Re: CBS' "Elsbeth" Star Wendell Pierce: "Mass Deportation of Illegal Immigrants a Racist Purge"

Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Jan 27, 2025 at 6:05:00 PM PST, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

Ubi the shithead did not write this article. He plagarized it from this
Web page

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2025/01/27/cbs-elsbeth-star-wendell-pierce-mass-deportation-of-illegal-immigrants-a-racist-purge/

CBS' ELSBETH star Wendell Pierce jumped to his X account to attack Donald
Trump for fulfilling his pledge to begin deporting criminal illegal aliens
and called Trump's policy a "racist purge" of the black and Latino community
and called Trump's supporters "white supremicist [sic] and neo Nazis".

Pierce, who constantly posts far-left screeds on social media, attacked Trump

for doing exactly what he promised to do once elected.

"The mass deportation of illegal immigrants is a racist purge of the latino
and black communities.

Apparently Wendell believes the latino and black communities are mostly made
up of criminals, because that's who is being "mass deported".

Seems like shockingly racist position for a far-left Hollywood actor to hold.

You've made an assumption without evidence. Yeah, we know what Tom Homan
claims, but it's not like the media has been provided with a list of
deportees whose criminal histories are verifiable. It's about as
credible as Donald Rumsfeld's claims that those sent to Guantanamo were
all "the worst of the worst" or, for that matter, Biden's lack of
credible basis for paroling vast number of aliens into the country.

It's literally Trump chewing the scenery for tv, and don't tell me that
my use of "literally" has literally decimated the language, for Dr. Phil
was invited to a raid early Sunday morning.

A few days ago, ICE showed up at a Chicago police station seemingly
looking for no one in particular, taking no one into federal custody,
having absolutely no idea if any illegal alien was held in local
custody.

Where is your natural skepticism?

. . .

Pierce continued into a longer spittle-specked rage and accused Trump of
trying to eliminate "racial equality" and to cancel the 1965 Voting Rights
bill, among other wild-eyed accusations.

:     The birthright citizenship in the
:     14th amendment ensured newly freed slaves their rights as citizens in
:     1865. Now Trump wants to eliminate that.

Correct. It was designed to protect the freed slaves. It was never the
drafter's intent to give citizenship to anyone who managed to illegally
crawl across the border and drop a baby on the other side. Which is why
it should be eliminated, or at least clarified by the Supreme Court that
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes illegal aliens.

You're skipping the Thirteenth Amendment entirely. THAT was intended by
Republicans to ACKNOWLEGE (not authorize) liberty, including
citizenship, was restored with the abolishment of slavery and
involuntary servitude.

But Democratic federal judges were still following the decision in Dred
Scott v. Sanford (1857), one of the several important preludes to civil
war as it found the Missouri Compromise an unconstitutional taking under
the Fifth Amendment as slaveholders would lose their property interest
in the slave if he were brought into free territory affected by the law.

Dred Scott himself simply lacked standing to sue for his freedom as he
was not a person in law with due process rights.

This Supreme Court decision is almost universally reviled by legal
scholars, but I appreciate its cynicism. Hey, hypocrites: These men,
women, and children may be enslaved, held as property, where legal to do
so, because they are of the Negro race. Who are you kidding? Their
humanity isn't recognized in law. They cannot sue for anything at all,
let alone their own freedom. They utterly lack personhood regardless of
their slave standing.

After the Thirteenth Amendment came into effect, Democratic federal
judges continued to recognize Dred Scott.

Hence the Fourtheenth Amendment.

Here is discussion, citing the decision in US v. Wong Kim (1898), noting
that the Fourthteen Amendment didn't authorize citizenship by birth
within a particular jurisdiction. Instead, it affirmed this ancient and
fundamental right.

In Europe with endless war, century upon century, allegiance to one
warmongering king or another was REQUIRED on the basis of where
one was born. Based on birthright, there was no disagreement no matter
how immoral the king's conduct in foreign affairs was, lest one be
condemned and executed as a traitor. Disagreement was treason.

The exceptions are as old as the rule itself. Excerpt from the decision:

[T]he Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental
rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the
allegiance and under the protection of the country, including
all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions
or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of
foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public
ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of
part of our territory, and with the single additional exception
of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct
allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear
words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within
the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of
whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.

. . .

To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution
excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United
States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to
deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch,
Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been
considered and treated as citizens of the United States.

[Note how liberal the decision is as it mentions the Irish
specifically!]

The article's interpretation:

In short the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
excludes three and only three groups of people:

Children born to foreign diplomats here on diplomatic
business, who have diplomatic immunity to US Law;

Children of members of an invading army that has
occupied and controlled some part of US territory, born
on that occupied area, who are obviously not subject to
US Law (which has rarely happened in the US, although
Guam was occupied during WWII, and parts of Alaska, and
small parts of Maine during the War of 1812); and

Members of Native American tribes, subject to the
jurisdiction of their tribal governments, who do not
pay US taxes. (This was true when the 14th amendment
was passed, but it no longer is. See section below
on the act that changed it in 1924.)

All Indians are taxed and have been United States citizens since the act
of 1924.

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/33056/what-is-the-meaning-of-and-subject-to-the-jurisdiction-thereof-in-the-14th-ame

The article then discusses Congressional debate while the amendment was
drafted. All these matters were debated, including whether a child born
of a traveller -- as opposed to an immigrant -- is subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States.

This has been settled law since the amendment was drafted.

Note that Wong Kim was written during an era of hatred of "yellow horde"
immigrants frm China.

Of course the US Supreme Court may overturn Wong Kim, but it'll be anti-
textual and clearly against the intent of the Republicans who wrote it.

. . .