How corrupt judges extend constitutional protections to foreign nationals

The U.S. Constitution was created to protect the rights of citizens.  Instead, leftist judges have created Etch-a-Sketch interpretations of the Constitution that have been used to oppress citizens and threaten their rights and well-being.  Federal district judge James Robart issued only the latest example of this when he struck down President Trump's rather modest and temporary entry restrictions from the most chaotic and dangerous countries.

The scalpel of choice for the left is often the 14th Amendment.  The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states, in part:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What liberal judges have done is say that illegal aliens are "persons" under the Amendment and entitled to constitutional protection.

In actuality, the original purpose of the 14th Amendment was to protect the rights of newly freed slaves.  If you look at documentation describing the debates behind it, there was no discussion at all about protecting illegal aliens or foreigners in other countries.  These left-wing judges have twisted and perverted the 14th Amendment to cover individuals were not, according to the historical record, meant to be protected.

In the rather unfortunate decision of Plyler vs. Doe, the court ruled that illegal alien children are entitled to free primary education because they are considered "persons" under the Equal Protection Clause even though they are in the country illegally.

Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term[.] ... Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.

Once illegal aliens became entitled to free education without fear of being apprehended and deported, the door was opened to a wide variety of free government services for them.  The ridiculousness of this ruling is apparent: if illegal aliens are entitled to equal protection, why, then, can they not vote like everyone else?  Obviously, they are not entitled to equal protection, and the entire ruling is a sham.

But this ruling, however broad, still did not apply to foreign nationals outside the United States.  For that, you have to look at Judge Robart's ruling regarding President Trump's temporary entry ban.

In Washington v. Donald Trump, the states of Minnesota and Washington were seeking to overcome Trump's temporary entry ban from seven countries.  Plaintiffs claimed they had standing to sue on two grounds: first, that citizens in their states would be adversely affected if the temporary ban were upheld, and secondly, that the states themselves would suffer if unvetted Iraqis, Somalis, Yemenis, and Libyans were not immediately allowed in.

The court found:

The Executive Order adversely affects the States' residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel. In addition, the States are harmed by virtue of the damage ... upon their public universities ... as well as injury to the States' operations, tax base, and public funds.

So if a Libyan were coming in to work at a pita shop, the grocery store would have standing to sue.  Liberals claim that businesses shouldn't be considered "people" under the law, but they have no problem when the designation serves their purposes.

Other grounds for suing: if Arab refugees in Washington or Minnesota want their relatives to visit them from Yemen or Libya.

Furthermore, if states can merely claim that people from these countries will come to their states, get jobs, and pay taxes, the states also have standing to sue.  The bar can't be set much lower than that.

Essentially, Judge Robart is playing the "seven degrees of separation" game to find standing for anyone to sue on behalf of the people from these countries.  Judge Robart may not have found that foreign nationals have standing to sue, but he allows anyone with a tangential, ephemeral, or hypothetical relationship with foreign nationals to sue on their behalf.  In effect, the 14th Amendment is extended to the entire world.

Consider how far this can go.

Imagine if a resident of Greenland claims that global warming is disrupting his seal hunting, preventing him from sending money to his second cousins in Minnesota.  They can sue on his behalf.

Imagine if a drone kills a terrorist in Yemen, and the family sues, saying he was merely an "Islamic Lives Matter" activist on his way to a workshop at the local madrassa and had applied for a scholarship at the University of Berkeley for peace studies.  Berkeley could sue on his behalf.

Imagine if anyone, anywhere wants to come to America, from Yemen, Libya, Syria, or any place you can think of, and the ACLU agrees to hire him as a professional demonstrator, and he doesn't get a visa.  The ACLU can sue because their business would be affected.

Effectively, this ruling opens the door to everyone suing for the right to enter the United States as long as they can claim that someone inside the U.S. will be affected.

In reality, people in the U.S. are affected by unvetted visitors – often negatively, in terms of payments for medical care, welfare, education, and sometimes suffering acts of terrorism.  But that isn't the kind of effects the court is considering.

The 14th Amendment promised equal protection for all citizens, but liberals are using it to promise open borders for the entire planet.  If this ruling is allowed to stand, we will effectively be a nation without borders, no matter how many walls we build, because the judiciary will enforce an open borders policy, as they are doing right now.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com and an attorney.

The U.S. Constitution was created to protect the rights of citizens.  Instead, leftist judges have created Etch-a-Sketch interpretations of the Constitution that have been used to oppress citizens and threaten their rights and well-being.  Federal district judge James Robart issued only the latest example of this when he struck down President Trump's rather modest and temporary entry restrictions from the most chaotic and dangerous countries.

The scalpel of choice for the left is often the 14th Amendment.  The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states, in part:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What liberal judges have done is say that illegal aliens are "persons" under the Amendment and entitled to constitutional protection.

In actuality, the original purpose of the 14th Amendment was to protect the rights of newly freed slaves.  If you look at documentation describing the debates behind it, there was no discussion at all about protecting illegal aliens or foreigners in other countries.  These left-wing judges have twisted and perverted the 14th Amendment to cover individuals were not, according to the historical record, meant to be protected.

In the rather unfortunate decision of Plyler vs. Doe, the court ruled that illegal alien children are entitled to free primary education because they are considered "persons" under the Equal Protection Clause even though they are in the country illegally.

Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term[.] ... Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.

Once illegal aliens became entitled to free education without fear of being apprehended and deported, the door was opened to a wide variety of free government services for them.  The ridiculousness of this ruling is apparent: if illegal aliens are entitled to equal protection, why, then, can they not vote like everyone else?  Obviously, they are not entitled to equal protection, and the entire ruling is a sham.

But this ruling, however broad, still did not apply to foreign nationals outside the United States.  For that, you have to look at Judge Robart's ruling regarding President Trump's temporary entry ban.

In Washington v. Donald Trump, the states of Minnesota and Washington were seeking to overcome Trump's temporary entry ban from seven countries.  Plaintiffs claimed they had standing to sue on two grounds: first, that citizens in their states would be adversely affected if the temporary ban were upheld, and secondly, that the states themselves would suffer if unvetted Iraqis, Somalis, Yemenis, and Libyans were not immediately allowed in.

The court found:

The Executive Order adversely affects the States' residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel. In addition, the States are harmed by virtue of the damage ... upon their public universities ... as well as injury to the States' operations, tax base, and public funds.

So if a Libyan were coming in to work at a pita shop, the grocery store would have standing to sue.  Liberals claim that businesses shouldn't be considered "people" under the law, but they have no problem when the designation serves their purposes.

Other grounds for suing: if Arab refugees in Washington or Minnesota want their relatives to visit them from Yemen or Libya.

Furthermore, if states can merely claim that people from these countries will come to their states, get jobs, and pay taxes, the states also have standing to sue.  The bar can't be set much lower than that.

Essentially, Judge Robart is playing the "seven degrees of separation" game to find standing for anyone to sue on behalf of the people from these countries.  Judge Robart may not have found that foreign nationals have standing to sue, but he allows anyone with a tangential, ephemeral, or hypothetical relationship with foreign nationals to sue on their behalf.  In effect, the 14th Amendment is extended to the entire world.

Consider how far this can go.

Imagine if a resident of Greenland claims that global warming is disrupting his seal hunting, preventing him from sending money to his second cousins in Minnesota.  They can sue on his behalf.

Imagine if a drone kills a terrorist in Yemen, and the family sues, saying he was merely an "Islamic Lives Matter" activist on his way to a workshop at the local madrassa and had applied for a scholarship at the University of Berkeley for peace studies.  Berkeley could sue on his behalf.

Imagine if anyone, anywhere wants to come to America, from Yemen, Libya, Syria, or any place you can think of, and the ACLU agrees to hire him as a professional demonstrator, and he doesn't get a visa.  The ACLU can sue because their business would be affected.

Effectively, this ruling opens the door to everyone suing for the right to enter the United States as long as they can claim that someone inside the U.S. will be affected.

In reality, people in the U.S. are affected by unvetted visitors – often negatively, in terms of payments for medical care, welfare, education, and sometimes suffering acts of terrorism.  But that isn't the kind of effects the court is considering.

The 14th Amendment promised equal protection for all citizens, but liberals are using it to promise open borders for the entire planet.  If this ruling is allowed to stand, we will effectively be a nation without borders, no matter how many walls we build, because the judiciary will enforce an open borders policy, as they are doing right now.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com and an attorney.

RECENT VIDEOS