Constitution? 14th Amendment?

[Ovinomancer]

My search shows the memo saying that matricular consulares were no longer being accepted can be read here: http://www.expressnews.com/file/106/3/1063-Letter from Dee Porter.pdf

A bit of searching shows me that only Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil offer cards by that name. Guatemala, Peru, Ecuador, Pakistan, Nigeria, and other nations offer consular IDs, but by different names, and so are not covered by that memo. Other nations that don't offer consular IDs, but use some other ID system, are not affected.

The effect is that kids of Mexican parents are impacted more than others. And, at least by the UN definition, the *effect* of discrimination based on national origin is sufficient for it to be racism.

No, that's not how that definition works. If the impact is because they are from those countries, then, yes, it's racism. However, there are multiple other pathways for identification for people of those countries to pursue that are perfectly valid under this law. It's only illegals from those countries that are really the ones impacted by this law, and then only from Mexico, as it was determined that the Mexican MCs specifically were very insecure formats of identification. People from those countries here legally can just show their valid passport with visa (which they must have to be here legally) or their green card and they have no issues. It's only those here without valid identification and no route to obtain it that are impacted.

The issue at hand is the rights of a natural born citizen of the US are infringed. The documentation of the parents should not be a barrier to a citizen getting services. Period. Whether or not it is racist, the Equal Protection clause applies - those kids qualify for access to services, and the state is getting in the way.

The legal system disagrees, at least at this stage. The full trial may well determine that this method is not the least restrictive means, but the government's obligation to protect vital identification documents is clear and well understood. You, as a natural born citizen, cannot get a copy of your birth certificate without presenting clear evidence that you are you who are, and I'm pretty sure you like it that way. At least, I don't expect that you'd be happy that anyone could get your birth certificate just by claiming to be you, but I could be wrong.

So the government has a clear interest and duty to restrict access to birth certificates. Yes, you are absolutely correct that, in this case, said restrictions are very onerous on a small section of people in this country -- namely the natural citizen children of illegal parents. And the legal system is taking this very, very seriously since the case has been brought. However, they also did the right thing in denying the preliminary injunction based on the fact that the actual causes of infringement on rights (which they correctly identified exist) are not targeted at persons based on protected traits, but are based on solid and even national standards. Those standards need the full attention of a full trial, not the preliminary process, to determine if they are the least restrictive means available.

Interestingly, if I read correctly about the newer MC procedures, it would seem that some of the plaintiffs in this case would be unable to get such an identification under the new rules, and would still be out of luck. That's really neither here not there for this discussion, but it is interesting as it illuminates that fact that the previous incarnation of the MCs were very, very insecure.

 

[Umbran]

So they took those off the list as they were determined by Texas research, with collaboration by the Mexican government, and by Federal law enforcement as not being sufficiently secure.

And? It isn't like the baby is responsible for that.

As you yourself have noted- the judge in question did not reject that there was a problem. He merely didn't say there was sufficient evidence for emergency relief.

And even further than that, they announced this decision in 2008, and took five years to being fully enforcing it. That's plenty of time to adjust.

Plenty of time for whom? That memo sure wasn't addressed to the immigrant community. You say, "took five years to fully enforcing it". Enforcement is irregular and spotty even today. It is unclear what these folks are actually supposed to do instead. And, also clearly, though they've had five years, the state did not develop any alternate way for their citizens to get identified as such so they can get services they ought to have.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So basically there is a list of possible documents of identification that could be used for getting the copy of the birth certificates, and they do not have any on the list.

Maybe the reasoning behind that list is racially motivated in hopes of ensuring that no Hispanic illegal immigrants can get them, but it evne includes "Mexican Voter Registration Card" and "Foreign Identification with Identifiable Photo of Applicant". That doesn't seem to extraordinary to me. And I think it's quite understandable that legal documentation is required to get those birth certificates - imagine someone without them could get them and use it file for various government services available to birth certificate owners.

 

[tomBitonti]

So basically there is a list of possible documents of identification that could be used for getting the copy of the birth certificates, and they do not have any on the list.

Maybe the reasoning behind that list is racially motivated in hopes of ensuring that no Hispanic illegal immigrants can get them, but it evne includes "Mexican Voter Registration Card" and "Foreign Identification with Identifiable Photo of Applicant". That doesn't seem to extraordinary to me. And I think it's quite understandable that legal documentation is required to get those birth certificates - imagine someone without them could get them and use it file for various government services available to birth certificate owners.

I can't speak to the motivation, but, if the list were designed to specifically deny children of Mexican parents access to their documentation, that would be for me clear evidence of discrimination. The actual request was for a determination of acceptable identification:

Plaintiffs now seek a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to “determine at least two
forms of identification [that are] reasonably and actually accessible to undocumented immigrant
parents of Texas-born children” that satisfy the identification requirement for a properly qualified
applicant to obtain the birth certificate of a child born in Texas.

The judge's order gets a bit muddy after about half-way through, and I couldn't tell if this request was addressed specifically. The order reads very well at first, then get very bogged down in details of whether conditions for a preliminary injunction are satisfied. The order reads as if conditions were not satisfied, then loses interest in the details of the request.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Kramodlog]

As it stands, it may yet by racist, but there's not enough information to show that it is.

According to you there is.

There is a disproportionate impact on certain nationalities and/or ethnicities.

And that disproportionate impact is of course negative to the members of those nationalities/ethnicities.

If the law negatively and disporptionally impacts people of different nationalities/ethnicities, it is racist. That is the sort of standard this PC age as left us with, since no one will outright say something is ment to be racist.

 

[CaptainGemini]

If the law negatively and disporptionally impacts people of different nationalities/ethnicities, it is racist. That is the sort of standard this PC age as left us with, since no one will outright say something is ment to be racist.

That is most laws on the books in America these days.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I can't speak to the motivation, but, if the list were designed to specifically deny children of Mexican parents access to their documentation, that would be for me clear evidence of discrimination. The actual request was for a determination of acceptable identification:



The judge's order gets a bit muddy after about half-way through, and I couldn't tell if this request was addressed specifically. The order reads very well at first, then get very bogged down in details of whether conditions for a preliminary injunction are satisfied. The order reads as if conditions were not satisfied, then loses interest in the details of the request.

Thx!
TomB

Mostly because once the judge finds that the plaintiffs do not meet their burden on the second test, even when considered under strict scrutiny of the government, there's little reason to continue. To grant injunctive relief that plaintiff must prevail on all four tests -- failing one fails the motion. That's why it gets muddy -- he doesn't need to consider past that and doing so could prove damaging to either side and allow for more appeals, thereby extending the matter. Judges at that level tend to be cautious of providing grist for the appeal mill if they can do so.

 

[Ovinomancer]

According to you there is. And that disproportionate impact is of course negative to the members of those nationalities/ethnicities.

If the law negatively and disporptionally impacts people of different nationalities/ethnicities, it is racist. That is the sort of standard this PC age as left us with, since no one will outright say something is ment to be racist.

Serious question: do you read all of the words I write and consider them, or is it enough to skim, quote, and post? I have to ask because you're mischaracterizing what I said to make it say the opposite, and then ignoring all of the words I wrote that explains why. Also, you're continuing to use your own definition of racism that isn't the one agreed to and trying to hold up my argument made under a different standard to yours and asking why I don't agree with myself. What you claim is racism is not without additional qualifiers.

 

[Deset Gled]

It's only illegals from those countries that are really the ones impacted by this law

Headline: No birth certificates to immigrant kids born in Texas

 

[Umbran]

It's only those here without valid identification and no route to obtain it that are impacted.

I am drifting into argument by repetition, but apparently this fails to get through.

There is a young *CITIZEN OF THE US* that is impacted. Born here. Legally a citizen. Unable, for example, to go to school because a birth certificate will be required for them to register. It is their *right*, just like any other kid born here.

Keep trying to justify that, please, by all means.

And I think it's quite understandable that legal documentation is required to get those birth certificates - imagine someone without them could get them and use it file for various government services available to birth certificate owners.

Yes, to first approximation it is "understandable". But then jumping up on a table and screaming when a mouse comes into the room is also "understandable", insofar as we understand that some people are freaked out by mice. Understandable does to equate to reasonable, or even functional.

What is understandable about leaving an infant citizen of the US in a bureaucratic limbo for years?