Somebody stop them – NOW!

Against US.

And if it succeeds, there will be another 30 million impoverished refugees right behind them.

The book “The Camp of the Saints” was written with reference to Europe, but it’s being carried out here, at the southern border of the USA.

I disagree with this idea that “any parent would do the same.” i.e. abandon their child into the hands of a coyote. It’s tremendously selfish/thoughtless for a parent to send a child somewhere uninvited and say “you take care of him.” Especially when they are carriers of lice, skin disease, you name it, with no cash in their pockets.

Since they are going through the complex legal process of figuring out where the families are, every parent we can determine who abandoned their child should be recorded as “derelict” and never allowed access to the country under any “family reunification” loophole. The compassion that was baked into our immigration laws is being used against us & our families. Who is paying for all this extra processing, plane transfers, bus transfers, food, medical exams, lawyers, etc etc?

This is the first thing that we can do – those of us who despite having pens and phones cannot get the national guard to the border immediately – do away with this phrase “unaccompanied minors.” Stop putting it in headlines.

They are “badly parented children,” they are children in “the temporary custody of coyotes.” I’m sure some phrase can be put together that addresses the facts of their arrivals, so people understand it is the irresponsible behavior of their parents that started all this. Nothing to do with our perfectly fine immigration system, which decent people follow every day. Imagine parents in the U.S. sending their children on the road to points unknown because they live in gang-infested neighborhoods.

It’s this sympathy cloak that is obscuring how the children arrived and makes anyone who doesn’t do a Pelosi meet-and-greet a bad person who doesn’t care about children.

Bad adults on both sides of the border, using children as pawns for their agendas.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2671292/The-cheat-sheet-near-Mexico-border-shows-illegal-immigrants-guarantee-asylum-hearing-usually-release-detained-U-S-authorities.html

NOW I understand. These damn immigration lawyers found their loophole and broadcast the word through their contacts to all of Mexico and Central America.

“Bring your kids to the border! When they get their green cards, then the ENTIRE family can come to the Holy Glory Land! It will be great!”

Why is that not done here?

Because the government WANTS this crisis. Simple as that.

I find that to be an absurd notion but I don’t think this thread/website should be spoiled by me clearly stating what’s on my mind. Having said that, you are of course correct except for the one point that Bill Clinton recognized and everybody seems to be missing. That point is that a law governing abandoned children cannot be used to initiate a general dependency proceeding just because it is politically convenient. These children, rightly or wrongly, were legally taken into the temporary custody of the border patrol pending investigation to determine their legal custodians (which is rarely a legal issue to be determined). Distance of the actual legal custodians (usually parents) from the children is irrelevant. Another point to consider is the Hague Convention on Abducted Children, to which the US is a signatory.

All of this weighed heavily on Bill Clinton’s decision to send Elian home. All of it should weigh just as heavily here. And the fact that jurisprudence got it wrong up to this point doesn’t mean I am wrong to state what I argue has always been the proper meaning of the 14th, any more than Galileo got it wrong because he was the only one saying so.

This mess is a political one, not a legal one. The state (government in general) cannot override Troxel v Granville just because some bureaucrat thinks a better life could be had for the kids. Government has an obligation to ascertain the factual basis for initiating any custody action no matter which court it chooses.

If I appear to be overly sensitive, it’s because on this subject I am. Nobody has any rights just because they are standing on American dirt. What they do have is natural rights that the govt cannot abridge, according to the Bill of Rights. They may have some statutory rights as well but those can be taken away.

I do not accept that the border patrol or ICE in general can administratively make substantive decisions to treat a group of children the same. In other words, they cannot just say “You 40 children over there are going to be transported 1200 miles to another facility.” The main reason is because group status treatment without a particularized individual basis to be in the group is akin to collective punishment. It’s a denial of due process. Plus I doubt they have the statutory authority to be willy nilly moving people around without legal consent of each child which requires a temp guardian since the kids have no standing without one.

And on and on we go. The best thing is to send them back to Mexico or their country of origin. Perfectly legal and cheaper than any of this liberal feelgood crap they are trying to sell to us peon citizens.

There is a concept called “jurisdiction.” It is not merely geographic, but also by topic. That is Certain Courts have the power to hear certain cases. Further that the Federal Government has control over certain topics, and the State has control over certain topics, and sometimes both can hear the same topic, called “concurrent jurisdiction,” depending on the choice of he complaining party. Here , immigration is exclusively federal, while CPS s exclusively State. They overlap geographically, but not by topic. Criminal law is similar, in that it is almost exclusively state-law based, but the Feds can separately bring some charges when Federal laws are broken.

The 14th has been overly broadly interpreted, without question. Unfortunately we are currently constrained by what we have in interpretation, not what we should have. In fact, much of the Constitution has been over-broadly applied in ways to usurp States powers, when the original intent was only to restrain the Federal government.

As for Federal jurisdiction, it is universal based on geographic location in the US, but it ALSO sometimes reaches beyond geographic borders for certain specific reasons (usually for criminal acts committed on foreign soil). Also, while the language might be surplus in legislative construction, sometimes in Constitutional constructin you add specific language in order to prevent any future confusion about a another body’s authority to modify or interpret that language.

Allow me to respond to the easiest grumping first.

CFR are not substantive law. Your “proof” that it is states exactly what I said – that it is the statute that is substantive law. CFR is a regulation of … wait for it … a federal agency.

Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States does not flow inexorably from physical presence in the country. If it does, then there would be no need to plead jurisdiction in federal district court beyond alleging that a person is on US soil. By that understanding, the feds have total jurisdiction over every square inch of every state. Why would any state operate a court system if the feds have jurisdiction because whatever happens there is within the country?

Regarding Mr. Skinner’s well-stated argument, I have little to say in response; however, my comment was not really intended to trigger a legal argument.

Having said that, I wish to point out that there are numerous authorities (high mucky mucks in the legal profession) who contend that the jurisprudence regarding the Fourteenth Amendment is seriously flawed in that it takes an assumptive and expansive view of the amendment’s substantive effects. In other words, I ain’t alone and I ain’t crazy (at least in this area).

I would suggest reviewing Dred Scott v. Sandford, an opinion that has been unfairly trashed IMHO. It’s core premise was that the jurisdiction of the federal courts was limited to citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment extended/created jurisdiction for ‘person’ which effectively over-ruled Dred Scott.

If the Fourteenth’s ‘jurisdiction thereof’ is universal based on physical location, then those two words are surplussage in the amendment. This is a violation of basic statutory construction principles and therefore cannot be right.

Could Republicans quickly propose a bill, that would overturn/preempt past law? It would be far cheaper to deliver them all back to their home town, than keep them here. And after they paid $3000-$20,000 to get here, the word would get out quickly “don’t waste your money, they’ll just ship you back home”.

Current law I believe, prevents that quick return. But Obama demands Congress “act” … so they should act and make illegal immigration a round trip ticket, not a lifetime entitlement. Of course for Obama, “act” means grant amnesty, sooner or later. Obama should “act” and do his job of enforcing the law.

*Communism, corruption, creating chaos, poverty, oppression, oligarchy.