Does Alien Caught at Border Have Right to Bear Arms?....
Jul 14, 2018 16:58:02 #
OldGlory1951
Loc: Burien, Washington
Does Alien Caught at Border Have Right to Bear Arms?
Terry Jeffrey
Terry Jeffrey
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2018 12:01 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
Does Alien Caught at Border Have Right to Bear Arms?
Trending
Larry Elder
S***ery: What They Didn't Teach in My High School
Kurt Schlichter
Liberals Are Super Sad About the Supreme Court. Good.
Ann Coulter
Kavanaugh Threatens the Left's Right to C***t
Does a detained alien caught illegally crossing the border have a right to bear arms, contribute to Nancy Pelosi -- or k**l an unborn child?
Last September, 17-year-old "Jane Doe" was caught illegally crossing into the United States. She had left her parents behind in her native country where a******n is illegal.
Following normal procedure, the Office of Refugee Resettlement took custody of this girl, put her in detention and gave her a medical exam. She was eight weeks pregnant.
She demanded an a******n.
The ORR, which under the Trump administration has adopted a policy of not "facilitating" a******ns, declined to let her out of detention for that purpose.
But it would allow her to voluntarily leave the United States -- or release her to a qualified sponsor within the United States as soon as one could be found.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the government on Jane Doe's behalf. It argued that Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- the 1992 opinion co-authored by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter -- gave Doe a right to an a******n in the United States and that the government was violating that right by placing an "undue burden" on it.
The administration offered a weak rebuttal. It assumed (without conceding the point) that Casey applied to the novel case of an alien caught at the border who demands an a******n. But it argued that ORR policies did not place an "undue burden" on Doe's "right" to an a******n.
CARTOONS | AF Branco
View Cartoon
Nine states -- led by Texas -- made a stronger argument. They said Supreme Court a******n precedents did not apply.
"If on the facts of this case Doe has a Fifth Amendment right to an a******n, it is hard to imagine why she could be denied any other constitutional rights -- such as the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms," they said in an amicus.
"Yet courts have consistently rejected the notion that unlawfully-present aliens with no substantial connections to this country are protected by the Second Amendment," the states said.
When the case ultimately went before the full appeals court, the majority accepted the ACLU's argument.
Judge Karen Henderson -- in a dissent noted in this column last October -- echoed Texas.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh filed a dissent echoing the Justice Department.
Henderson smacked the department for evading the fundamental question.
"Does an i*****l a***n who attempts to enter the United States eight weeks pregnant -- and who is immediately apprehended and then in custody for 36 days between arriving and filing a federal suit -- have a constitutional right to an elective a******n?" Henderson wrote.
"The government has inexplicably and wrongheadedly failed to take a position on that antecedent question," she said. "I say wrongheadedly because at least to me the answer is plainly -- and easily -- no."
To back her argument that the court must decide this, Henderson cited Chief Justice John Roberts' concurring opinion in Citizens United v. FEC: "There is a difference between judicial restraint and judicial abdication. When constitutional questions are 'indispensably necessary' to resolving the case at hand, 'the court must meet and decide them.'"
Henderson said her opinion that an alien caught illegally crossing the border did not have a right to a******n in the United States was based on Supreme Court precedents addressing the rights of aliens.
"If the Due Process Clause applies to J.D. with full force, there will be no reason she cannot donate to political campaigns ... inasmuch as freedom of political expression is plainly fundamental to our system of ordered liberty," Henderson said.
Kavanaugh admitted that "this case presents a new situation not yet directly confronted by the Supreme Court." But then he adopted the Justice Department's argument and "assumed" Casey applied to an alien caught illegally crossing the border.
Recommended
Trey Gowdy Destroys FBI's Peter Strzok: Why Did You Talk About Impeaching Trump a Day After the Special Counsel Launched?
Katie Pavlich
"All parties to this case recognize Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as precedents we must follow," Kavanaugh wrote. "All parties have assumed for purposes of this case, moreover, that Jane Doe has a right under Supreme Court precedent to obtain an a******n in the United States."
Kavanaugh rejected the ACLU's claim that Doe had a right to an "immediate a******n," but conceded she had a right to one "expeditiously."
Kavanaugh wrote that the majority's decision was "ultimately based on a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong: a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. government detention to obtain immediate a******n on demand, thereby barring any government efforts to expeditiously t***sfer the minors to their immigration sponsors before they make that momentous life decision."
Kavanaugh further argued that by assuming Casey applied to detained aliens -- as the government did -- it must be conceded that such an alien may eventually need to be granted an a******n in federal detention.
"But if t***sfer does not work, given existing Supreme Court precedent and the position the government has so far advanced in this litigation," he said, "it could turn out that the government will be required by existing Supreme Court precedent to allow the a******n, even though the minor at that point would still be residing in a U.S. government detention facility."
Kavanaugh did not address the question of whether the government must allow her to buy a gun -- or send a check to the House minority leader.
http://www.townhall.com
Nope!!! they have no rights to Bear Arms, none of them.Nada!!!! Zip!!!! No Way. Now what do all Y'all think?
Terry Jeffrey
Terry Jeffrey
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2018 12:01 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
Does Alien Caught at Border Have Right to Bear Arms?
Trending
Larry Elder
S***ery: What They Didn't Teach in My High School
Kurt Schlichter
Liberals Are Super Sad About the Supreme Court. Good.
Ann Coulter
Kavanaugh Threatens the Left's Right to C***t
Does a detained alien caught illegally crossing the border have a right to bear arms, contribute to Nancy Pelosi -- or k**l an unborn child?
Last September, 17-year-old "Jane Doe" was caught illegally crossing into the United States. She had left her parents behind in her native country where a******n is illegal.
Following normal procedure, the Office of Refugee Resettlement took custody of this girl, put her in detention and gave her a medical exam. She was eight weeks pregnant.
She demanded an a******n.
The ORR, which under the Trump administration has adopted a policy of not "facilitating" a******ns, declined to let her out of detention for that purpose.
But it would allow her to voluntarily leave the United States -- or release her to a qualified sponsor within the United States as soon as one could be found.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the government on Jane Doe's behalf. It argued that Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- the 1992 opinion co-authored by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter -- gave Doe a right to an a******n in the United States and that the government was violating that right by placing an "undue burden" on it.
The administration offered a weak rebuttal. It assumed (without conceding the point) that Casey applied to the novel case of an alien caught at the border who demands an a******n. But it argued that ORR policies did not place an "undue burden" on Doe's "right" to an a******n.
CARTOONS | AF Branco
View Cartoon
Nine states -- led by Texas -- made a stronger argument. They said Supreme Court a******n precedents did not apply.
"If on the facts of this case Doe has a Fifth Amendment right to an a******n, it is hard to imagine why she could be denied any other constitutional rights -- such as the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms," they said in an amicus.
"Yet courts have consistently rejected the notion that unlawfully-present aliens with no substantial connections to this country are protected by the Second Amendment," the states said.
When the case ultimately went before the full appeals court, the majority accepted the ACLU's argument.
Judge Karen Henderson -- in a dissent noted in this column last October -- echoed Texas.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh filed a dissent echoing the Justice Department.
Henderson smacked the department for evading the fundamental question.
"Does an i*****l a***n who attempts to enter the United States eight weeks pregnant -- and who is immediately apprehended and then in custody for 36 days between arriving and filing a federal suit -- have a constitutional right to an elective a******n?" Henderson wrote.
"The government has inexplicably and wrongheadedly failed to take a position on that antecedent question," she said. "I say wrongheadedly because at least to me the answer is plainly -- and easily -- no."
To back her argument that the court must decide this, Henderson cited Chief Justice John Roberts' concurring opinion in Citizens United v. FEC: "There is a difference between judicial restraint and judicial abdication. When constitutional questions are 'indispensably necessary' to resolving the case at hand, 'the court must meet and decide them.'"
Henderson said her opinion that an alien caught illegally crossing the border did not have a right to a******n in the United States was based on Supreme Court precedents addressing the rights of aliens.
"If the Due Process Clause applies to J.D. with full force, there will be no reason she cannot donate to political campaigns ... inasmuch as freedom of political expression is plainly fundamental to our system of ordered liberty," Henderson said.
Kavanaugh admitted that "this case presents a new situation not yet directly confronted by the Supreme Court." But then he adopted the Justice Department's argument and "assumed" Casey applied to an alien caught illegally crossing the border.
Recommended
Trey Gowdy Destroys FBI's Peter Strzok: Why Did You Talk About Impeaching Trump a Day After the Special Counsel Launched?
Katie Pavlich
"All parties to this case recognize Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as precedents we must follow," Kavanaugh wrote. "All parties have assumed for purposes of this case, moreover, that Jane Doe has a right under Supreme Court precedent to obtain an a******n in the United States."
Kavanaugh rejected the ACLU's claim that Doe had a right to an "immediate a******n," but conceded she had a right to one "expeditiously."
Kavanaugh wrote that the majority's decision was "ultimately based on a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong: a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. government detention to obtain immediate a******n on demand, thereby barring any government efforts to expeditiously t***sfer the minors to their immigration sponsors before they make that momentous life decision."
Kavanaugh further argued that by assuming Casey applied to detained aliens -- as the government did -- it must be conceded that such an alien may eventually need to be granted an a******n in federal detention.
"But if t***sfer does not work, given existing Supreme Court precedent and the position the government has so far advanced in this litigation," he said, "it could turn out that the government will be required by existing Supreme Court precedent to allow the a******n, even though the minor at that point would still be residing in a U.S. government detention facility."
Kavanaugh did not address the question of whether the government must allow her to buy a gun -- or send a check to the House minority leader.
http://www.townhall.com
Nope!!! they have no rights to Bear Arms, none of them.Nada!!!! Zip!!!! No Way. Now what do all Y'all think?Jul 14, 2018 17:05:52 #
no propaganda please
Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
OldGlory1951 wrote:
Does Alien Caught at Border Have Right to Bear Arm... (show quote)
They have no right to be here, they have committed a crime coming here. Of course they have no right to bear arms. However, they do have a right to bare arms if they so choose, as long as they don't mind sunburned arms as they walk back across the border on their way to where they came from.
Jul 14, 2018 17:27:10 #
I*****l A***ns Have NO RIGHTS
Not Due Process Or Any Other
They Have The Right To GO HOME
And Hat-In-Hand
Ask For Permission To Come Here
Or PLEAD For Asylum
Didn't SCOTUS Just Rule On This ??
Not Due Process Or Any Other
They Have The Right To GO HOME
And Hat-In-Hand
Ask For Permission To Come Here
Or PLEAD For Asylum
Didn't SCOTUS Just Rule On This ??
Jul 14, 2018 17:55:13 #
OldGlory1951
Loc: Burien, Washington
no propaganda please wrote:
They have no right to be here, they have committed a crime coming here. Of course they have no right to bear arms. However, they do have a right to bare arms if they so choose, as long as they don't mind sunburned arms as they walk back across the border on their way to where they came from.
They will be a threat to our Security and our Borders, if they carry Arms!!!!. Stay Home and Bear Arms, don't trespass into our Country. They have no legal Rights in any way shape or form. If they enter our country without Legal Documents, then it will be Illegal for them to Bear Arms in any way shape and Form...Jul 15, 2018 05:15:15 #
OldGlory1951 wrote: They will be a threat to our Security and our Borders, if they carry Arms!!!!. Stay Home and Bear Arms, don't trespass into our Country.
Speakin' 'O Which.... They will be a threat to our Security and our Borders, if they carry Arms!!!!. Stay Home and Bear Arms, don't trespass into our Country.They Seem To Have Plenty Of Revolutionaries
To Make Their Homelands A Living Hell
How Come They Aren't As Dev**ed To Fighting Back ??
By Saying 'We Don't Care About That Stuff'
Haven't They Abdicated Any Right To Come Here ??
Don't They Deserve To Live Under The Conditions At Home ??
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.