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

On Jan 31, 2025 at 1:05:58 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

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.

 
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.)

Even if one believes that United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
was rightly decided, thereby creating a definitive floor for citizenship
within the Constitution, outside Congress' regulatory power, for kids born to
all immigrants, there is no way that can apply to people who come here without
the legal consent of the nation.

It's absurd to assert that people who are not legally allowed to be on our
soil can, strictly by trespassing on it, achieve the ultimate benefit of
citizenship for their kids.

In the 1950s, the Supreme Court ruled, "For over a half century this Court has
held that the detention of an alien in custody pending determination of his
admissibility does not legally constitute an entry though the alien is
physically within the United States." [Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185
(1958)]

The ultimate prize of citizenship only applies if you come here with consent.
That is deeply rooted in social compact theory and settled law. As the Court
said long ago in United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905), "a person who
comes to the country illegally is to be regarded as if he had stopped at the
limit of its jurisdiction, although physically he may be within its
boundaries".

This is why the Court ruled in Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904) that an
inadmissible alien does not have 1st Amendment rights because "[h]e does not
become one of the people to whom these things are secured  by our Constitution
due to his attempt to enter in a manner forbidden by law."

And in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the Court reiterated that any
alien "paroled into the United States pending admissibility" without having
"gained [a] legal foothold" has "not effected an entry".

The most important case that sheds light on this issue is Kaplan v. Tod, 267
U.S. 228 (1925), where the Court denied citizenship and relief from
deportation to the daughter of a naturalized citizen who emigrated  from
Russia.

        On July 20, 1914, the Kaplan family came to Ellis Island to
        reunite with the father of the family, who had been working
        in the country for a few years. The 13-year-old daughter was
        deemed inadmissible for being "feeble minded", but because
        of the outbreak of World War I, her deportation was delayed.
        She was handed over to the custody of the Hebrew Aid Society,
        which had her live together with her father until she was
        ordered deported nine years later in 1923.

        In the meantime, the father had become a citizen three years
        earlier, and asserted that because his daughter was under 21
        at the time of his naturalization and was living in the United
        States, she should be automatically granted citizenship
        alongside him, pursuant to long-standing law. But in a
        unanimous and terse decision, the Court swatted down the
        petition:

            "Naturalization of parents affects minor children only
            if dwelling in the United States. The appellant could
            not lawfully have landed in the United States in view
            of the express prohibition of the Act of 1910 just
            referred to, and until she legally landed 'could not
            have dwelt within the United States.'"

The Court backhandedly rejected the notion that she "dwelt within the United
States" even though she physically lived with her father for nine years on
American soil, partly with temporary permission from the government. That is
because "she was still in theory of law at the boundary line, and had gained
no legal foothold in the United States" and had never "been dwelling in the
United States within the meaning of the Act". Now stop for a moment and
compare the language of the naturalization statute for those immigrant
children seeking naturalization together with their parents to the wording of
the 14th Amendment governing those born here.

The 14th Amendment requires that the child be born here and "subject to the
jurisdiction thereof". It is indisputable that even according to those
opinions in which jurisdiction means territorial jurisdiction and not
political jurisdiction (absurdly rendering the phrase superfluous), the
language of "subject to the jurisdiction" is certainly more restrictive than
the purely geographical and literal phrase "dwelling in the United States".
After all, everyone concedes that Indian tribes and children born to foreign
diplomats were excluded by this phrase, even though they are physically born
on our soil.

Yet, the Court ruled in 1925, based on uncontested precedent, that those
living here unlawfully don't even satisfy the meaning and intent of "dwelling
in the United States"-- even in a case where they were granted temporary
permission to live here on humanitarian grounds. It is therefore simply
preposterous to assert that those who willfully violate our laws and sneak
into the country without permission can secure jurisdiction for their children
against the consent of the nation. As the Left would say, it's "settled law"
that illegal immigrants are considered "at the boundary line and have gained
no legal foothold in the United States", irrespective of where they reside
now.

The reality is that there was never a formal decision, much less a piece of
legislation or a court case, mandating automatic citizenship for people who
break into our country. Wong Kim Ark was about those invited in on immigrant
visas. Justice Horace Gray, the author of Wong, referred to "domiciled"
immigrants on twelve occasions in the case. Those promoting citizenship for
the children of illegals conveniently ignore his opinion six years earlier in
Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651 (1892), which clearly held that
an alien not legally domiciled in this country is legally as if he is standing
outside our soil as it relates to even due process rights, much less the right
to assert jurisdiction on behalf of his child.

Bottom line, it would not be that radical of an interpretation for the Court
to rule that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause does not apply
to illegals. There seems to be substantial SCOTUS precedent for that position