Bachmann says she would 'not do anything' for children of illegal immigrants
That's because child welfare already has a plan.
OSKALOOSA, Iowa—Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann waded into a sensitive area of immigration policy Saturday during a somewhat charged exchange at a campaign stop in southeast Iowa.
Bachmann entered an extended exchange with a college student (and Democrat) over how to handle the immigrants who are brought to the U.S. illegally as children.
After finishing a speech that focused in part on repealing the federal health care law and overhauling the tax code, Bachmann opened the floor to questions from the 100 or so people gathered at Smokey Row restaurant.
A 19 year-old college student, identifying himself as Latino, asked what Bachmann would “do to” the children of illegal immigrants.
Bachmann responded that she is “not doing anything to them,” and described why she is against the federal government rewarding citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
“Their parents are the ones who brought them here,” Bachmann said.
"They did not have the legal right to come to the United States," Bachmann added, of the parents. "We do not owe people who broke our laws to come into the country. We don’t owe them anything.”
Bachmann went on to draw a parallel to her own family’s journey to the United States more than 150 years ago.
"I dare say that probably every single person in this room descends from immigrants,” Bachmann said.
“I did—my immigrant family came here in the 1850s, and they came into the United States legally. They received zero benefits.”
The exchange was somewhat charged, because the student, Roy Aguillon, cast the question in personal terms.
“These guys were my friends," Aguillon said. "They are the guys who sit next to me in class, who I see in Walmart.”
Aguillon, who is from San Antonio and is a student at nearby William Penn University, is a second-generation American citizen and is active in local politics—serving as the vice president of the College & Young Democrats of Iowa.
In an interview with NBC News, Aguillon said he didn't intend to draw Bachmann into a discussion about the DREAM Act—legislation which would offer benefits, including citizenship, to the children of illegal immigrants.
Instead, he says, he was looking for a practical answer for young illegals, given Bachmann's hard line position.
“These guys don’t know anything else," Aguillon said during his interview with NBC. "What are you going to do, send them back to Mexico? The place is basically in the middle of a drug war.”
Aguillon says he didn’t attend the event to raise trouble, and despite his leadership role in the Iowa College Democrats, he would consider voting Republican in 2012.
He complains that President Obama abandoned the DREAM Act, and hasn’t been hard enough on Wall Street. He says, of Obama: “He’s not enough of a fighter to be my president right now.”
Despite the personal tone of their exchange, Aguillon and Bachmann chatted following the event, and they posed for pictures together afterward, along with Aguillon's girlfriend.
As the campaign team left the restaurant, Iowa state co-chair Brad Zaun, a state senator from Urbandale, pulled him aside.
“Thanks for your honesty,” Zaun said.
Showing posts with label child. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child. Show all posts
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Friday, May 21, 2010
SCOTUS Soon To Learn About Parens Patriae
It seems I am not the only one who finds the lack of sophistication regarding parental rights issues with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
.....................................................................................................................................................................
ALERT: SCOTUS IS UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT
I have nothing against guns but the parental rights groups equate gun rights to parental rights ("own a gun; own a kid, both my property") There is no correlation based upon my statutory investigation of current parental rights and individual property rights theories. They are two distinct and exclusive issues. It is like comparing guns to butter.
This is why there is contention with the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. The U.S., along with Somalia, which, at the time of the signing did not have a recognized government, were the only 2 countries that did not sign the Convention.
The U.S. did not sign because of the language and the application. See, there is language to the effect that would dismantle the current child welfare system, such as "legal orphans", and there are standard, universal definitions to "reasonable efforts" and "best interests". The US would no longer be able to statutorily apply "failure to provide for the necessary needs of the child" as grounds for removal and the Convention provides language where it is the responsibility of government to provide assistance when that assistance cannot be provided by the parent.
Also, there are issues with the Convention application to child sexual predators because the US is far behind the nations with regard to enforcement, falling under human trafficking.
Then, lest we not neglect to mention that the U.S. is notorious for using child labor issues as grounds for noncompliance of international economic and environmental concerns as a reason not to sign a treaty. An example of this can be seen with the non-signing of the Kyoto Treaty.
Citing of the Convention, would make sense, to me at least, as there is no mention or reference to children in the Constitution. Children were considered chattel at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. Children were considered persons at the time of the drafting of the Convention. Another example of trying to compare of guns to butter. The relationships are causal, not comparative.
In the case of Abbott v. Abbott, I feel it is my duty to point out the egregious interpretations of the opinion by the parental rights groups. The Convention that was referenced was the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Convention), Oct. 24, 1980, T. I. A. S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99–11. The United States is a contracting state to the Convention; and Congress has implemented its provisions through the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 102 Stat. 437, 42 U. S. C. §11601 et seq. The Convention provides that a child abducted in violation of “rights of custody” must be returned to the child’s country of habitual residence, unless certain exceptions apply. Art. 1, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99–11, at 7 (Treaty Doc.).
The Abbott v. Abbott SCOTUS opinion was not referencing the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Abduction by applying the codified statute.
Abbott v Abbott SCOTUS Opinion
Ignorance has fueled parental rights groups to confuse "guns with butter" as it is now clarified that the "Convention" is the Civil Aspects of International Adoption and not the Rights of the Child(emphasis added).
Ignorance has left SCOTUS reliant upon populist opinion regarding parental rights, which is repugnant to current law.
Knowledge of parental rights may only be gained through the release of this upcoming book.
The doctrine called parens patriae translates to father of the nation or father of the country. This is where the king or in america the state (or sovereign) assumes a parental role over all children. Under this theory which the U.S. (and SCOTUS) apparently now subscribes to, children do not belong to the parents, but are in essence lent to the parents by the state (or sovereign) as long as the parents conduct themselves in a manner acceptable to the state. Thus under this theory parental rights are derived from the government where government has the power to grant the gift of custody and guardianship to the keepers of the child (whoever the state determines the keepers of the child should be). Thus the state also has the power to terminate that grant of gift of custody. Thus the grant or gift becomes movable and children chattel or property.
.....................................................................................................................................................................
ALERT: SCOTUS IS UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT
For those following the Supreme Court and Federal Court decisions in general it is no surprise that the Courts have been making up law for years. There is no oversight. Bad judges stay on the Court for life, and the right to petition the government and courts for redress has been virtually eliminated as the Supreme Court takes less than 1% of all cases and has absolutely discretion on what cases it will review......................................................................................................................................................................
In fact Supreme Court Justices have stated that it is more important to be consistently wrong then to actually get the law right.
Citing unapproved treaty is ‘act of most fundamental reordering of legal system. The fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution possibly have been shoved one step closer to irrelevance by the U.S. Supreme Court, which yesterday cited an international treaty that has not been adopted in the U.S. as support for its opinion...more
I have nothing against guns but the parental rights groups equate gun rights to parental rights ("own a gun; own a kid, both my property") There is no correlation based upon my statutory investigation of current parental rights and individual property rights theories. They are two distinct and exclusive issues. It is like comparing guns to butter.
This is why there is contention with the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. The U.S., along with Somalia, which, at the time of the signing did not have a recognized government, were the only 2 countries that did not sign the Convention.
The U.S. did not sign because of the language and the application. See, there is language to the effect that would dismantle the current child welfare system, such as "legal orphans", and there are standard, universal definitions to "reasonable efforts" and "best interests". The US would no longer be able to statutorily apply "failure to provide for the necessary needs of the child" as grounds for removal and the Convention provides language where it is the responsibility of government to provide assistance when that assistance cannot be provided by the parent.
Also, there are issues with the Convention application to child sexual predators because the US is far behind the nations with regard to enforcement, falling under human trafficking.
Then, lest we not neglect to mention that the U.S. is notorious for using child labor issues as grounds for noncompliance of international economic and environmental concerns as a reason not to sign a treaty. An example of this can be seen with the non-signing of the Kyoto Treaty.
Citing of the Convention, would make sense, to me at least, as there is no mention or reference to children in the Constitution. Children were considered chattel at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. Children were considered persons at the time of the drafting of the Convention. Another example of trying to compare of guns to butter. The relationships are causal, not comparative.
In the case of Abbott v. Abbott, I feel it is my duty to point out the egregious interpretations of the opinion by the parental rights groups. The Convention that was referenced was the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Convention), Oct. 24, 1980, T. I. A. S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99–11. The United States is a contracting state to the Convention; and Congress has implemented its provisions through the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 102 Stat. 437, 42 U. S. C. §11601 et seq. The Convention provides that a child abducted in violation of “rights of custody” must be returned to the child’s country of habitual residence, unless certain exceptions apply. Art. 1, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99–11, at 7 (Treaty Doc.).
The Abbott v. Abbott SCOTUS opinion was not referencing the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Abduction by applying the codified statute.
Abbott v Abbott SCOTUS Opinion
Ignorance has fueled parental rights groups to confuse "guns with butter" as it is now clarified that the "Convention" is the Civil Aspects of International Adoption and not the Rights of the Child(emphasis added).
Ignorance has left SCOTUS reliant upon populist opinion regarding parental rights, which is repugnant to current law.
Knowledge of parental rights may only be gained through the release of this upcoming book.
The doctrine called parens patriae translates to father of the nation or father of the country. This is where the king or in america the state (or sovereign) assumes a parental role over all children. Under this theory which the U.S. (and SCOTUS) apparently now subscribes to, children do not belong to the parents, but are in essence lent to the parents by the state (or sovereign) as long as the parents conduct themselves in a manner acceptable to the state. Thus under this theory parental rights are derived from the government where government has the power to grant the gift of custody and guardianship to the keepers of the child (whoever the state determines the keepers of the child should be). Thus the state also has the power to terminate that grant of gift of custody. Thus the grant or gift becomes movable and children chattel or property.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)