What CA Should Do

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Can you imagine if the same illegal alien bar was put in place at Long Beach State, CSUN, CSULA, Fullerton State and UCLA?

The filming opportunities would be endless.

Bottom line, however, GA is doing the right thing that, of course, would never take place here in the Golden State.

- - - - - - - - -

Five Public Colleges in Georgia Ban Illegal-Immigrant Students
By ROBBIE BROWN


ATLANTA — Education officials in Georgia voted Wednesday to bar illegal immigrants from attending the state’s five most selective public colleges, a decision that immigrant rights groups threatened to challenge in court.

Georgia is the second state, after South Carolina, to enact such a ban. The policy requires colleges to check the legal residency of all applicants and prohibits illegal immigrants from enrolling at any college with a selective admissions process. The ban takes effect next fall and applies to the University of Georgia, the Georgia Institute of Technology and three other colleges.

The ban comes as lawmakers across the country grapple with whether illegal immigrants who attend high school in the United States should be permitted to continue to public colleges — and whether they should be granted discounted in-state tuition. The California Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case over whether giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants violated federal immigration law.

“The higher-education issue is hot everywhere,” said Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Council, a policy group in Washington. “It’s a backdoor way of making immigration policy.”

Georgia’s policy was approved in a 14-to-2 vote by the state’s top educational policy makers, the Board of Regents. It follows a high-profile case in which a 21-year-old college student in suburban Atlanta, Jessica Colotl, faced deportation after confessing to the police that she was an illegal immigrant. She has been allowed to finish her degree, but her case caused controversy after the college, Kennesaw State University, acknowledged that she received in-state tuition. (Kennesaw State is not one of the colleges affected by the ban.)

On Wednesday, immigrant-rights groups protested the board’s decision.

“Let’s not go back to an era when we deny education to a certain group of people,” said Eva Cardeles, 23, a sociology student.

But D. A. King, a Georgia-based anti-immigration activist, said the ban was only the first step. Republican state lawmakers are expected to introduce bills next session to extend the ban to all state colleges and to institute an anti-immigration policy similar to one in Arizona.

[Twoller]

....

The ban comes as lawmakers across the country grapple with whether illegal immigrants who attend high school in the United States should be permitted to continue to public colleges — and whether they should be granted discounted in-state tuition. The California Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case over whether giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants violated federal immigration law.

....

This is great. Georgia is seeing real progress in confronting illegal immigration. But really, we shouldn't be seeing illegals in high school either. But the language is good, "illegal immigrants who attend high school" is the correct way to describe them, it doesn't matter if they are born here or not, if both parents are not here legally, then their offspring is an illegal too. And nobody who is in this country illegally should be getting the benefits of any part of any government funded education, whether it is private or not.

[ilbegone]

But the language is good, "illegal immigrants who attend high school" is the correct way to describe them, it doesn't matter if they are born here or not, if both parents are not here legally, then their offspring is an illegal too.

You're getting a little hasty...

GRAY, J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

169 U.S. 649
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 18 Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 --- Decided: March 28, 1898

MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him [p653] therefrom. In 1890 (when he must have been about seventeen years of age), he departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States. After such return, he remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until 1894, when he (being about twenty-one years of age, but whether a little above or a little under that age does not appear) again departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and he did return thereto by sea in August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs for permission to land, and was denied such permission upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States.

It is conceded that, if he is a citizen of the United States, the acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him.

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The rest of the 1898 Supreme court decision... http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...9_0649_ZO.html


If you want to change the legal status of anyone born in the United States, the 14th amendment has to be revised.

[ilbegone]

Perkins vs. Elg

U.S. Supreme Court
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

Perkins v. Elg

No. 454

Argued February 3, 1939

Decided May 29, 1939*

307 U.S. 325

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Syllabus

1. A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 307 U. S. 328.

2. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, the same person may possess a dual nationality. P. 307 U. S. 329.

3. A citizen by birth retains his United States citizenship unless deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by his voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles. P. 307 U. S. 329.

4. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents' origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority, he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties. P. 307 U. S. 329.

Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance. P. 307 U. S. 334.

5. This right of election is consistent with the naturalization treaty with Sweden of 1869 and its accompanying protocol. P. 307 U. S. 335.

6. The Act of March 2, 1907, in providing "That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, . . . " was aimed at voluntary expatriation, and was not intended to destroy the right of a native citizen, removed from this country during minority, to elect to retain the citizenship acquired by birth and to return here for that purpose, even though he may be deemed to have been naturalized under the foreign law by derivation from the citizenship of his parents before he came of age. P. 307 U. S. 342.

Page 307 U. S. 326

This is true not only where the parents were foreign nationals at the time of the birth of the child and remained such, but also where they became foreign nationals after the birth and removal of the child.

7. Recent private Acts of Congress for the relief of native citizens who have been the subject of administrative action denying their rights of citizenship cannot be regarded as the equivalent of an Act of Congress providing that persons in the situation of the respondent here have lost the American citizenship which they acquired at birth and have since duly elected to retain. P. 307 U. S. 349.

8. Threats of deportation by the Secretary of Labor and immigration officials, and refusal by the Secretary of State to issue a passport, upon the disputed ground that the person affected has lost his native citizenship and become an alien wrongfully in the country, involve an actual controversy affording basis for a suit for a declaratory judgment that he is a citizen and for an injunction. P. 307 U. S. 349

9. In such a suit, the Secretary of State is properly included in the declaratory provision of the decree, that he may be precluded from refusing to issue the passport solely upon the ground that the citizenship has been lost. Id.

69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408, modified and affirmed.

Certiorari, 305 U.S. 591, to review the affirmance of a decree sustaining, as to the Secretary of State, and overruling, as to the Secretary of Labor and the Acting Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, a bill brought by Marie Elizabeth Elg for a declaratory decree establishing her status as an American citizen, and for injunctive relief against the respondents. There were cross-appeals to the court below.

More of the 1939 Supreme court decision... http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html

[ilbegone]

387 U.S. 253 (1967)

AFROYIM v. RUSK, SECRETARY OF STATE.
No. 456.

Supreme Court of United States.
Argued February 20, 1967.
Decided May 29, 1967.

Because the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment and of the expatriation proposals which preceded and followed it, like most other legislative history, contains many statements from which conflicting inferences can be drawn, our holding might be unwarranted if it rested entirely or principally upon that legislative history. But it does not. Our holding we think is the only one that can stand in view of the language and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, and our construction of that Amendment, we believe, comports more nearly than Perez with the principles of liberty and equal justice to all that the entire Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to guarantee.

Citizenship is no light trifle 268*268 to be jeopardized any moment Congress decides to do so under the name of one of its general or implied grants of power. In some instances, loss of citizenship can mean that a man is left without the protection of citizenship in any country in the world—as a man without a country. Citizenship in this Nation is a part of a co-operative affair. Its citizenry is the country and the country is its citizenry.

The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.

This one needs a read through, the ruling isn't condensed at the top.

More of the Supreme Court's decision... http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr

[ilbegone]

Here is the one you've been waiting for, Phyler Vs. Doe.

This is why minor children (regardless of whether they are American born citizens or foreign born residents) of illegal aliens cannot be denied a public education. It might not apply to college education, the Supreme court may rule on that in the future.

BRENNAN, J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

457 U.S. 202

Plyler v. Doe
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 80-1538 Argued: December 1, 1981 --- Decided: June 15, 1982

Sheer incapability or lax enforcement of the laws barring entry into this country, coupled with the failure to establish an effective bar to the employment of undocumented aliens, has resulted in the creation of a substantial "shadow population" of illegal migrants -- numbering in the millions -- within our borders. [n17] This situation raises the specter of a permanent [p219] caste of undocumented resident aliens, encouraged by some to remain here as a source of cheap labor, but nevertheless denied the benefits that our society makes available to citizens and lawful residents. [n18] The existence of such an underclass presents most difficult problems for a Nation that prides itself on adherence to principles of equality under law. [n19]

The children who are plaintiffs in these cases are special members of this underclass. Persuasive arguments support the view that a State may withhold its beneficence from those whose very presence within the United States is the product of their own unlawful conduct. These arguments do not apply [p220] with the same force to classifications imposing disabilities on the minor children of such illegal entrants. At the least, those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. Their "parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms," and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State's jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status." Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 770 (1977). Even if the State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.

[V]isiting . . . condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the . . . child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth, and penalizing the . . . child is an ineffectual -- as well as unjust -- way of deterring the parent.

Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175 (1972) (footnote omitted).

This one also needs a read through. More of the 1982 Supreme Court decision... http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...7_0202_ZO.html