“Madam Secretary that is a low blow.” – Bernie Sanders
– Youtube / CNN
“Clinton accused her rival of not standing with Obama after he endorsed a book by CNN contributor Bill Press critical of the president. She said Sanders had called Obama “weak” and a “disappointment” in the past and she warned “the kind of criticism that we heard from Sen. Sanders about our president, I expect from Republicans. I do not expect (it) from someone running for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama.”
Sanders to Hillary on Wall Street Ties: ‘Let’s Not Insult the Intelligence of the American People’
“Sanders said, “Let’s not insult the intelligence of the American people. People aren’t dumb. Why in God’s name does Wall Street make huge campaign contributions? I guess just for the fun of it. They want to throw money around. Why does the pharmaceutical industry make any contribution? Any connection to our people paying the highest amount of money for prescription drugs? Why does the fossil fuel industry pay huge amounts of money in contributions? Any connection to the fact that not one Republican candidate for president thinks and agrees with the scientific community that climate change is real and this we have got to transform our energy system? And when we talk about Wall Street, let’s talk about Wall Street. I voted for Dodd-Frank. Got an important amendment in it. My view, it doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. But when we talk about Wall Street, you have Wall Street and major banks have paid $200 billion in fines since the great crash. No Wall Street executive has been prosecuted.”
Trump: Illegals Being Entitled to Due Process an Open Question
“Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stated that people in the United States illegally “may or may not” be entitled to due process before being deported, and that while he doesn’t agree they are necessarily entitled to due process, it doesn’t mean he wouldn’t give them due process. He also said that while he supports medical marijuana, he’d have to see the health impacts of Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana are on Wednesday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor.”
Trump said, in response to host Bill O’Reilly arguing illegal immigrants would be entitled to due process before being deported, [relevant exchange begins around 2:30] “If they’re here illegally they may or they may not be [entitled to due process]. Just like the argument we had about the anchor babies. In my opinion, you don’t need –.”
After O’Reilly cut in to object, “I’m telling you all settled law says once you’re here, you are entitled to our constitutional protections, every single case.”
Trump countered, “I disagree. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do that.”
“Just like United States citizens, illegal immigrants have due process rights.
And so when illegal immigrants are taken into custody, they’re not always automatically deported to their home countries, according to a spokesman for Immigrations and Custom’s Enforcement, the federal agency charged with enforcing customs and immigration laws.
Mark Medvesky, of ICE’s Philadelphia headquarters, wasn’t familiar with the case of Ambrosio Perez-Vasquez, Hazleton, the illegal immigrant recently released from ICE custody and who this week posted bail on charges he was using a fake driver’s license and Social Security number when he was stopped by Beaver Meadows police in July.
But Medvesky explained why an illegal immigrant might be released. Immigration law, specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act, allows illegal immigrants the right to due process, he said.
“There are certain processes and evaluations that happen” because of the law, Medvesky explained.
Most individuals charged by ICE with being in the United States illegally are issued a “charging document,” and then have the right to a removal proceeding before an immigration judge, he said.”
– It’s rather interesting and more complex than one would think. Read more @ Standardspeaker.com
Illegal Aliens entitled to Legal Law Review:
Calcano-Martinez v. INS, INS v. St. Cyr
In the final week of its 2001 term, the United States Supreme Court handed down 5-4 rulings in a consolidated case that challenged provisions of the 1996 immigration law reforms. In Calcano-Martinez v. INS and INS v. St. Cyr, the Court reaffirmed the right of noncitizens to seek federal court review of legal interpretations made in deportation cases, and eliminated the ability of the INS to subject many legal residents to “mandatory” deportation for old criminal offenses.”
More here @ Civilrights.org
Great Site for Constitutional Pro and Con
Should Immigrants in the United States Illegally Have Constitutional Rights and Protections When on American Soil?
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in a section entitled “Immigrants’ Rights” on its website (accessed Mar. 6, 2007), offered the following:
“It is true that the Constitution does not give foreigners the right to enter the U.S. But once here, it protects them from discrimination based on race and national origin and from arbitrary treatment by the government. Immigrants work and pay taxes; legal immigrants are subject to the military draft. Many immigrants have lived in this country for decades, married U.S. citizens, and raised their U.S.-citizen children. Laws that punish them violate their fundamental right to fair and equal treatment.”
In Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision written by Justice J. Stewart, held:
“It is undoubtedly within the power of the Federal Government to exclude aliens from the country. It is also without doubt that this power can be effectuated by routine inspections and searches of individuals or conveyances seeking to cross our borders.
Whatever the permissible scope of intrusiveness of a routine border search might be, searches of this kind may in certain circumstances take place not only at the border itself, but at its functional equivalents as well. But the search of the petitioner’s [foreign national] automobile by a roving patrol, on a California road that lies at all points at least 20 miles north of the Mexican border, was of a wholly different sort. In the absence of probable cause or consent, that search violated the petitioner’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of ‘unreasonable searches and seizures.’
The needs of law enforcement stand in constant tension with the Constitution’s protections of the individual against certain exercises of official power. It is precisely the predictability of these pressures that counsels a resolute loyalty to constitutional safeguards.”
Gerald L. Neuman, JD, PhD, Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School, in his 1996 book entitled Strangers to the Constitution: Immigrants, Borders, and Fundamental Law, wrote the following:
“The Supreme Court has also held for more than a century that aliens within the United States are persons entitled to constitutional protection. That includes aliens who are unlawfully present, although recent Supreme Court dicta suggest that intensified concerns over both drugs and migrants penetrating the border may put pressure on that commitment. Moreover, the Court has further held that aliens not present in the United States are entitled to constitutional protection with regard to actions taken within the United States against their property rights.”
Richard B. Freeman, PhD, Herbert Ascherman Chair in Economics at Harvard University, in an Oct./Nov. 1998Boston Review essay entitled “Let the People Decide. A response to ‘The Immigrant as Pariah’ by Owen Fiss,” stated:
“[Dr. Owen] Fiss wants the judiciary to draw a boundary in the gray area in favor of immigrants, on the principle that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution prohibits ‘the creation of a near caste-structure …of socially and economically disadvantaged groups …that live at the margin of society;’ and that immigrants are exceptionally likely to fall into this group…
I find his arguments strained, and reject as antidemocratic the notion that the judiciary should determine policy in this area. We may all oppose social exclusion, but to argue that the Constitution requires that courts regulate social policies to limit such exclusion seems to be an extraordinary reading of law. …in all instances, I would leave the decision in the hands of the electorate.”
Myron Weiner, PhD, late Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an Oct./Nov. 1998 Boston Review essay entitled “Messy Realities,” made the following remarks:
“What we don’t need–at the expense of workers and taxpayers–is the kind of solution [where] everyone present within the boundaries of the United States ought to have the same rights and benefits. It would be politically irresponsible to turn these legislative issues over to the courts to decide on the basis of constitutional principles. Instead, we need reasoned analysis and public discussion of how we can balance diverse objectives to accomplish what is fiscally possible, what is humane, and what best serves the goals of incorporating migrants into citizenship, deterring illegals, maintaining public health, and protecting children.”
The University of South Alabama, in a Jan. 31, 2006 enrollment services website section entitled “Constitutional Rights of International Students and Scholars,” stated:
“People often speak about the Constitution and their ‘Constitutional Rights’ or ‘Civil Liberties.’ […] Very few people have taken the time to read the Constitution of the United States and to understand their rights and how they work. The Constitution refers to three kinds of people to whom the Constitution applies: citizens, persons, and the people. Those distinctions mean that aliens have some rights, but not all. In looking at Constitutional Rights, note first to whom the discussion applies…
If you are an alien who has been admitted to the U.S., then generally you have these rights. If you entered the U.S. illegally and were, therefore, not properly ‘admitted,’ then some of the protections do not apply to you… Under the basic rules of international law, every state (country) has the sovereign right to determine who may enter and remain within its borders and under what conditions. In general, a person who is not a citizen of a country has no ‘right’ to be in that country. As an alien, not a citizen, you do not have all of the rights or protections that a citizen has.”Jan. 31, 2006 – University of Southern Alabama
“Were it our business to set the Nation’s social policy, I would agree without hesitation that it is senseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children — including illegal aliens — of an elementary education. I fully agree that it would be folly — and wrong — to tolerate creation of a segment of society made up of illiterate persons, many having a limited or no command of our language.However, the Constitution does not constitute us as “Platonic Guardians,” nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, “wisdom,” or “common sense.” See TVA v. Hill,437 U.S. 153, 194-195 (1978). We trespass on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role as the Court does today….
In a sense, the Court’s opinion rests on such a unique confluence of theories and rationales that it will likely stand for little beyond the results in these particular cases. Yet the extent to which the Court departs from principled constitutional adjudication is nonetheless disturbing.
I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmentapplies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state. However, as the Court concedes, this “only begins the inquiry.” Ante at 215. The Equal Protection Clause does not mandate identical treatment of different categories of persons.Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535, 549 (1972); Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 75 (1971); Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147-148 (1940).
The dispositive issue in these cases, simply put, is whether, for purposes of allocating its finite resources, a state has a legitimate reason to differentiate between personswho are lawfully within the state and those who are unlawfully there.”
Read the entire Plyler v. Doe Supreme Court 5-4 Decision here @ FindLaw.com
“MANCHESTER, New Hampshire — Billionaire businessman Donald J. Trump won New Hampshire in a blowout here in the first in the nation primary, with news organizations from CNN to Fox News to the Associated Press and more calling the race for him the second the polls closed statewide at 8 p.m. ET.
Exit polling proves that Trump, among voters, has won virtually every single issue ranging from immigration to how to handle Muslims to the economy and more.”
Suffering bobcats, coyotes, owls spur Thousand Oaks neighborhood to rethink war on rats
– LA Times
“The sight was heartbreaking: a thin, mangy bobcat trembling against a brick wall separating the Thousand Oaks neighborhood of Dos Vientos from open space that is habitat for wildlife and popular among hikers.
The wildcat was too sick to move, even as passersby stepped closer one recent morning to snap photographs.
“It just stared at us,” Stephanie Marlin, 53, recalled, “with eyes that seemed to say, ‘Look what you guys did to me.’
A few hours later, Marlin posted snapshots of the animal on Facebook. By day’s end, they were being used in an emotional fight across social media channels over the unintended collateral damage of the Dos Vientos Ranch Community Assn.’s annual $40,000 war on rats.
Images of dead and dying bobcats, mountain lions, coyotes and owls posted on Dos Vientos community message boards and chat threads have aroused outrage among residents in and around the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. They believe rodenticides are working their way up the food chain.
Just recently, however, opponents of the pest control campaign discovered six boxes baited with anticoagulant rodenticide spaced roughly 100 feet apart along the backyard fencing of Dos Vientos homes.
Anticoagulants had been used until 2014, when California banned the sale to the public of so-called second-generation rat poison, which is more toxic than earlier versions and remains in a target species body at such high levels that other animals feeding on rat carcasses often also die.
National Park Service scientists for years have documented widespread exposure in carnivores to common household poisons in and around the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. During two decades of research in the region on carcasses and live animals, 88% of 140 bobcats, coyotes and mountain lions evaluated tested positive for one or more anticoagulant compounds.”
“Senator Marco Rubio let his inner “boy in the bubble” show at Saturday night’s Republican presidential debate, tripping and falling right into Chris Christie‘s criticism that Rubio is too scripted, and unable to think on his feet. Within minutes, Rubio used the same exact line about dispelling “this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing,” with slight variations, four times.”
“Christie struck a nerve, ridiculing Rubio’s speech style as overly scripted and hollow.
“See, Marco, the thing is this,” Christie said. “When you’re president of the United States, when you’re a governor of a state, the memorized 30-second speech where you talk about how great America is at the end of it doesn’t solve one problem for one person.”
Donald Trump Hammers Illegal Alien Gangs Operating Inside United States: ‘Beyond Belief’ MS-13 Has Foothold in Boston
“MANCHESTER, New Hampshire — Donald Trump, the 2016 GOP presidential frontrunner who’s polling ahead of all his opponents here in New Hampshire, told Breitbart News on Friday morning that America is in dire straits if voters don’t elect someone president who can get the nation’s immigration crisis under control.
“If somebody great doesn’t get in as president, we don’t have a country anymore,” Trump responded when asked by Breitbart News for his thoughts on recent congressional testimony by border patrol agents that the nation’s immigration laws are basically nullified. “We’re not going to have a country anymore.
“In the absence of consequences and enforceable laws innocent people are hurt, criminals are rewarded, chaos abounds, and cartels reap huge financial benefits,” Judd wrote to the congressional committee.
Trump is blown away by these non-enforcement directives coming from the White House.
When asked about a follow-up report from Bedard, who cited testimony by the Center for Immigration Studies’ Jessica Vaughan about how MS-13 and other Latin American gangs are using those non-enforcement mechanisms from Obama to get into America, Trump said it proves everything he said right about immigration when he launched his presidential campaign to much criticism from the establishment.
Trump told Breitbart News on Friday:
This is what I was saying when I said ‘Mexico is sending,’ Do you remember when I said that? Mexico is sending. These countries are sending their worst people to us because they don’t want to take care of them. It is happening. These countries—we’re being sent people that are hardcore criminals and they’re being put through our borders and they’re being accepted by us because of Obama’s open policy.
”The testimony, as reported by the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard, found federal agents telling Congress of a “shocking reversal of policy” that has U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents “being told to release illegal immigrants and no longer order them to appear at deportation hearings, essentially a license to stay in the United States.”
Refugee and Visa Programs – Congressional Testimony on Terrorism
“Homeland Security and State Department officials testified at a hearing on security concerns related to U.S. refugee and visa policy. Francis Taylor told committee members that the Department of Homeland Security was now looking at the social media accounts of refugees coming from “high risk” nations. The change was in response to the mass shooting by a husband and wife team in San Bernadino, California. The wife was a Pakistani immigrant in the U.S. on a visa.”
See the Full Congressional Testimony here @ C-SPAN.org
“Significant Immigrant Populations from Central America” Fueling Violent Gang MS-13
“A major bust involving the nation’s most violent street gang reveals that the criminal enterprise—known as Mara Salvatrucha or MS-13—continues to be energized with new recruits provided by the steady flow of illegal immigrant minors entering the U.S. through Mexico.
The affiliation between gangs and the hordes of Central American illegal immigrants who continue invading the U.S. is a story Judicial Watch has been reporting for more than a year. The Obama administration calls them Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) and tries to portray them as innocent, desperate kids fleeing violence and famine in their homeland. The reality is much different, as top Homeland Security sources have told JW in the course of an ongoing investigation into the dangerously porous southern border.
As soon as the UACs started arriving in the summer of 2014, Homeland Security sources told Judicial Watch that many had ties to gang members in the U.S. In fact, JW reported in 2014 that street gangs—including MS-13—went on a recruiting frenzy at U.S. shelters housing the illegal immigrant minors and they were using Red Cross phones to communicate.”
Carson speaker ‘devastated’ by bogus report spread by Cruz operatives in Iowa
– The Courier
“INDEPENDENCE — This was something new for Naomi Probert: Stand in front of a crowd of 500 people and tell them why she feels someone should be elected president of the United States.
The married mother of adopted Haitian children ages 5 and 6 found one candidate spoke to her heart: Dr. Ben Carson.
She and her family met Carson, personally, a day earlier in Manchester. The experience only reinforced her support for him.
So much so, she was willing to speak on his behalf at her Republican precinct caucus Monday night at Independence High School. In fact, her kids helped hand out literature for him. Supporting Carson was, for the Proberts, a family affair.
“I’d never done anything like this before,” she said. “I felt really passionate about Dr. Carson. We were inspired by Dr. Carson’s story. I volunteered to talk for him. And you get all revved up to speak to 500 people.”
Then, the unthinkable happened.
A lady who had just checked her smart phone said the campaign of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz “just informed us that there’s a CNN story that he (Carson) is out of the race and he’s endorsed (Sen. Ted) Cruz,” Probert related. She had already risen to speak.
“There was a gasp in the audience,” Probert related. “I was just devastated. I got emotional. I said, ‘My husband and I live here in Independence with our two Haitian children. We were inspired by Dr. Carson’s story…’”
That was as far as she got. Overcome by emotion, she sat down.
She and her husband, Stephen, got on their smartphones to find the story in question. They didn’t.”
Read the original story here @ The Courier, by Pat Kinney.
– Absolutely heartbreaking. I only met a candidate once, although I met Reagan twice when he was the governor, able to shake the smiling outstretched hand of Gene McCarthy who spoke for so many of us in the the spring of 1968. I can only imagine how I would have felt in her circumstances.
Ted Cruz has a lot to answer for and the list just keeps growing.