(01-31-2025 11:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In all honesty, I dont think the one off usage in the Plyer case is SCOTUS defining the term 'resident alien'.

I know. My point was that if Hambone is going to adopt the position that the only arbiter of the legal meaning of terminology is the Supreme Court, then it's inconsistent to bring in definitions from government websites in place of one in a Supreme Court decision.

Actually, I agree with Hambone that the best course of action for those wishing to challenge anchor baby status via the Supreme Court, is to back the justices into a corner where they have to explain why the statutory difference between legal and illegal alien has no bearing. I don't think it would work, but IMO it's the most viable approach. Of course, they could also put their energies into amending the 14th amendment.

(01-31-2025 12:00 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-31-2025 11:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In all honesty, I dont think the one off usage in the Plyer case is SCOTUS defining the term 'resident alien'.

I know. My point was that if Hambone is going to adopt the position that the only arbiter of the legal meaning of terminology is the Supreme Court, then it's inconsistent to bring in definitions from government websites in place of one in a Supreme Court decision.

Actually, I agree with Hambone that the best course of action for those wishing to challenge anchor baby status via the Supreme Court, is to back the justices into a corner where they have to explain why the statutory difference between legal and illegal alien has no bearing. I don't think it would work, but IMO it's the most viable approach. Of course, they could also put their energies into amending the 14th amendment.

A statutory difference between legal and illegal aliens contained in statute has no impact on a Constitutional requirement of 'all people'. A statute may not amend, nor change the Constitution -- basic civics. Nor may a single isolated statutory definition even affect previous Constitutional language -- in fact it is the inverse that must happen.

Its a loser in all but the most 'amend it sub rosa in any way possible' living document manner.

Think of why the term 'citizen' in the 14th encompasses all of unconvicted people outside of prison, previously convicted people who are outside of prison, and convicts in prison. The statutory dividing line between the three groups simply does not override the term 'citizen' as used in the 14th, nor does it impact the delineation of that group of 'citizen'. Nor may a later statute affecting the line between the three
groups affect the issues governed by the 14th through a redefinition in the statute.

The *only* carve out to this is via the originalist tree, that, for example, had buried well within the concept of voting, that an exclusion existed at the time of the passage of the Constitutional language was well known and well practiced as such.

Unpacking the 'all persons' -- the record that coexists with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which paralleled the passage of the 14th, clearly indicates and says "all" means "all". As does the legislative record of the enactment for ratification of the 14th.

The *only* manner to say not is clearly from the 'living Constitution' style arguments. Which right leaning people supposedly revile. But from the looks of it they love it now. Lolz.

As to Hambones' position, to adopt a specific term without specific citation to the term is idiotic. One might note that the Tex Sup Ct, when dealing with even an *ancillary* subject to abortion, is very careful to denote *what*, *which*, and *where* the term 'abortion' is being adopted for use.

I hope Ham can find that such citation to that specific language in the case. I didnt see it.

(01-31-2025 12:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The *only* carve out to this is via the originalist tree, that, for example, had buried well within the concept of voting, that an exclusion existed at the time of the passage of the Constitutional language was well known and well practiced as such.

Yes, the DOJ attorney tasked with making this work or having his career ended would have to argue that the frames of the 14th amendment did not foresee a time when some immigrants to the US would be resident aliens and/or citizens, and some would not. I don't think it would work, but options for this unfortunate person would be limited.

Or, wait a generation until the constitutionalists of the court have been replaced by living document nihilists of the sort that dreamed up the ruling in Roe v Wade, but that might not last.

Or, do it the right way and get an amendment passed.

The 14th Amendment is remarkably well-written. It's proven ironclad and teflon-coated.

(01-31-2025 01:14 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-31-2025 12:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The *only* carve out to this is via the originalist tree, that, for example, had buried well within the concept of voting, that an exclusion existed at the time of the passage of the Constitutional language was well known and well practiced as such.

Yes, the DOJ attorney tasked with making this work or having his career ended would have to argue that the frames of the 14th amendment did not foresee a time when some immigrants to the US would be resident aliens and/or citizens, and some would not. I don't think it would work, but options for this unfortunate person would be limited.

Or, wait a generation until the constitutionalists of the court have been replaced by living document nihilists of the sort that dreamed up the ruling in Roe v Wade, but that might not last.

Or, do it the right way and get an amendment passed.

The 14th Amendment is remarkably well-written. It's proven ironclad and teflon-coated.

Bingo! One small quibble. Within the traditional DOJ, a managing attorney for such a sysephean (and even if they thought groundless) task would not be punished for not hauling this to victory. The career ranks (non-political appointees) would simply do the task *for* their client, in the best manner that they could. Exactly as a law firm would.

And like a law firm, when one is handed a **** sandwich at the outset, one wouldn't be pilloried for failing at that long odds task.

Given the wave of rank political vetting happening at the DOJ currently, that atmosphere could very well change.

This should make our lefties happy

(01-31-2025 06:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  This should make our lefties happy

What a pickle for conservatives - caught between wanting illegal immigrants to be deported and appreciating people exercising their rights and not giving more power to the police state by forfeiting their rights.

You perceive conscientious law enforcement as a "pickle"? Most people would see it as government doing its job well, which is a welcome contrast to the frequent practices of (1) doing its job poorly and (2) doing things that are not its job.

(02-01-2025 10:02 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  You perceive conscientious law enforcement as a "pickle"? Most people would see it as government doing its job well, which is a welcome contrast to the frequent practices of (1) doing its job poorly and (2) doing things that are not its job.

The Democrats have long been anti-law enforcement. This is just the latest iteration.

(02-01-2025 10:02 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  You perceive conscientious law enforcement as a "pickle"? Most people would see it as government doing its job well, which is a welcome contrast to the frequent practices of (1) doing its job poorly and (2) doing things that are not its job.

I perceive the conservative complaint in the framing of this article - that illegal immigrants have been informed of their rights (such as not consenting to a search without a warrant) - is somehow a problem to have put them in a pickle. I think most conservatives have, historically, been very pro individual rights and against a police state.

Why did you think I perceived “conscientious law enforcement” as a pickle?

(02-01-2025 10:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2025 10:02 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  You perceive conscientious law enforcement as a "pickle"? Most people would see it as government doing its job well, which is a welcome contrast to the frequent practices of (1) doing its job poorly and (2) doing things that are not its job.

The Democrats have long been anti-law enforcement. This is just the latest iteration.

Absolute crap.

They have been against shooting unarmed people, certainly, but not against law enforcement as a whole.

Republicans, on the other hand, beat the hell out of law enforcement, pepper spray them, stampede over them, try and kill them... you know, that kind of thing.

I know you have me on ignore, but you need to be corrected every time.

Defund the police, don't cooperate with ICE, sanctuary cities and states, yada, yada, yada.

(02-02-2025 01:26 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  Republicans, on the other hand, beat the hell out of law enforcement, pepper spray them, stampede over them, try and kill them... you know, that kind of thing.

Historically Republicans defend actions of police, and support efforts to prosecute and criminally punish those that engage in violence targeted at law enforcement.

This current iteration and brand of Republican not necessarily so. And has even made pardoning those who have committed violence against police one of their chief merit badges.

(02-02-2025 01:26 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(02-01-2025 10:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2025 10:02 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  You perceive conscientious law enforcement as a "pickle"? Most people would see it as government doing its job well, which is a welcome contrast to the frequent practices of (1) doing its job poorly and (2) doing things that are not its job.

The Democrats have long been anti-law enforcement. This is just the latest iteration.

Absolute crap.

They have been against shooting unarmed people, certainly, but not against law enforcement as a whole.

Republicans, on the other hand, beat the hell out of law enforcement, pepper spray them, stampede over them, try and kill them... you know, that kind of thing.

I know you have me on ignore, but you need to be corrected every time.

Dems always had the anarchist/far left element that yelled ACAB, and who influenced the perception around things like defund the police (which was intended to try and shift the purpose/focus of policing). The majority of the left was not inherently anti-law enforcement, but there was an element that was.

That said, the majority of Dems have been more interested in being critical of law enforcement.

anti-ICE protesters

I wonder how any MAGA republicans are marching against ICE. 200? 1,000?

Nah. 0.

I wonder how they got their permit to block freeway traffic. Must have come from a leftie.

This little debacle brought to you courtesy of the American Left.

(02-02-2025 09:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  anti-ICE protesters

I wonder how any MAGA republicans are marching against ICE. 200? 1,000?

Nah. 0.

I wonder how they got their permit to block freeway traffic. Must have come from a leftie.

This little debacle brought to you courtesy of the American Left.

Did they storm the U.S. capitol and try to find and execute any elected officials? No? Pikers.

They should take lessons from the law abiding righties who love to beat the hell out of LEO.

(02-02-2025 09:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  anti-ICE protesters

I wonder how any MAGA republicans are marching against ICE. 200? 1,000?

Nah. 0.

I wonder how they got their permit to block freeway traffic. Must have come from a leftie.

This little debacle brought to you courtesy of the American Left.

leftists fight police

(02-03-2025 11:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2025 09:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  anti-ICE protesters

I wonder how any MAGA republicans are marching against ICE. 200? 1,000?

Nah. 0.

I wonder how they got their permit to block freeway traffic. Must have come from a leftie.

This little debacle brought to you courtesy of the American Left.

leftists fight police

I'm trying to make sense of this MSN headline: LA freeway swarmed with Anti-Trump protesters with cops in riot gear

LA freeway swarmed with Anti-Trump protesters and cops in riot gear?
What am I missing here?

(02-03-2025 11:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2025 09:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  anti-ICE protesters

I wonder how any MAGA republicans are marching against ICE. 200? 1,000?

Nah. 0.

I wonder how they got their permit to block freeway traffic. Must have come from a leftie.

This little debacle brought to you courtesy of the American Left.

leftists fight police

Living down to Trump's stereotype, playing right into his hands...

(02-03-2025 11:55 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-03-2025 11:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2025 09:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  anti-ICE protesters

I wonder how any MAGA republicans are marching against ICE. 200? 1,000?

Nah. 0.

I wonder how they got their permit to block freeway traffic. Must have come from a leftie.

This little debacle brought to you courtesy of the American Left.

leftists fight police

Living down to Trump's stereotype, playing right into his hands...

I am sure their self-image is of people fighting for what is right and just, regardless of petty annoyances like getting permits and dispersing when told. Apparently they proudly live down to everybody's stereotype.

What was their stereotype before Trump came down the escalator?

I dont see the fighting in the pictures, or described in the text -- as promulgated by the tag "leftists fight police"

Maybe the tag should be "leftists peacefully engage with wall of police while blocking freeway".

Would agree with you Frizz that the crowd was living down to Trumps stereotype, if the protesters actually engage in violent behavior. I dont see that anywhere, notwithstanding the breathless exclamation above of a "fight".