Rush Limbaugh comes out in favor of school segregation

[Luis Gonzalez]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/17/limbaugh-segregated-busing/

Last week, a video of a school bus beating showing two African American children assaulting a white student began circulating the internet. Despite claims by authorities that the attack was not necessarily racially motivated, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh jumped on the story and claimed that in “Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up.” Yesterday, Limbaugh proposed a solution to this problem — a return to segregated busing:

    LIMBAUGH: I think the guy’s wrong. I think not only it was racism, it was justifiable racism. I mean, that’s the lesson we’re being taught here today. Kid shouldn’t have been on the bus anyway. We need segregated buses — it was invading space and stuff. This is Obama’s America.

wow.

Joe Wilson's not a fascist, and for the record, Obama was lying.

Illegal aliens will get coverage under a public option. Federal Courts have already settled that matter.

Plyler vs. Doe (1982)

what?

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that

[n]o State shall . . . 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.

(Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessv v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976). [n9] [p211]

Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction, while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [n10] We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized [p212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

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.

These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

Plyler v. Doe.

Illegal aliens will get health care benefits under a public option.

One would imagine that the editor of the Harvard Law Review, and lecturer in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago would know this.

Thanks for staying on topic, Luis. You can join Neal Patel in the uncontrolled outbursts section now.

Play it loose, play it fast...just responding to the fashionable lie being sported by the guy I was talking to.

[Luis Gonzalez]

What are you talking about? This thread is about how Rush Limbaugh is a racist, not about how the scary browns are gonna get socialized medicines.

Racists...fascists...and I thought t was Republicans who had anger issues.

[Lief]

What are you talking about? This thread is about how Rush Limbaugh is a racist, not about how the scary browns are gonna get socialized medicines.

Racists...fascists...and I thought t was Republicans who had anger issues.

Do you have problems in your brain? Or do you whack your head against the keyboard and see what comes out?

[Luis Gonzalez]

What are you talking about? This thread is about how Rush Limbaugh is a racist, not about how the scary browns are gonna get socialized medicines.

Racists...fascists...and I thought t was Republicans who had anger issues.

Do you have problems in your brain? Or do you whack your head against the keyboard and see what comes out?

Wilson is a fascist, Rush is a racist.

There are head problems in here, but I'm not the one having them.

[Badger]

What are you talking about? This thread is about how Rush Limbaugh is a racist, not about how the scary browns are gonna get socialized medicines.

Racists...fascists...and I thought t was Republicans who had anger issues.

Do you have problems in your brain? Or do you whack your head against the keyboard and see what comes out?

Dude, you just made me snort out my coffee.

[President Marokai]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this bill does not cover illegals at all (not that it's a bad thing to do that) and Plyler v. Doe has nothing to do with health care.

The “Section 246 Proves Joe Wilson Is A Liar” Lie

That doesn't prove anything! The entire article is paranoid mumbo-jumbo, knitpicking at the fact that it specifically says "affordability credits."

As I have said repeatedly, as many others have said, as fact-checkers have said, they will not get health care under this bill. Will not. Won't. Not at all. No way. None. The fact that you're trying to stretch some decades old court-case about children and public education into allowing illegals to have health care obviously shows the fact that you know you're making a huge leap of logic here.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that

[n]o State shall . . . 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.

(Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessv v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976). [n9] [p211]

Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction, while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [n10] We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized [p212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

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.

These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

Plyler v. Doe.

Illegal aliens will get health care benefits under a public option.

One would imagine that the editor of the Harvard Law Review, and lecturer in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago would know this.

I don't know why I'm doing this, but here goes.

Plyler v. Doe has nothing to do with health care, so right off the bat we're wandering into random and totally irrelevant territory. What you conveniently leave out in your copy and paste fest here is that this court case is restricted to public education. The court found in Plyler v. Doe that the states can't restrict public education on the basis of immigration status because of the 14th amendment, but the decision went on to mark that education is different than other forms of government benefits.

((Public education is not a "right" granted to individuals by the Constitution. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973). But neither is it merely some governmental "benefit" indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation. Both the importance of education in maintaining our basic institutions and the lasting impact of its deprivation on the life of the child mark the distinction.

...

What we said 28 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), still holds true:

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school [p223] attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.))

There are various other parts of this case as well where they make the distinction on two fronts. One, that it deals with education and that education is one of the most important functions of government and tools for future success, and Two, that these are children who did nothing wrong and don't deserve to be punished.

Further, what's the most amusing here is that what you pasted isn't really relevant at all because it's mostly just a summary of one of the oral arguments, not what the court found in the end. The court made the distinction between government benefits and education, and agreed that, in many cases (such as De Canas v. Bica) the state does have the authority to block certain opportunities to illegal immigrants. (Such as when the state law mirrors federal law, which this case didn't. Another important distinction that you leave out!)

Your problem here is that you're only reading half the 14th Amendment and half the interpretation, reading it as "everyone is entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and gets the same laws" rather than "no one shall be deprived life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without due process of law." The court found in this case that it wasn't fairly applied and that the situation was different, not because it followed the incredibly broad definition of the 14th Amendment that you've set up.

There is no way you can make the connection to health care from this case, literally none, you have no earthly clue what you're talking about.

And of course, there's this little gem:

There is no evidence in the record suggesting that illegal entrants impose any significant burden on the State's economy. To the contrary, the available evidence suggests that illegal aliens underutilize public services, while contributing their labor to the local economy and tax money to the state fisc. 458 F.Supp. at 578; 501 F.Supp. at 570-571.

The dirty little secret is that they contribute greatly to our society (though of course they have their downsides) while not being able to receive their due. Illegal or legal, they do largely pay their fair share and deserve certain public services, and most, if not all, public services are not available to them because of their immigration status.

It would be better to offer them health insurance under this reform plan. It would be cheaper, and keep them from abusing emergency room services, which is vastly more expensive than normal sustained care. If they can pay for it, I don't see any reason why we should restrict them.

But even so, it's not in the bill. In no way will it be allowed under the current reform plan. And the court case you cited is so completely irrelevant I shouldn't have even had to address it.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

You guys are so stupid... If you were actually listening to it you'd KNOW he was being facetious.

Really, get a life.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Your problem here is that you're only reading half the 14th Amendment and half the interpretation, reading it as "everyone is entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and gets the same laws" rather than "no one shall be deprived life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without due process of law." The court found in this case that it wasn't fairly applied and that the situation was different, not because it followed the incredibly broad definition of the 14th Amendment that you've set up.

I didn't set up anything...the Courts did. In addition to this, they overturned California's Prop. 187 on exactly the same grounds.

So now, we have two instances of Federal Courts finding that illegal immigrants cannot be denied the equal protection of the laws under the Constitution.

It is disingenuous to dismiss the FACT that on two separate occasions, the Courts have found that laws which seek to exclude illegal aliens from receiving equal benefits have been found to be unconstitutional by Federal Courts, and equally disingenuous to argue that once the government enters into the business of dispensing health care, health care will not be at least as important a function of government as education is today.

The argument being advanced to "win" the public option debate is that health care is a "right", so if the argument is won, then the State would be in fact denying what they themselves are calling a "basic human right" to a group of people.

Prop. 187 sought to bar illegal aliens from accessing publicly funded education, social services and health care services, and it was found to be unconstitutional.

So will any verbiage introduced in any Federal bill associated with Federal health care.

[Grumps]

I hate Rush........but he was clearly being a sarcastic asshole......as  usual.