Saturday, September 25, 2021
HomeFeatured EntriesWhen Did Foreign Nations Gain the Right To Tell Us What is...

When Did Foreign Nations Gain the Right To Tell Us What is Constitutional?

promoted by texasgalt

Last month, Gov. Nathan Deal signed a piece of immigration legislation in the state of Georgia that allows police to have the authority to check the immigration status of a criminal suspect who can’t provide an accepted form of identification and to hand these individuals over to federal immigration authorities. The law makes it illegal to transport and/or harbor illegal immigrants, and it also requires many private employers to check the immigration status of newly hired workers on a federal database called E-Verify.

Two weeks ago, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this legislation was filed by civil liberties groups, primarily the ACLU of Georgia. The plaintiffs are appealing this legislation on the basis that they could “face an imminent threat of harm” if the legislation is implemented.

On Wednesday of this week, the nations of Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs

This case is scheduled for a hearing next week. The plaintiffs are requesting that U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash prevent the law from taking effect until the lawsuit has been resolved.

The pernicious poison of the entitlement mentality that has pervaded our society, within the boundaries of our own nation, will be difficult to overcome. And due to the irresponsibility of the federal government and its failure to do what is right by enforcing the law, we now have millions of illegal immigrants in our nation who see themselves as being entitled to the right to come here illegally.

But now we have foreign nations who apparently see themselves as having the right to butt their noses into our legal affairs by trying to tell us what is and is not applicable under the Constitution of the United States? And this is being permitted?

I hope Judge Thrash tells them very firmly to “butt out”. And it won’t bother me one bit at this point whether or not he’s politically correct in his manner of getting this point across

 

15 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

15 COMMENTS

  1. That right was given to foreign nations when the US Supreme Court gave constitutional rights, in effect citizenship, to foreign enemies of the US captured on the battlefield. Foreign terrorists and illegal aliens have the best of both worlds.

      • Oh, absolutely. And there are ways to do that. One way, is to impeach Stephen Breyer and convict him of treason 🙂 . Another way is to reduce the federal judiciary of 864 judges by a factor of about 800. Another way is to convince Ted Olson that his talents could be put to better use than attempting to overturn the will of the people of California that they expressed at the ballot box.

    • “Foreign terrorists and illegal aliens have the best of both worlds.”

      Sort of like common criminals who use guns to commit crimes, where a law abiding citizen has to jump through hoops to possibly defend themselves?

      The judge should toss this lawsuit out as frivolous.

  2. Amicus briefs go back centuries in English common law. The US Supreme Court has established rules for filings in federal cases. Depending on the actual text of the briefs, and whether the actual govts of those nations filed (the AP story was pretty vague) vs some ngo’s, I’m not sure they have standing. If they don’t, Georgia will ask their involvement be stricken. Depends on the federal judge who will first hear it. Mexican consular officials have been involved in AZ, Calif, and other places. They will do whatever they can get away with.

    Like you, I’d like to see them get the bum’s rush, but that will probably take a SCOTUS opinion, so let this work its way out.

  3. Oh, it will have to work its way through the system. I have no doubt about that and agree with you on that point, vassar.

    Our nation is facing so many different challenges and so much is at stake. These are nations whose legal citizens come here illegally, yet representatives of these nations want to interfere in our legal system by putting emphasis on the “rights” of these illegal immigrants above the laws of our nation and over the rights of legal citizens?

    If we attempted to do something like this within the boundaries of any of these countries, they’d be shutting us out and laughing in our faces.

  4. Right after WW2’s end, in the wake of the death of millions and the necessary use of atomic weapons to force that war to its conclusion, a debate and a hope arose that adherence to a unified world body and law could force peace among the nations of the world ,and lead to justice among all its inhabitants. The one worlders were in the majority then even -especially – in the US government in the late 1940s, and they jumped at this opportunity and created the UN in 1945. Naively or cynically as the case may be they believed that inevitably nation-states and their national charters, laws, monarchs, cultures and borders would evolve away and their place be taken by a top-down- imposed, “enlightened” world government. But there was a minority position among scholars andinternational lawyers, championed in the US by one of the our great legal minds at the time ,J. Reuben Clark, that, no, peace will rather come to the world when the US Constitution has been emulated in substance by democratic nations the world over; that the nation-state should not wither away but serve as the useful bearer and protector of this kind of constitutional government.(*Democracies bound by a proper Constitution tend not to make war upon each other, a historical fact*.) A UN admitting everyone, comes as they are, they feared, would become a haven for rascally, despotic nations which had no intention of ever becoming democratic or peaceable. The only thing they didnt forsee was how right they were, and how such nations would eventually hijack the entire UN structure in our time. The best hope for mankind and this world(speaking politically) came about in 1788, not 1945. And in spite of six decades of evidence to the contrary, the One Worlders like Kagan and Breyer plod on, thinking the problem is with our Constitution.

    • The failure baked into the one-worlder view is the same as that in socialism in general. The fallen nature of mankind.

      America must lead the way once again in promulgating the wisdom of smaller, decentralized government.

  5. We have had Leaders who dealt with this kind of bs effectively in the past. The old legends of Patton parking his tanks on the bridges to Phenix City Alabama high on the list. They were rare then, way beyond rare now. How about a President revoking every visa and permit for every citizen of each Nation that sought to stick its head under out tent? Send them all home and let them sort themselves out. If their government can keep its pie hole shut for a year we could think about letting a few back, till the next time.

    • nessa, your comment points out just how devastating the lack of leadership at a federal level can actually be when it comes to enforcing these laws.

      And if leftist orgs in this nation keep playing our legal system, a lot of illegal folks could be heading back to their nation of origin, whether they want it to be that way or not. Just an impression here, but a couple of rulings that have come down lately indicate that the judicial branch is tired of getting played.

  6. May I remind everyone that the Chevron lawsuit has been going on for over 10 years now, and Ecuador has been butting their noses bigtime into US business. One country who is curiously absent from this amicus brief.
    With the advent of socialist-Chavez-wannabe-Correia I am surprised he isn’t in on this as well. Chevron has been fighting this battle for many years and there is no end in sight.

  7. A foreign nation has the right to question the treatment of their citizens anywhere in the world, but illegal citizens is a different matter. In another country, illegals are deported and put into prison when it is shown that they are not there legally. It is the US right to ask for identification and citizenship as we allow more non US peoples here than any other country. If not legal, then the laws current will take care of the infraction.

    Foreign nations to take our states legislature to court is inane and should not be allowed at all. All our states are sovereign entities even beyond the US legislature within the constitution. If a nation has a problem with a state, then federal bodies will determine the correct route. ie: Arizona. There is enough foreign lobbyists in the US without wasting our time and money taking states to court.

    Our political correct attitude is the political downfall of what is happening now. Apologetic demeanor and willingness to acquiesce to others wishes. No matter what we do will offend someone. Get over it. This is not your country. Our lawyers are sucking the life out of our judicial system as it is. We should export a few, maybe a lot, see what happens if they sue for being offended in another country. Try it in Brazil, Iran, Saudi Arabia. I laugh. Just because our services, benefits to our citizens are better than yours, does not give you the right to have ours above yours. Quit importing your people to here, Just because they send money home, does not make them legal here, or give you the right to make it right.

    • Agree with your take on being politically correct in such a way that it actually ends up undermining our own legal system, bdwatcher.

      And your comment about “quit importing your people here”…I hadn’t thought of it in that context, but it’s an astute observation.

      • Perhaps if people thought of how foreign countries do “import” people to here. I have looked a several county’s and indeed they do. There is several that do for income, legitimate and legal. But some have it in their “code” or “beliefs” it is just fine to lie why they are here. It seems many organizations receive a vast amount of contributions per legal and visa holding foreigners. Follow the money. We are giving away our values, our ideals, the whole reason our founders compiled the US Constitution and the Bill or Rights. Schools are using foreign friendly ideology, changing our history. It is proven. Text book publishers have been bought or financing with foreign money and even print text books for middle east countries. As long as we have such a free immigration to here and (smile) free entrance borders, this will not stop very quickly.

        I have found the most important issues:
        1. US Debt
        2. Size of Government
        3. Governmental CONTROL of business.
        4. And most important… Read our historical text books. The written history we know is changing. When your children grow up, about 24, they will argue with you on your version of history. I can prove it to you.

  1. That right was given to foreign nations when the US Supreme Court gave constitutional rights, in effect citizenship, to foreign enemies of the US captured on the battlefield. Foreign terrorists and illegal aliens have the best of both worlds.

      • Oh, absolutely. And there are ways to do that. One way, is to impeach Stephen Breyer and convict him of treason 🙂 . Another way is to reduce the federal judiciary of 864 judges by a factor of about 800. Another way is to convince Ted Olson that his talents could be put to better use than attempting to overturn the will of the people of California that they expressed at the ballot box.

    • “Foreign terrorists and illegal aliens have the best of both worlds.”

      Sort of like common criminals who use guns to commit crimes, where a law abiding citizen has to jump through hoops to possibly defend themselves?

      The judge should toss this lawsuit out as frivolous.

  2. Amicus briefs go back centuries in English common law. The US Supreme Court has established rules for filings in federal cases. Depending on the actual text of the briefs, and whether the actual govts of those nations filed (the AP story was pretty vague) vs some ngo’s, I’m not sure they have standing. If they don’t, Georgia will ask their involvement be stricken. Depends on the federal judge who will first hear it. Mexican consular officials have been involved in AZ, Calif, and other places. They will do whatever they can get away with.

    Like you, I’d like to see them get the bum’s rush, but that will probably take a SCOTUS opinion, so let this work its way out.

  3. Oh, it will have to work its way through the system. I have no doubt about that and agree with you on that point, vassar.

    Our nation is facing so many different challenges and so much is at stake. These are nations whose legal citizens come here illegally, yet representatives of these nations want to interfere in our legal system by putting emphasis on the “rights” of these illegal immigrants above the laws of our nation and over the rights of legal citizens?

    If we attempted to do something like this within the boundaries of any of these countries, they’d be shutting us out and laughing in our faces.

  4. Right after WW2’s end, in the wake of the death of millions and the necessary use of atomic weapons to force that war to its conclusion, a debate and a hope arose that adherence to a unified world body and law could force peace among the nations of the world ,and lead to justice among all its inhabitants. The one worlders were in the majority then even -especially – in the US government in the late 1940s, and they jumped at this opportunity and created the UN in 1945. Naively or cynically as the case may be they believed that inevitably nation-states and their national charters, laws, monarchs, cultures and borders would evolve away and their place be taken by a top-down- imposed, “enlightened” world government. But there was a minority position among scholars andinternational lawyers, championed in the US by one of the our great legal minds at the time ,J. Reuben Clark, that, no, peace will rather come to the world when the US Constitution has been emulated in substance by democratic nations the world over; that the nation-state should not wither away but serve as the useful bearer and protector of this kind of constitutional government.(*Democracies bound by a proper Constitution tend not to make war upon each other, a historical fact*.) A UN admitting everyone, comes as they are, they feared, would become a haven for rascally, despotic nations which had no intention of ever becoming democratic or peaceable. The only thing they didnt forsee was how right they were, and how such nations would eventually hijack the entire UN structure in our time. The best hope for mankind and this world(speaking politically) came about in 1788, not 1945. And in spite of six decades of evidence to the contrary, the One Worlders like Kagan and Breyer plod on, thinking the problem is with our Constitution.

    • The failure baked into the one-worlder view is the same as that in socialism in general. The fallen nature of mankind.

      America must lead the way once again in promulgating the wisdom of smaller, decentralized government.

  5. We have had Leaders who dealt with this kind of bs effectively in the past. The old legends of Patton parking his tanks on the bridges to Phenix City Alabama high on the list. They were rare then, way beyond rare now. How about a President revoking every visa and permit for every citizen of each Nation that sought to stick its head under out tent? Send them all home and let them sort themselves out. If their government can keep its pie hole shut for a year we could think about letting a few back, till the next time.

    • nessa, your comment points out just how devastating the lack of leadership at a federal level can actually be when it comes to enforcing these laws.

      And if leftist orgs in this nation keep playing our legal system, a lot of illegal folks could be heading back to their nation of origin, whether they want it to be that way or not. Just an impression here, but a couple of rulings that have come down lately indicate that the judicial branch is tired of getting played.

  6. May I remind everyone that the Chevron lawsuit has been going on for over 10 years now, and Ecuador has been butting their noses bigtime into US business. One country who is curiously absent from this amicus brief.
    With the advent of socialist-Chavez-wannabe-Correia I am surprised he isn’t in on this as well. Chevron has been fighting this battle for many years and there is no end in sight.

  7. A foreign nation has the right to question the treatment of their citizens anywhere in the world, but illegal citizens is a different matter. In another country, illegals are deported and put into prison when it is shown that they are not there legally. It is the US right to ask for identification and citizenship as we allow more non US peoples here than any other country. If not legal, then the laws current will take care of the infraction.

    Foreign nations to take our states legislature to court is inane and should not be allowed at all. All our states are sovereign entities even beyond the US legislature within the constitution. If a nation has a problem with a state, then federal bodies will determine the correct route. ie: Arizona. There is enough foreign lobbyists in the US without wasting our time and money taking states to court.

    Our political correct attitude is the political downfall of what is happening now. Apologetic demeanor and willingness to acquiesce to others wishes. No matter what we do will offend someone. Get over it. This is not your country. Our lawyers are sucking the life out of our judicial system as it is. We should export a few, maybe a lot, see what happens if they sue for being offended in another country. Try it in Brazil, Iran, Saudi Arabia. I laugh. Just because our services, benefits to our citizens are better than yours, does not give you the right to have ours above yours. Quit importing your people to here, Just because they send money home, does not make them legal here, or give you the right to make it right.

    • Agree with your take on being politically correct in such a way that it actually ends up undermining our own legal system, bdwatcher.

      And your comment about “quit importing your people here”…I hadn’t thought of it in that context, but it’s an astute observation.

      • Perhaps if people thought of how foreign countries do “import” people to here. I have looked a several county’s and indeed they do. There is several that do for income, legitimate and legal. But some have it in their “code” or “beliefs” it is just fine to lie why they are here. It seems many organizations receive a vast amount of contributions per legal and visa holding foreigners. Follow the money. We are giving away our values, our ideals, the whole reason our founders compiled the US Constitution and the Bill or Rights. Schools are using foreign friendly ideology, changing our history. It is proven. Text book publishers have been bought or financing with foreign money and even print text books for middle east countries. As long as we have such a free immigration to here and (smile) free entrance borders, this will not stop very quickly.

        I have found the most important issues:
        1. US Debt
        2. Size of Government
        3. Governmental CONTROL of business.
        4. And most important… Read our historical text books. The written history we know is changing. When your children grow up, about 24, they will argue with you on your version of history. I can prove it to you.

Must Read