Posted on 10/24/2017 2:43:26 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
Federal law-- and I'm talking about the immigration laws passed by Congress, not about court decisions-- makes it difficult to deport an unaccompanied minor, even one who entered the U.S. illegally. We do not want minors-- even illegal alien minors-- to fall into the hands of sex traffickers, so the Government will have to jump through a lot of legal hoops before she is deported.
Glad you didn’t say “burro-up” instead of “pony up”. THen you would have been called a racist or animal mysogynist or whatever.
However, when referring to a Democrat, you can call them the party of Jack Asses and point to their symbol in defense of what you said.
Isn’t the English language great?”
2018 election slogan: “Make English Great Again” (MEGA)
the US does not have ‘sovereign immunity’ when it comes to one country sueing the other
abortion may be legal under Texas law, but that is not our citizen and that citizens’ nation may not allow legal abortions beyond a certain date or at all
it’s pretty obvious she’s not going to stay here after the event
Then it’ll be up to Mexico if they’ll pay for the abortion. They’re welcome to it.
The article clearly states that she has the money for the abortion. What I didn’t see is whether the father was a rapist, a stepfather or an uncle.
I don’t think there is a constitutional right for free Viagra, but our military is spending $millions to provide it to our military and veterans. Also, if she arrived impregnated, then her impregnator is not in the US, and who knows what kind of scumbag he might have been anyway.
“Where the government bulldozed over constitutional lines,” she wrote, was its position that the girl had “the burden of extracting herself from custody if she wants to exercise the right to an abortion that the government does not dispute she has.”
She is in CUSTODY, therefore she cannot exercise this right since she has “the burden of extracting herself from custody...to exercise the right to an abortion....” Tough work for a 17 year old.
Which is AGAINST state law. The law says that a minor must get parental consent.
A minor can get a judicial bypass, if they can convince a judge that it is in their best interest to NOT involve a parent (not the case), or if they can prove they are mature enough to make adult decisions without their parents consent (and are aware of all of her options).
That second one CAN NOT BE POSSIBLE in a reasonable person’s mind: she traveled, ALONE, PREGNANT, to commit a CRIME by ILLEGALLY entering the United States, through drug-infested areas of Mexico. That doesn’t sound like something a mature person, making adult-like decisions would make!
So, the judge is ordering the State to Violate STATE LAW!
This whole case is just another way to try and break the Texas Abortion Laws...another way to break down our barriers to allow women to murder their own children!
See my post above.
Let me give you an example of what she is trying to achieve, but from a different angle.
This girl has the RIGHT to get pregnant, right? On this, we can all agree.
She is in State custody for violating the law (and for being a MINOR). On this, we can all agree.
Since conjugal visits are AGAINST State law! This girl is trying to get State and Federal judges to tell the jail, in which she is housed, that they must allow her to go get pregnant because she has a RIGHT to get pregnant - with or without parental consent!
To hell with US citizen taxpayers; but anything for foreign criminals.
Yes, it clearly does.
She already got a judicial bypass from a Texas judge.
A comment and a question:
First, she is an illegal alien; I don’t understand how she has Constitutional rights. She has broken the law and should be deported.
Second: Did she come the U.S to have an abortion—does Mexico, a Catholic country, prohibit abortion?
One last thought...I am not happy with the idea of an abortion, but at least she didn’t apparently come here to have an anchor baby.
This is a bizarre story. There must be more than meets the eye. Does she have an American boyfriend? Does he want her to abort the innocent baby?
Everyone on U.S. soil has some constitutional rights; even an illegal alien can't be sentenced to prison without a trial, or tortured to death, or sold into slavery.
As to the question of whether Roe v. Wade applies to illegal aliens, the Government conceded that issue; the dissent in the Court of Appeals bashed the Government for making that concession, but for some reason the Government made it and the majority therefore was entitled to rely on it.
She has broken the law and should be deported.
As I noted upthread, federal law makes it much harder to deport an illegal alien who is an unaccompanied minor than one who is an adult or who arrived with an adult. She hasn't yet had her hearing before an immigration judge, so she is not yet deportable.
Second: Did she come the U.S to have an abortion—does Mexico, a Catholic country, prohibit abortion?
Mexico does not allow abortion. She claims she didn't know she was pregnant until she was examined by U.S. doctors, but that fact may be disputed as the case goes on. (She was 8 weeks pregnant when she came to the U.S.)
One last thought...I am not happy with the idea of an abortion, but at least she didn’t apparently come here to have an anchor baby. This is a bizarre story. There must be more than meets the eye. Does she have an American boyfriend? Does he want her to abort the innocent baby?
She has no friends or relatives in the U.S. (If she had, then, as an unaccompanied minor, she would have been paroled into their custody pending deportation.) She claims she came to the U.S. to escape sexual abuse (apparently by a relative, but the court sealed that part of the record), but that's another fact that remains to be litigated (although a Texas state-court judge believed her, and gave her a judicial bypass on that ground).
For those who failed to exercise their Constitutional right to read the entire article, this quote from Judge Millet may clarify their thinking. “The government has insisted that it may categorically blockade exercise of her constitutional right unless this child (like some kind of legal Houdini) figures her own way out of detention” by returning home “to the abuse from which she fled” or by finding a sponsor, Millet said. “That is constitutionally untenable, as the en banc court agrees.” So, it appears that the en banc court agreed that she had a right to flee abuse (details sealed by the court) and get an abortion here (since it is apparently illegal in Catholic Mexico).
So some questions. Since details are sealed how can we know that it is her “best interest to NOT involve a parent (not the case).” We don’t know if it was her parent(s) abusing her or allowing her abuse, or selling here body to others or whatever. We the public have no information about her case. Perhaps she made a MATURE decision to escape a horrible situation, or a pregnancy by rape. Perhaps traveling ALONE through Drug-infested areas of Mexico was a MATURE decision compared with staying in her home situation. We don’t KNOW, the facts are sealed by the court. Perhaps you or the people (men) in Texas are against any abortions for fear that if you/they raped someone, the victim would have the right to remove your/their parasite from her body.
If I sound so militant on the subject it is because I have counseled people who had a drunk mother who didn’t notice that one son was forcing the other son to be raped by a dog, or because a woman’s abuse started with a rape at age two and was eventually sexually abused by both parents, all brothers and their friends. So yes I am angry and don’t plan to stop being angry when people are abused/neglected by those they should trust AND the law, which fortunately in this case was corrected by the en bank court.
Her problems were considered by the Court. But, they shouldn’t have been. She’s not a citizen.
Sorry, but, as the saying goes, “Hard cases make bad law.”
You’re talking about all of her details, which we don’t know. I’m saying, we don’t need to know.
So, we can agree that WE DON’T KNOW all the facts in this case. But, we do know that just about ANY JUDGE will give out a Judicial Bypass - the weak-kneed loophole written into this legislation (I’m amazed at how the squishy Moderate Republicans gets even squishier when they get to Austin) - just to thwart a law that is designed to protect underage girls from harming their own child.
God forbid, we the people of Texas (by the way, there are plenty of both “men” and women against murdering unborn children) want to ensure the Federal government (who loves the idea of murdering unborn children) isn’t trying to find another brick to weaken a wall built to protect...CHILDREN!
I don’t give a rats-ass about YOUR outrage. I was personally molested and raped from the age of 10 until I was 17, it still doesn’t give me the right to KILL UNBORN CHILDREN! Apparently, and SADLY, you think it does!
Lastly, I’m done discussing this, because obviously you are holier than I, because you “care” so much...I mean, you said so, therefore it MUST be!
You are saying, “we don’t need to know.” But you/we are not our courts or legal system. You say her problems should NOT have been considered by the Court. That may be your feeling, but your feeling is not THE LAW, or the Constitution. Perhaps this situation would be clearer if you would read the Court Decision linked at Comment #1. If you read that then you will know more details. Note also that as a legal minor she has a Guardian ad litem to help her navigate what must be a frightening set of circumstances.
Apparently you misread what I had written as I made no claim to being holier than anyone or “caring” so much. I did say I was angry and militant on the subject. Perhaps you are getting angry at me because I have awakened feelings about your own abuse as a young boy (since apparently you are an ExMarine, I am assuming you were a boy). What you should give a “rats-ass” about is the fact that you were abused, and apparently no one noticed (not even your mother) and helped you. Did you become a Marine so as to be so tough no one would ever do that to you again? I’ve noticed that often people who were severely abused don’t begin to acknowledge or even remember it until their late 30s. Sometimes they get professional help and sometimes their lives become happier.
None of those things played into why I became a Marine. But, thanks for the psychological analysis.
Why should I care about the past? I can’t change what was done and the man who did it, died long ago. As for living a happier life, I grew up and decided that those things would not define me; that’s how most normal adults deal with bad things in their past. You live, you learn.
Let me correct my wording, since it was such an issue that you made a point to correct me: I don’t give a rats-ass about your anger or your militant stance on the subject.
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.