Irish Exit
Verified User
Word. Natural rights only belong to straight, white conservative gun owning men.
The constitution does NOT give rights to illegal aliens.
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
Word. Natural rights only belong to straight, white conservative gun owning men.
Text Drivers are Killers
Biden likes little girls
HAHAHA. Yes folks, that's what the left calls an "argument". HAHAHA
Text Drivers are Killers
Biden likes little girls
Where does the supreme court get authority to settle any issue?. Why do you think those unelected old goats should have final say.? The constitution sure doesn't say that.. THINK
Article III, Section 2, US Constitution
You people are in need of a basic civics class.
The 14th Amendment answers this question in one paragraph.... it describes rights given to three classes of people.
1) Citizens - Privledges and immunities
2) All people - Due process
3) any people within the jurisdiction - equal protection.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.”
The 14th Amendment answers this question in one paragraph.... it describes rights given to three classes of people.
1) Citizens - Privledges and immunities
2) All people - Due process
3) any people within the jurisdiction - equal protection.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.”
Still hoping one of those illegals negatively affects you or a family member of yours. Maybe one will "Kate Steinle" you or one of them.
You're stupid enough to believe jurisdiction has anything to do with it. You support them being here. Why do you oppose being negatively affected by their actions.
They should be punished AND deported. Why do you oppose those breaking the law being punished for their actions?
Still hoping those that want to treat illegals as anything but what they are are the ones negatively affected by them being here.
Text Drivers are Killers
Biden likes little girls
Writing laws is NOT a judicial power. THINK
Text Drivers are Killers
Biden likes little girls
So there should be no penalty for invading america??? That's what you want?? Then they will just keep invading.
Illegal aliens are dangerous criminals and i want the book thrown at them.
Text Drivers are Killers
Biden likes little girls
We have explained this to you a thousand times. The first 7 words of the constitution are "we the people of the united states", So "people" means citizens. THINK
Then why do the give some rights to "citizens" in the first part of the paragraph, and other rights to "ALL PEOPLE" later on, then other rights to "People under the jurisdiction" at the end.
This thread topic is flat out wrong
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...utional-rights
The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory."
Twenty years before Zadvydas, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Texas could not enforce a state law that prohibited illegally present children from attending grade schools, as all other Texas children were required to attend.
The court ruled in Plyler that:
The illegal aliens who are ... challenging the state may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection clause which provides that no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of the term ... the undocumented status of these children does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying benefits that the state affords other residents.
A decade before Plyler, the court ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) that all criminal charge-related elements of the Constitution's amendments (the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th) such as search and seizure, self-incrimination, trial by jury and due process, protect non-citizens, legally or illegally present.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...utional-rights
The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory."
Twenty years before Zadvydas, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Texas could not enforce a state law that prohibited illegally present children from attending grade schools, as all other Texas children were required to attend.
The court ruled in Plyler that:
The illegal aliens who are ... challenging the state may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection clause which provides that no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of the term ... the undocumented status of these children does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying benefits that the state affords other residents.
A decade before Plyler, the court ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) that all criminal charge-related elements of the Constitution's amendments (the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th) such as search and seizure, self-incrimination, trial by jury and due process, protect non-citizens, legally or illegally present.
They chose to write "we the people," not "we the citizens." The Preamble is just an introduction with no legally binding provisions.
If Congress (and the states) are prohibited from abridging free speech, press, religion, that means no laws can restrict those rights. Where does it say they can restrict the 1st Amendment rights of non-citizens? And give us one example of those rights being withheld from non-citizens.
Text Drivers are Killers
Biden likes little girls
You can't read. I didn't say the constitution explicitly denies rights to illegals. But neither does it grant rights to illegals. The subject is not mentioned no doubt because the founders thought it preposterous that anyone would think invaders have rights.