“It’s not over,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this week in reference to the “cattle battle showdown” between a rancher in Nevada and the federal Bureau of Land Management that has made national news in recent days.
Last Saturday, the federal government released the 400 head of cattle it had seized from rancher Cliven Bundy, who, the Bureau says, owes more than $ 1 million in grazing fees for letting his livestock feed on public land (Bundy stopped paying monthly grazing fees in 1993). However, despite the Bureau’s return of Bundy’s cattle, Sen. Reid has vowed that the feds will not back down: “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and just walk away from it. So it’s not over,” he told a reporter.
So, if an American fails to obey the law for twenty years, loses in court, and then summons supporters to protest the federal government’s decision to enforce the law after years of violations, Sen.
Reid does not want the feds to back down. However, if the lawbreaker is an illegal alien, not an American citizen, Sen. Reid, of course, takes an entirely different tune. For illegal aliens, he supports amnesty and citizenship as a reward for breaking federal laws, and encourages those who agitate for non-enforcement.
Senator Reid ought to realize that if the leader of the Senate holds the laws he doesn’t like in contempt, more Americans may start feeling the same way.
Cartoon by Rick McKee. Published in the Augusta Chronicle on April 15, 2014.
14 Comments
Last, Leland this is a lesson for you:
The reason we have an illegal immigration problem is because we are ll at fault, We The People and the Gov…..WHY? because we never cared………..remember we are not in Russia where the gov rules by fear…..this is the US where if a law is enacted by Congress, We as The People ought to back it up….so we have not………..now, we have an issue in our hands………………..if you cannot dig this, you have a hole in your brain: simply put.
Leland read this
The court reiterated this view in Plyler v. Doe (1982). The majority held—and the dissent agreed—that the 14th Amendment extends to anyone “who is subject to the laws of a state,” including the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. Likewise, in INS v. Rios-Pineda (1985), the court again unanimously agreed that a child born to an undocumented immigrant was in fact a U.S. citizen.
We are the United States of America, we believe in a fair system and a place that embraces all people for the well being of a bright future.
In short, history repeats itself again, now our Congress has to govern and set the path for the new future NOT you nor me but the high school population………………so the bunch of Apes in WA more specifically the GOP are too old for such young country to govern:ours.
Reid calls IAs poor Immigrants Trying to Feed Their Families
Then calls legal American citizen farmers “farmland terrorists” for trying to feed their cattle.
Senator Harry Reid is a big time hypocrite and enemy of the rule of law. This imperial President’s unlawful bypass of the U.S. Congress and his breathtaking rewrite of existing immigration laws on the books (see story regarding 68,000 convicted criminal aliens released instead of deported by the Department of Homeland Security) is a good thing according to Reid. The truth is in Reid’s twisted mind, illegal immigration is an Act of Love that must be aided and abetted by the leaders of the Democratic Party in Washington D.C.
Reid was for changing birthright citizenship years ago. Then the demographics in Nevada changed and Harry had to pander to illegals. I wonder why he’s supporting the Senate “reform” bill that would increase our already high population growth of 30 million per decade by almost doubling our present levels of legal immigration. Does Nevada have extra water no one knows about? I guess he never noticed that most of the southwest is dependent on the already overdrawn Colorado River.
What I have never heard explained about all the guest worker visas, and big business would get almost unlimited numbers, is what happens when those workers have a child here. Because sure as night follows day we are going to hear about “separating families”.
The fact is that the 1898 Supreme Court decision awarding citizenship to Wong Kim Ark notes specifically that his parents were long time residents of San Francisco, were business owners, and known to the authorities. Hard to believe they meant that you could arrive here on a tourist visa, have a baby a week later, and that child is a citizen.
It’s also hard to believe that the authors of the 14th amendment, which was intended to give citizenship to freed slaves, could have meant that citizenship could be the reward for the committing of an illegal act. Nor does merely being born here mean automatic citizenship. Children of diplomats are ineligible, as are children born to invading troops of another country. Ironically the Supreme Court based it’s decision in Ark partly on “English common law”, a country we broke away from as I remember. Even more ironic, Britain, like every other country in Europe, outlawed birthright citizenship years ago.
Leland your 14th amendment comment is completely illogical and without any basis.
So you always say, whatever the subject, but your comments always end there. Time for a history lesson for the ignorant. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were all passed between 1865 and 1870 and all had to do with the Civil War, slavery, and making citizens of former slaves. The reason an amendment was passed was so that a future Congress could not take away citizenship of former slaves. Offer an argument and not your usual silliness.
Leland that is your problem…..you think everybody is ignorant and nobody knows what the 14th amendment is……but as usual you are the ignorant by assuming things that are already well understood; that is, ..go ahead and learn some more of OUR history and search for the US court Supreme decision on the Dred and Scott case…………….same thing as nowadays………………u should try stretching your brains at least once in your lifetime to understand my feedback…..
Leland you should learn how “to infer” based on history facts when you read my feedback……we only have lived this lifetime. You think you know about the Civil War, the slavery…..FYI…..even Chinese back then WITHOUT papers got the citizenship………………
During congressional debates, both proponents and opponents of the citizenship clause agreed with this interpretation of the 14th Amendment. For example, Pennsylvania Sen. Edgar Cowan opposed the clause precisely because it would extend birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of Chinese laborers and other noncitizens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none.”
Tellingly, Cowan’s racially charged opposition was met with the following response from California Sen. John Conness: “The proposition before us . . . relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. . . . I am in favor of doing so. . . . We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment.”
Supreme Court precedent further reinforces this view of the 14th Amendment. In 1898, the court held that a U.S.-born child of Chinese immigrants was entitled to citizenship. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, it held that the “14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory . . . including all children here born of resident aliens.”
ETC ETC……
Nowadays, legally these kids that were brought illegally here could in fact get together and find a pro bono Lawyer and sue the State Depart, and as per the 14th Amendment, Exhibit one, could essentially become legal.
SO….Leland read, educate yourself………..stop that hate you have against people with less fortune than yo and I….and I mean the ones that are good NOT the criminals………
No, John, it’s the popular interpretation of the 14th amendment, that children born here to illegal aliens are citizens, that’s completely illogical and without any basis. The OP was right–the 14th amendment requires that one be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US. Foreign diplomats and their families are NOT. In fact, Native Americans were not even considered citizens of the US under the 14th amendment. (Native Americans are sovereign peoples.) It took a much later law for that to happen.
You should rephrase Ali, “it is your interpretation” read our history and see how many Americans do have this background…..either you are in denial or simply you are in touch of our reality. Did you at least read all my comments and research if true? probably NOT..
Leland you said “The fact is that the 1898 Supreme Court decision awarding citizenship to Wong Kim Ark notes specifically that his parents were long time residents of San Francisc”, were business owners, and known to the authorities. Hard to believe they meant that you could arrive here on a tourist visa, have a baby a week later, and that child is a citizen.”
I give you an example of it…………Michelle Malkin……her parents came from the Philipines and the mother was already 8 months pregnant…..
They were here on a legal visa. Her dad was training to be a doctor. Get it? Legal residents. They were not tourists here on a temporary visa.
So Leland you are an open border guy…..basically welcomeall trainees for citizenship…amazing!! you should be McCain flip flop…flip…flop!!…:)