Meanwhile before Congress, an outsourced Disney IT worker testifies…….
Laid Off Disney Worker Endorses Trump, SLAMS Rubio
– Daily Caller
““I am endorsing Donald Trump because I believe he will stand up to the all powerful corporations that spend millions each month in Washington DC in an attempt to influence our lawmakers,” he said in the statement. “I have faith that Trump will take immediate action to ensure no American professional ever again has to train his or her foreign replacement worker.”
Perrero also slammed Rubio, saying he “betrayed” American workers by pushing a bill known as I-Squared that would triple the number of foreign workers businesses can hire on H-1b visas, which is what many of the workers who replaced Perrero and his IT colleagues held.
“Marco Rubio was nowhere to be found,” Perrero said in the statement, after pointing out only the other Florida senator, Bill Nelson, offered assistance when he asked for help following the layoff. “Instead, he was pushing a corporate-backed plan to triple the number of foreign guest workers replacing American workers in technology fields while hundreds of former Disney IT workers were lining up in the unemployment line.”
“Under Rubio’s plan, thousands more Floridians will experience the same fate as us,” he continued. “Marco Rubio has betrayed American workers.”
Federal Court Orders Discovery Into The Clinton Emails And Suggests The Possibility of Subpoenas To Force Disclosures
“U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan sent shockwaves through Washington yesterday by ruling that State Department officials and top aides to Hillary Clinton will be subject to discovery on whether they intentionally violated federal open records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server throughout Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
The case opens up another front for Clinton who is facing rising criticism over her decision to exclusively use her own private server for communications as Secretary of State — a decision that gave her control over her email system but exposed classified information to interception. The State Department supplied a secure system for her use but Clinton opted not to use that system. Over 1,700 emails on Clinton’s private email system have been classified (22 at the highest level of “top secret”).
While Clinton insists that the information was not marked classified at the time, that is not the test under federal law. Yet, this case concerns the use of the private server to circumvent open record laws. The court also indicated that it may order subpoenas for Clinton officials in light to the failure to fully disclose information. Sullivan, who I have appeared before regularly over the last two decades, is a widely respected judge and a Clinton appointee.
Sullivan noted that it is not clear that senior State Department officials were aware that Clinton had decided not to use the protected or secure State Department system. He cited a January 2009 email exchange including Undersecretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills and Huma Abedin about establishing a “stand-alone network” email system. Now that it is also confirmed that top secret information was discussed on Clinton’s private server, any discovery is likely to cause both political and legal problems for the Clinton camp. First, any depositions might result in refusals to testify by key officials. The invocation of Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination would have significant political impacts. After all, no one would suggest that Sullivan is part of a right-wing conspiracy or runaway investigation. The refusal to testify would reflect the real danger of tripping the wire on federal classification laws as well as more general concerns that statements conflicting statements with those government investigators could trigger charges under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Second, depositions raise the explosive potential of an aide admitting that the email system was understood to be an effort to retain control of the email system and evade federal laws.”
Federal Court Grants Judicial Watch Discovery on Clinton Email Issue
– Judicial Watch
“Judicial Watch Will Seek Testimony from Current and Former Obama Administration Officials
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan today granted Judicial Watch’s motion for discovery into whether the State Department and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton deliberately thwarted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for six years. The developments come in a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton. The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about Clinton’s separate email records (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).
Judge Sullivan initially announced his ruling from the bench during a hearing this morning and, over the objections of the State Department, authorized Judicial Watch to submit a plan for “narrowly-tailored discovery.” Judge Sullivan is also considering whether to order the State Department to subpoena all the emails on the clinton.com email system.”
….Continue reading @ JudicialWatch.org
McCaul and Warner want to build an army of tech experts and spies to try and catch terrorists when they ‘go dark’
“Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) will soon formally propose a digital security commission with aims to bring stakeholders together to discuss and propose solutions to “security and technology challenges in the digital age.”
“The technology is way in front of the policymakers and the law,” McCaul said at an event at the Bipartisan Policy Center on Wednesday.
Warner remarked on his fear that the relationship between the intelligence community and the tech sector had become adversarial as the two sides “talk past each other” when the they ought to be cooperating.
At the heart of the committee is the delicate balance between the needs (and wants) of investigators seeking encrypted information and the rights and privacy of the American public.
“There are tensions,” Warner said, “but we want to maintain American innovation, we want to maintain America’s privacy rights, and we definitely want to make sure Americans are safe from acts of terror and criminal acts.”
The pairing of McCaul, the chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security and a former federal prosecutor, and Warner, a former tech and telecommunications investor , is emblematic of the cooperation that the two hope to bring forth with a committee that would include representatives from Silicon Valley, the FBI, privacy advocates, encryption experts, and law enforcement agencies.
The issue of criminals using encryption to hide their tracks — known as “going dark” — has been brought into the spotlight by Apple’s public battle with the FBI over creating a “backdoor” for investigators to access the encrypted iPhone of Syed Farook, the suspected shooter in the San Bernardino attack last December.
A similar discussion arose surrounding the assertion that encryption was used in the planning of the November 2015 Paris attacks, though the extent to which encryption was actually used remains unclear.”
– Actually the headline from BI is a bit over the top the content, outrunning it as it were.
– A more in depth article was done by the Hill in Dec 2015:
Homeland chair moves to rein in ‘dark’ networks
“The head of the House Homeland Security Committee is pushing a new initiative to deal with the proliferation of encrypted devices that critics say allow terrorists to communicate without detection.
The effort by Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) will not force concessions on tech companies, he said Monday.
Instead, it would create “a national commission on security and technology challenges in the digital age,” which McCaul promised would be tasked with providing specific recommendations for dealing with an issue that has become a priority for law enforcement officials.
McCaul is planning to introduce his bill in the coming days. The new commission would be composed of tech industry leaders, privacy advocates, academics and law enforcement officials.
McCaul’s push could prove to be a middle ground in the debate over encryption, which has created a rift between Silicon Valley and federal officials in Washington.
Leaders at the FBI and elsewhere warn that the increasingly common use of unbreakable encryption makes it impossible for them to obtain a suspect’s communications even with a warrant.
Yet tech companies and privacy supporters say that weakening the technology would make everybody less safe. A vulnerability allowing the FBI to access someone’s messages could easily be exploited by Chinese spies or nefarious hackers, they note.
McCaul’s idea went over well with at least one of Capitol Hill’s staunchest encryption defenders.
Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas), a former cybersecurity consultant and CIA agent who chairs an important House subcommittee on information technology, said McCaul’s proposed commission could help define “specifically, what are those challenges that law enforcement is facing?”
“The problem that I’ve seen is that the tech community and the law enforcement community, everybody’s talking past each other,” he told The Hill.”
– My question would be, why set up whole infrastructures to spy and investigate US citizens, when the people at the top are fully capable of exposing top secrets to our most serious adversaries?
Another point would be to shut access to money and techologies. If most wireless carriers requires several serious forms of ID for a cell phone account, why is it still so easy to buy a ID-less cell phone?
Scalia’s Death Came As Conservatives Were About To Seize Historic Legal Gains
“The entire current legal strategy of the conservative legal movement has been stymied by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. His unexpected passing robs conservatives of the 5-4 advantage they had on the Supreme Court at the very moment they were making arguably their most aggressive play yet to cement some their most cherished and longest sought legal gains, in areas like abortion, voting rights, and affirmative action.
While much of the immediate focus after Scalia’s death over the weekend was on the long game of who replaces him, and when, the impact is far more immediate and potentially historic. Even if a Republican president ultimately names Scalia’s successor, the conservative legal movement will have suffered a dramatic setback by virtue of how many important cases it had queued up for this year that will be thrown into turmoil by a court with only eight justices and the potential for 4-4 tie votes.”
Here are how some of the court’s most politically charged cases that stand to be affected by Scalia’s death:
Unions – (Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association ) A case attacking unions is perhaps the most clear-cut example of how the conservative movement has attempted to exploit the court’s make-up, and how that effort could now backfire with Scalia’s death.
One Person, One Vote (Evenwel v. Abbott) What the court was planning to do in a major voting rights case was murkier, but the absence of Scalia’s vote nonetheless works in the favor of those who are fighting the conservative challenge to how voting districts are drawn.
Affirmative Action (Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin) Blum has another case at the Supreme Court awaiting a decision. Fisher asked the court to knock down the University of Texas’ affirmative action program, after Blum failed to land a lethal blow on affirmative action policies in previous cases.
Climate change (West Virginia v. EPA) The Supreme Court voted to temporarily block President Obama’s climate plan last week in a 5-4 order that would not have stood had it been considered a few days later. Nevertheless, Scalia’s death spells trouble for the states and coal industry forces pushing the case. This summer it will be heard by a left-leaning panel of the D.C. Circuit that is likely to rule in Obama’s favor. The challengers could then appeal to the full appeals court, but they no longer have the five Supreme Court votes they were counting on if and when the case eventually made its way there.
Immigration (United States v. Texas) An appeals court already ruled against President Obama’s executive actions to protect certain undocumented immigrants from deportation, meaning a 4-4 Supreme Court decision would still be bad for the U.S. government. But without Scalia’s vote going forward, there are some silver linings for the Obama administration.
Abortion (Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole) A case challenging abortion restrictions in Texas is another instance where the lower court’s decision is working in conservatives’ favor in the event of a Supreme Court tie. However, that decision would only apply to Texas and would not set precedent for the states whose abortion restrictions are being challenged in other circuits.”
Conspiracy theories swirl around the death of Antonin Scalia
“The top elected official in the Texas county where Antonin Scalia was found dead says the U.S. Supreme Court Justice died of natural causes. (AP)
Two days after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly in remote West Texas, a former D.C. homicide commander is raising questions about how the death was handled by local and federal authorities.“As a former homicide commander, I am stunned that no autopsy was ordered for Justice Scalia,” William O. Ritchie, former head of criminal investigations for D.C. police, wrote in a post on Facebook on Sunday.“You have a Supreme Court Justice who died, not in attendance of a physician,” he wrote. “You have a non-homicide trained US Marshal tell the justice of peace that no foul play was observed. You have a justice of the peace pronounce death while not being on the scene and without any medical training opining that the justice died of a heart attack. What medical proof exists of a myocardial Infarction? Why not a cerebral hemorrhage?”In an interview with The Washington Post, Guevara has said she rebutted a report by a Dallas TV station that Scalia had died of “myocardial infarction.” She said she meant only that his heart had stopped.Ritchie also raised questions about the marshals’ actions:
“How can the Marshal say, without a thorough post mortem, that he was not injected with an illegal substance that would simulate a heart attack…”
“Did the US Marshal check for petechial hemorrhage in his eyes or under his lips that would have suggested suffocation? Did the US Marshal smell his breath for any unusual odor that might suggest poisoning? My gut tells me there is something fishy going on in Texas.”
A spokesman for the marshals service said Monday that the marshals did not make a formal determination of death. He directed questions to the county judge who made the call.”
Antonin Scalia Conspiracy Theories: Top 5 Questions About His Death
1. Why Did He Have a Pillow Over His Head When He Was Found Dead?
“The circumstances and chaos surrounding the death of U.S. Supreme Justice Antonin Scalia at a Texas ranch have sparked many conspiracy theories.
Scalia was found dead in his bed Saturday morning at the luxury West Texas ranch. He was 79. Officials say he died of natural causes. An autopsy will not be conducted and police say there were no signs of foul play.
According to the Washington Post, the hours after Scalia’s death were filled with “chaos, confusion and conflicting reports.”
Texas judge raises new questions about Scalia’s health
– Yahoo / AP
“WASHINGTON (AP) — The Texas county judge who decided no autopsy was needed following the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is raising new questions about Scalia’s health in the days before he died.
Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara tells The Associated Press that she spoke to Scalia’s doctor on the day Scalia was found dead at a remote Texas ranch. She says the doctor told her Scalia had a history of heart trouble, high blood pressure and was considered too weak to undergo surgery for a recent shoulder injury.
Those details are seemingly at odds with the recollections of friends who described Scalia has his usual, happy self during the time leading up to his death.”
Read more @ Yahoo
– My question are:
Incomprehensible that Scalia’s doctor would divulge sensitive medical information to a judge without a warrant and even then, not legal. Adding insult to injury, the judge is now divulging personal medical information ostensibly gathered from Scalia’s doctor in Virginia. Sorry, not credible. The proper response and course would have been for local doctor to examine the body and determine a cause of death or further inquiry.
If the West Texas resort was so elite and exclusive, why would anyone attend without a doctor and medical staff on site? The nearest big city was over 200 miles away in El Paso.
A lot of things can happen in West Texas, from rattlesnakes to scorpion bites.
Wouldn’t exclusive guests expect this for a resort essentially a helicopter ride away from medical assistance?
I would think a risk assessment for any resort or lodging for a sitting justice of the US Supreme Court would be on site medical staff for a site at a specified distance away from a hospital. Calling off a security detail was not a wise decision and should not have occurred as well.
A sitting Supreme Court Justice is just as critical to the US political process as a sitting president.
Carrier in Indy, UTEC in Huntington to move units to Mexico, costing 2,100 jobs
– Indianapolis Star
“Mayor Joe Hogsett issues executive order to assemble local, state and federal resources for displaced workers and calls shutdown ‘incredibly disappointing.’
“Two Indiana plants that make products for the heating, ventilating and air conditioning industry are shifting their manufacturing operations to Mexico, which will cost about 2,100 workers their jobs, company officials announced Wednesday.
Carrier is shuttering its manufacturing facility on Indianapolis’ west side, eliminating about 1,400 jobs during the next three years.”
Read the whole story in the Star by Kris Turner in the IndyStar.com
Video: Carrier Air Conditioner (part of United Technologies) Moving 2,100 Jobs to Mexico
Video: Indiana workers explode when told their jobs are moving to Mexico
“Some 1,400 people will lose their jobs when the plant moves to Mexico. Theirs are only the latest lost due to the effects of the disastrous North American Free Trade Agreement, which allowed U.S. companies to shift production to Mexico where they could pay three dollars an hour, not have to worry about unions, child labor laws, or work safety, and then ship their product back to the U.S. duty and restriction free.
NAFTA was widely supported by Republicans in congress, heralded by President Bill Clinton and defended by First Lady Hillary Clinton. While serving as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton championed the similarly criticized Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement, recently signed into law by President Obama, but came out against it around the time she announced her candidacy for president.”
NAFTA at 20 – New Report from Public Citizens’ Global Trade Watch
“The North American Free Trade Agreement took effect on January 1, 1994.
NAFTA opponents – including labor, environmental, consumer and religious groups – argued that NAFTA would launch a race-to-the-bottom in wages, destroy hundreds of thousands of good U.S. jobs, undermine democratic control of domestic policy-making and threaten health, environmental and food safety standards.
NAFTA promoters – including many of the world’s largest corporations – promised it would create hundreds of thousands of new high-wage U.S. jobs, raise living standards in the U.S., Mexico and Canada, improve environmental conditions and transform Mexico from a poor developing country into a booming new market for U.S. exports.
Why such divergent views? NAFTA was a radical experiment – never before had a merger of three nations with such radically different levels of development been attempted. Plus, until NAFTA, “trade” agreements only dealt with cutting tariffs and lifting quotas to set the terms of trade in goods betweencountries. But NAFTA contained 900 pages of one-size-fits-all rules to which each nation was required to conform all of its domestic laws – regardless of whether voters and their democratically-elected representatives had previously rejected the very same policies in Congress, state legislatures or city councils.”
“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