The constitution does NOT give rights to illegal aliens.

Text Drivers are Killers said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the notion that human beings are somehow illegal is nonsense I'll never buy into. That's original sin mindfuck kinda shyte.
 
Lesh said:
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
Click to expand...

I repeat
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then post your address, so I can enter your home and vacation there. :good4u:
Click to expand...

Enjoy your stay...

img_1918.jpg
 
Kacper said:
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.
Click to expand...

No they don't.. Americans think that if they get in trouble in a foreign country the US embassy can fix it.
 
kudzu said:
No they don't.. Americans think that if they get in trouble in a foreign country the US embassy can fix it.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. Nationality principle is when a nation exerts personal jurisdiction over their residents no matter where on the planet they commit an illegal act in violation of their home laws even if they are not a crime where committed. An example is that the US itself has laws making extraterritorial sexual exploitation of children a crime for US citizens regardless of where on the planet it occurs.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
What law did the white man break when he came to america?? What makes you think the injuns owned the land.? They didn't even have written languages. THINK
Click to expand...

You really need to get your head out of your ass, and try rational thought for a change. The Native Americans occupied the land for thousands of years. They needed no written contracts, and had no actual borders between tribal lands. Of course, the Mexicans did have such borders, and a written language..
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
What law did the white man break when he came to america?? What makes you think the injuns owned the land.? They didn't even have written languages. THINK
Click to expand...

You really need to get your head out of your ass, and try rational thought for a change. The Native Americans occupied the land for thousands of years. They needed no written contracts, and had no actual borders between tribal lands. Of course, the Mexicans did have such borders, and a written language. Under the principles you endorse the Holocaust was justified, and the slaughter of millions by Stalin was justified.

https://yoursocialconstructsareshowing.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/the-might-is-right-philosophy/
 
Old Trapper said:
You really need to get your head out of your ass, and try rational thought for a change. The Native Americans occupied the land for thousands of years. .
Click to expand...

So.? Occupying land does not establish ownership and even if it did, how far does that ownership extend?. Does one injun tribe of 50 people get to claim all the land within 200 miles of them is theirs?? The injuns were squatters. THINK
 
Old Trapper said:
You really need to get your head out of your ass, and try rational thought for a change. The Native Americans occupied the land for thousands of years. They needed no written contracts, and had no actual borders between tribal lands. Of course, the Mexicans did have such borders, and a written language. Under the principles you endorse the Holocaust was justified, and the slaughter of millions by Stalin was justified.
Click to expand...


HAHAHA. We found him. The moron so gullible he believes the holohoax myth the "TV people" always preach about. HAHA. What a fool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top