Justice Scalia wrote illegals do have the right to due process in Reno v. Flores: “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”
The constitution does NOT give rights to illegal aliens.
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
Justice Scalia wrote illegals do have the right to due process in Reno v. Flores: “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”
Making a better fairer county for all. Equal opportunity for all.
I repeat
If they are apprehended on the border, before they enter the US, you mean?
Except unprotected classes?
Your'e not used to arguing Constitutional law. Nor are you qualified, Brad.
She almost has as many unverifiable anecdotes as ThatFowlWoman, doesn't she?
Seems fond of argumentum ad verecundiam.
THE SHIP OF FOOLS [an allegory]
Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain
who is taller and stronger than any of the crew,
but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight,
and his knowledge of navigation is not much better.
The sailors are quarreling with one another about the steering––
every one is of the opinion that he has a right to steer,
though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned,
and will further assert that it cannot be taught,
and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary.
They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them;
and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them,
they kill the others or throw them overboard,
and having first chained up the noble captain's senses with drink or some narcotic drug,
they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores;
thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them.
Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out
of the captain's hands into their own whether by force or persuasion,
they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man,
whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year
and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art,
if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer,
whether other people like or not––the possibility of this union of authority with
the steerer's art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling.
Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers,
how will the true pilot be regarded?
Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?
The ship of fools, from Book VI of Plato's Republic, about a ship with a dysfunctional crew --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_fools
You are 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.
You can apologize now
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.
You can apologize now
Text Drivers are Killers
Biden likes little girls
Fine but the issue is doesn't affirmative action conflict with the 14th amendment.? THINK, white-hating racist.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Dirt McGirt
Verified User
"Shall not be infringed" is the key part of that. Rights are inherent and as with all the other ammendments, the second doesn't grant us that right. It prevents the government from taking it away.
If they enter illegally at any place OTHER than a port of entry. Even if they enter a port of entry, they can be detained and sent back without any process.
Old Trapper
Verified User
Neither are you, nor is the OP.
Old Trapper
Verified User
You have obviously never read American asylum laws, just as none of your weakminded cohorts have not. Just because your white trash of a President does not feel the need to obey the law does not change it just as your ignorant use of the term "invaders" does not make it so. Funny how the white man came here, invaded the territory claiming it as their own in spite of the millions of Native Americans here, then invaded he Mexican territories eventually claiming that as their own, and yet never feel as if they are the invaders:
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum
I would bet you have no problem with Citizens United, Kelo, and several other right wing Court decisions as long as they support your false interpretation of the Constitution.
First off, they are not illegal, and second if they were white you would not have a problem with them. Think Canadian, Russian, etc.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the right to bear arms is not granted by the constitution. the right is natural and supposed to be protected from any government infringement. the constitution does not grant rights, it prescribes powers to the central government.
Have we settled this stupidity yet?
Irish Exit
Verified User
Actually that isn't true if the person's home nation exerts nationality principle based laws. They have jurisdiction over their citizens wherever in the world they travel.
It didn't prevent the states from restricting that right until 2010.