333333% of the population.  (keep extending the decimals for accuracy. )

Quoted: Legal theory is meaningless if it is wrong or conflicts with the explicit black letter law of the constitution.  The Constitution clearly establishes a class of non-citizens who receive NO protections under it.

"Hey wow!  So we can all go around shooting every illegal immigrant we see!  They have no right to life, liberty, or property!"

In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Quoted: Translation: I only came into this thread to tell you what an asshole you are, I know the truth, you dont and I dont care to add to the conversation other than to tell you you are an asshole. Thanks for posting

Well, if the foo shits. . . .

Quoted: So I don't need a Green Card to move to Philli.... I'll go pack my bags Taffy

Why would you WANT to move to Philly?  "City of the Brotherly Shove."

Quoted: Quoted: Legal theory is meaningless if it is wrong or conflicts with the explicit black letter law of the constitution.  The Constitution clearly establishes a class of non-citizens who receive NO protections under it. "Hey wow!  So we can all go around shooting every illegal immigrant we see!  They have no right to life, liberty, or property!" In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about. Quoted: Translation: I only came into this thread to tell you what an asshole you are, I know the truth, you dont and I dont care to add to the conversation other than to tell you you are an asshole. Thanks for posting Well, if the foo shits. . . .

My my ,aren't you clever

Try reading the thread jackass before you speak of things that were ironed out already.

Quoted: So I don't need a Green Card to move to Philli.... I'll go pack my bags Taffy

I'd recommend somewhere other than Philli.

While, I'd welcome you our .gov would send the hounds of hell, use all the means at their disposal, and deport you asap.

Why?

Why would our .gov treat you like a criminal? Why would they hunt you down like a dog and send you away?

Simple. You are not on the long list of preferred turd world shit hole donor nations.

Sorry.

Now if you were mexican, we could set you up with a house, a car, a job, a spouse, insurance, business loans, college grants, hell I bet we'd fix you up with some hookers and blow even. Seems our .gov loves them mexicans.