The constitution does NOT give rights to illegal aliens.

[Flash]

No; they only have the right of due process, the right to an attorney and the presumption of innocence before proven guilty. Please show me the Constitutional passage that extends the same Constitutional rights of citizens onto illegal aliens.

I am waiting for ONE example that supports your idiotic contention that illegals have Constitutional rights.

What constitutional passage extends due process rights to illegals? There is nothing distinguishing due process rights from other rights. The Constitution does not extend rights to citizens but prohibits governmental action limiting those rights. It says "Congress shall make no law.......abridging the freedom of speech" It does not include "of citizens." Congress cannot restrict speech which means all persons in the U. S. have freedom of speech.

The 14th Amendment says "No 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." It says "any person," not "any citizen."

Other than Scalia's opinion in the Flores case, there are no example to prove the point because government has never attempted to deprive any non-citizen of any of these rights. There are no laws restricting the constitutional rights of non-citizens.

For newly arriving immigrants there is "expedited removal" which allows them to be sent back without seeing a judge.

If non-citizens do not have the same constitutional rights, it must be because government has restricted those rights, but you cannot give us any examples.

 

[Mason Michaels]

That homeschooled fuck never made it past 8th grade.

"That's a shame"

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The 14th amendment says that people cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. The phrase "liberty" clearly includes certain fundamental rights, you cannot say that a person who doesn't have speech or religious rights isn't being deprived of "liberty".

Clearly, as well, legal residents (I.e. those with visas) have rights. But immigrants without visas would have the same rights, as no distinction is made between the two in the text. The reason for this is very clear: there was no such distinction when it was written, as visas did not exist.

Efforts to control immigration mostly focused on screening people at point of entry (I.e. Ellis Island). Actually the federal government didn't even have any role in immigration processing until 1890, before then it was left up to the states. And the first immigration processing center was not opened until 1855. So when the amendment was written, we are talking about an environment where the federal government had no role in immigration, and the concept of processing immigrants at all was new. Definitely there was no serious border control with Mexico, people more or less crossed that border freely.

There was no effort to track immigrants after they had entered the United States, regardless of how they got here, and people were simply given citizenship after living here for a number of years (barring certain restrictions, usually racial). So there was no class of people that were present but legally did not belong due to how they entered, that concept did not exist. So there could not have been any distinction between the two classes. So, with regards to the constitution, it is impossible to make any meaningful distinction in rights possessed by legal and illegal residents. That is a purely modern concept, maybe one that we would've had to address if it were written today, but you can't apply that logic backwards because you with it did.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

There is one main exception, people can be deported for conduct that would otherwise be constitutional. Otherwise their constitutional rights are largely equal to citizens.

They generally cannot vote, but that's because voting isn't a right. You cannot be deprived of the ability to vote for certain reasons, but citizenship status obviously isn't one of those, so states limit voting rights to citizens. This actually isn't even mandatory, states could legally give everyone voting rights, they could even let them vote in presidential elections (technically elections for that states slate of electors), but no jurisdiction in the US does this obviously.

 

[Truth Detector]

You are flat out wrong

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-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.

You can apologize now

"due process" You people are morons.

 

[katzgar]

Hey einstein. So you're saying illegals have ALL the rights citizens have?

That isn't what he said read it slowly so you got a shot at understanding it

 

[Truth Detector]

The 14th amendment says that people cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. The phrase "liberty" clearly includes certain fundamental rights, you cannot say that a person who doesn't have speech or religious rights isn't being deprived of "liberty".

Clearly, as well, legal residents (I.e. those with visas) have rights. But immigrants without visas would have the same rights, as no distinction is made between the two in the text. The reason for this is very clear: there was no such distinction when it was written, as visas did not exist.

Efforts to control immigration mostly focused on screening people at point of entry (I.e. Ellis Island). Actually the federal government didn't even have any role in immigration processing until 1890, before then it was left up to the states. And the first immigration processing center was not opened until 1855. So when the amendment was written, we are talking about an environment where the federal government had no role in immigration, and the concept of processing immigrants at all was new. Definitely there was no serious border control with Mexico, people more or less crossed that border freely.

There was no effort to track immigrants after they had entered the United States, regardless of how they got here, and people were simply given citizenship after living here for a number of years (barring certain restrictions, usually racial). So there was no class of people that were present but legally did not belong due to how they entered, that concept did not exist. So there could not have been any distinction between the two classes. So, with regards to the constitution, it is impossible to make any meaningful distinction in rights possessed by legal and illegal residents. That is a purely modern concept, maybe one that we would've had to address if it were written today, but you can't apply that logic backwards because you with it did.

There is one main exception, people can be deported for conduct that would otherwise be constitutional. Otherwise their constitutional rights are largely equal to citizens.

They generally cannot vote, but that's because voting isn't a right. You cannot be deprived of the ability to vote for certain reasons, but citizenship status obviously isn't one of those, so states limit voting rights to citizens. This actually isn't even mandatory, states could legally give everyone voting rights, they could even let them vote in presidential elections (technically elections for that states slate of electors), but no jurisdiction in the US does this obviously.

Everyone needs to read and understand this doctrine before they pretend to be Constitutional scholars:

The plenary power doctrine protects the federal government from claims that it is violating an individual's constitutional right to equal protection when it imposes discriminatory burdens on non-US citizens. This doctrine is justified on the rationale that the constitution provides congress and the executive with primacy over foreign policy and national security. Because immigration is assumed to be tied to foreign policy and national security, courts will subject federal immigration statutes and regulations to only deferential review (Sevandal 746).

http://www.law.cuny.edu/legal-writing/forum/immigration-law-essays/goyal.html

 

[Flash]

Everyone needs to read and understand this doctrine before they pretend to be Constitutional scholars:

The plenary power doctrine protects the federal government from claims that it is violating an individual's constitutional right to equal protection when it imposes discriminatory burdens on non-US citizens. This doctrine is justified on the rationale that the constitution provides congress and the executive with primacy over foreign policy and national security. Because immigration is assumed to be tied to foreign policy and national security, courts will subject federal immigration statutes and regulations to only deferential review (Sevandal 746).

http://www.law.cuny.edu/legal-writing/forum/immigration-law-essays/goyal.html

That is just saying the federal government has power to regulate immigration (because it is not specifically contained within the Constitution).

You said illegals have the right of due process--where do you find that right in the Constitution?

 

[kudzu]

That isn't what he said read it slowly so you got a shot at understanding it

I don't think they understand "jurisdiction"... That's what hung the birthers up.

"no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[Jarod]

The first 7 words of the constitution are "we the people of the united states" and that makes it clear that "people" means citizens.

Liberals say the courts have granted rights to illegal invaders but the constitution says courts cannot write laws. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."

Neither are courts allowed to rewrite the constitution and call it an interpretation. If you want to change the constitution you have to go thru the amending process as spelled out in the constitution itself.

Of course the whole ideal of illegal invaders having constitutional rights is just absurd.

Technically, I think if you are an originalist, Then your argument should be people only means, those who were citizens of the original 13 States.

 

[Flash]

I don't think they understand "jurisdiction"... That's what hung the birthers up.

"no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The jurisdiction thing applied to foreign diplomats

 

[Truth Detector]

That is just saying the federal government has power to regulate immigration (because it is not specifically contained within the Constitution).

You said illegals have the right of due process--where do you find that right in the Constitution?

That is not what it is saying; it is refuting the moronic claims that illegal aliens have a right to equal protection under the Constitution.

 

[Flash]

There is one main exception, people can be deported for conduct that would otherwise be constitutional. Otherwise their constitutional rights are largely equal to citizens.

They generally cannot vote, but that's because voting isn't a right. You cannot be deprived of the ability to vote for certain reasons, but citizenship status obviously isn't one of those, so states limit voting rights to citizens. This actually isn't even mandatory, states could legally give everyone voting rights, they could even let them vote in presidential elections (technically elections for that states slate of electors), but no jurisdiction in the US does this obviously.

I think the 1996 law requiring citizenship for voting in federal elections includes House, Senate, and presidency.

"It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives," [Voting by Aliens]

 

[Flash]

That is not what it is saying; it is refuting the moronic claims that illegal aliens have a right to equal protection under the Constitution.

Then where do they get the right to due process?

 

[Truth Detector]

I don't think they understand "jurisdiction"... That's what hung the birthers up.

"no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Everyone needs to read and understand this doctrine before they pretend to be Constitutional scholars:

The plenary power doctrine protects the federal government from claims that it is violating an individual's constitutional right to equal protection when it imposes discriminatory burdens on non-US citizens. This doctrine is justified on the rationale that the constitution provides congress and the executive with primacy over foreign policy and national security. Because immigration is assumed to be tied to foreign policy and national security, courts will subject federal immigration statutes and regulations to only deferential review (Sevandal 746).

http://www.law.cuny.edu/legal-writing/forum/immigration-law-essays/goyal.html

 

[Truth Detector]

Then where do they get the right to due process?

Technically, they don't actually have it. If you read the link I sent, technically, they have no rights and can be processed at the border and sent back.

 

[Flash]

Technically, they don't actually have it. If you read the link I sent, technically, they have no rights and can be processed at the border and sent back.

Can a non-citizen in this country (legally or illegally) have their 1st Amendment rights restricted? Has it ever been done?

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Wong vs US, 1896.

The constitution says courts are NOT allowed to write laws. THINK

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

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.

Yup. In 1982 the Supreme Court wrote a law ordering all the states to give free k-12 to illegal kids. Even though the constitution says only congress can write laws.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

The 14th amendment says that people cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. The phrase "liberty" clearly includes certain fundamental rights, you cannot say that a person who doesn't have speech or religious rights isn't being deprived of "liberty".

So how do you libs justify affirmative action.?