What happened to our government and Courts? They were taken over by radical feminists with no concept of right or wrong.
In an unbelievable decision the U.S. Supreme Court’s 4-4 vote yesterday denied a San Diego man’s rightful claim that men are treated disparately due to a gender-based standard in immigration law.
The tie vote affirmed a 9th U.S. Court of Appeals judgment that the immigration law’s higher standard for determining citizenship for the children of men than it does for children of women is constitutional.
Justice Elena Kagan was recused from the case, apparently due to her related work at the Justice Department.
Petitioner Ruben Flores-Villar was born in Mexico but raised in the United States by his father, a U.S. citizen. He challenged the gender-based standard to overturn his conviction for illegally re-entering the country. Flores-Villar v. United States , 095801 .
Thanks to the Supreme Court, Ruben, is not an American. Why, because he has a father who is U.S. citizen? Yet, if his mother had been a U.S. citizen her citizenship would extend to Ruben. If that’s not gender discrimination, discrimination against American fathers, discrimination against their children, and a blatant denial of equal treatment then what is?
The ACLU and other organizations strongly argued that the Supreme Court should overturn the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals decision. The ACLU article “In Flores-Villar v. U.S., Court Should Overturn Law That Discriminates Against Fathers “ explains that:
When a child is born to an unmarried U.S. citizen living abroad, the parent’s ability to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child turns on this question: was the child born to a U.S. citizen father, or mother?
If the child’s mother is a U.S. citizen, the child will automatically be a U.S. citizen at birth, so long as the mother previously had lived in the U.S. for one year, at any age.
But if only the child’s father is a U.S. citizen, the law mandates more: the father must legitimate or legally acknowledge his child and have resided in the U.S. for many more years, at an age set out by statute.
The law, originally enacted in 1940, is one of the few remaining in the U.S. Code that explicitly discriminates based on gender, and for that reason, has been the subject of a number of equal protection challenges. The Supreme Court first examined the legitimation requirement imposed on fathers in Miller v. Albright (1998), resulting in a splintered, plurality opinion. In 2001, the court revisited the issue in Nguyen v. INS, a case cocounseled by the ACLU, and upheld the legitimation requirement. In an opinion that has been widely criticized, the court found that the legitimation condition fulfilled the government’s interest in assuring that a biological parent-child relationship exists, and that the father and child have a demonstrated opportunity to develop a meaningful relationship… READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE.
Justice Kagan’s recusal was tantamount to a reaffirmation of the lower court’s decision. Either way, with or without her vote, this is an extraordinary decision reinforcing the notion, now legal precedent, that the law grants more rights to women than it does men. This horrendous decision clearly establishes that the Supreme Court of the United States thinks men are inferior to women.
The People of the United States won’t stand for crap like this much longer.
Harry Crouch
President, NCFM
You forget that America is a Matriarchy. Until the matriarchy is over thrown and the oppressor class is held accountable for their actions and the actions of the Matriarchy we will continue to be treated like second class citizen's at best, slaves at worst.
«This is the type of bullshit men face today thanks to feminism: http://goo.gl/f4pXo»
darkhorsewins, feminists are against this and were, in fact, on the father's side (that ACLU amicus curiae was also signed by many feminist orgs).
The reason why? A mother gives birth to her child. When you see that child come out of her, you KNOW she is the mother. Who is to say that this father didn't kidnap his son away from his mother? A simple DNA test would prove paternity. Then contact the mother if the placement is legit.
Either way, if you can't follow the law, you're breaking it.
This is just amazing, but not surprising. Mothers are presumed parent while fathers have to prove themselves. This is what Warren Farrell meant in The Myth of Male Power when he talked about human beings versus human doings.
I am a women and Mother this world needs to know men and women are Mothers and fathers and children need both parents..The courts and Judges need to sign and abide by the law of God when is comes to any family and children in America..The LAW indicates WE THE PEOPLE ARE EQUAL: The Law of God say's..EVERY PARENT HAS A RIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR OFFSPRING..God say's..Obey the law of the land. And the Law of the land is..,ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL. Every child should have some kind of contact with their BIRTH PARENTS even supervised or writing letters or phone contact…There is no REASON A CHILD SHOULD LOSS ANY RIGHTS JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE CHILDREN..THE EMOTIONAL ABUSE because of this DENIAL is not in the best Interest of any Child..That only befits the adult parents anger and feds into The Hate crime in America which is Against the LAW OF THE LAND..STOP HATE CRIMES AND GIVE CHILDREN THEIR RIGHTS BACK.
This is the type of bullshit men face today thanks to feminism: http://goo.gl/f4pXo
It's time for men to start standing up for their rights. It's time for men to get their balls back: http://goo.gl/obiC