Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BlackElk
Actually, the phrase is "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

An unborn baby (especially one concieved here) is under both the jurisdiction of our civil and our criminal laws, so abortion violates this principal in spades. This is why the effort is to define "persons" in such a way as to exclude the unborn (a lawlessly legal trick used to sidestep their humanity).

However, Illegal Aliens––not having entered legally––are not properly under the jurisdiction of our civil laws because the "terms" of their entry short circuit the process by which they might enter into our social contract.

Or to paraphrase something said earlier: the rule of law is dead for them because they have killed it.

This is also why people who entered legally but overstayed their visas are in a somewhat different situation from anyone who just imposed themselves in the first place.

That doesn't mean they are not under the jurisdiction of our criminal laws; but, aside from the commission of some specific crime these don't come into play.

This is why Illegal Aliens are not called Criminal Aliens––their presence is a violation of the civil social contract more than anything else. These do not properly have any right to expect equal protection of our civil laws as the only nominal legal recourse is to summarily deport them.

Also, I would question that their presence would even have a positive effect on abortion issue as you seem to think it may. One thing about Mexico that I've observed is that its political culture, the social theories that are deeply interwoven into her people's mindsets, are very different from those of Americans.

In Mexico some years ago there was a push by the government to promote an ownership mentality and private enterprise; however, the socialist mindset is so deeply ingrained in the people that they had to do so in language more at home in discussions about social theory rather than private ownership. Really, Monty Python's erudite peasants going on and on about social theory to a divine right king is not far from the mark even if it would be over the top if applied literally.

In contrast, the purveyors of socialism in America have historically found that unless they present their poison pill wrapped in some sweet meat––such as a language of personal entitlement, rhetorically blurring the distinctions between the "American Dream" and the welfare state––they will not be widely accepted.

I would challenge you that a demographic group––Illegal Aliens as a group––who have already proven an ability to compartmentalize their ethical standards (they came here knowing it was illegal to do so the way they did) would feel right at home in the socialist Democratic Party––which is a master at managing compartmentalized ethics.

So yes, they may well be "Pro-Life" leaning right now ... but the thing about political big tents is that most people end up in the darkened bleachers passively watching the clowns and showmen in the three rings under the lights.

As long as their section hears the rhetoric they like they can ignore or tolerate what is being preached to the folks in the other bleachers (please note that the DNC keeps folks divided up this way to help keep them manageable).

Then there is your contention about the rule of law, if it has died then are we right to pat more dirt on the grave or would it not be better to do what we can to revitalize it?

Is "social justice" rendered to artificial entities and groups so very lovely a thing that we must completely abandon Justice rendered to Persons forevermore?

By such lights if a person feels they should not have to obey our laws they are excused from doing so. It really doesn't matter if they are stealing their residency, stealing something off the shelf (shoplifting) or even stealing back their wombs.

You are actually siding with the mindset that has done so much harm to the rule of law and made abortion legal in the first place: my reasons justify my actions no matter how morally, ethically, or legally problematic these are.
160 posted on 12/29/2006 10:10:43 AM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies ]


To: Rurudyne; sittnick; bornacatholic; MattinNJ
If, God forbid, you were disabled in an auto accident that was caused by the negligence of an "illegal" immigrant millionaire with $100 million in identifiable assets, would you be able to and likely to invoke the civil jurisdiction of our US courts to attach that property and sue the "illegal" immigrant miscreant seeking damages? Or would you claim that you cannot sue him/her here and restrict yourself to suing in the "illegal" alien's nation of citizenship? Our courts will gladly entertain your suit. If we don't like the civil justice system of a foreign nation like Saudi Arabia, our courts wll allow you to sue a Saudi Arabian citizen for similarly injuring you in Saudi Arabia and the Saudi defendant might seek to invoke American jurisdiction to get the benefit of our jury system (if shrimp whistle and pigs fly but COULD invoke US jurisdiction).

I would be anxious to see ONE case citation in which your remarkable theory that "illegal" aliens are not subject to civil jurisdiction was upheld and not subsequently reversed.

The rule of law is dead because of the evil theory of legal positivism promulgated by long dead elitist SCOTUS Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., that the law is what SCOTUS says it is. It is not my theory. I don't side with it BUT I am tired of pro-lifers fighting with one (or both) hand(s) tied behind our backs.

If your methodology is to scrupulously imagine yourself observing each and every jot and tittle of what you imagine to be constitutional law and statutory law and somehow make the judges do likewise, what color are the moons in your sky?

The purpose of the exercise should not be self-righteously patting ourselves on the back for being right but to put an end to the SCOTUS imposed slaughter.

Offhand, in a contest for prolifehood between Mexicans and the Junior League, my money is on the Mexicans. Also, it is much more than likely that Mexicans heading north are a lot less likely socialist than those who lack the gumption or desire to come north.

162 posted on 12/29/2006 10:56:04 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson