The constitution does NOT give rights to illegal aliens.

CFM said:
That's what you claim so go fuck yourself, traitor.

Pieces of shit like you are worse than the criminals that come here illegally. You deserve the fate of a traitor, boy.
Click to expand...

Oh knock it off. You hilljacks haven’t the first clue about American culture and laws other than you seem to conflate being a hillbilly with being an American so what the hell do you know?

Jack shit, that’s what.

The Contitution gives certain rights, though not the full sleight of rights of citizens, to all persons regardless of their citizenship status as our courts have ruled that certain rights are universal human rights. Those rights all people in our nation are entitled too include full rights to first amendment rights, and due process of law rights under the fifth and fourteen amendment.

So to listen to an ingnoramous like you accuse someone of being a traitor because they understand our laws, our traditions and the principles of the American Revolution and you don’t is beyond funny.

What a Maroon! LOL
 
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...

You are correct, those rights are GOD Given!
 
Micawber said:
The constitution confers greater rights to new undocumented migrants than the daughters of the American revolution so fuck off.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
"To answer those questions, we must start with a more basic question–does the U.S. Constitution apply to undocumented immigrants?

“Yes, without question,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. “Most of the provisions of the Constitution apply on the basis of personhood and jurisdiction in the United States.”

Many parts of the Constitution use the term “people” or “person” rather than “citizen.” Rodriguez said those laws apply to everyone physically on U.S. soil, whether or not they are a citizen.

As a result, many of the basic rights, such as the freedom of religion and speech, the right to due process and equal protection under the law apply to citizens and noncitizens. How those rights play out in practice is more complex."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-rights-do-undocumented-immigrants-have
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh knock it off. You hilljacks haven’t the first clue about American culture and laws other than you seem to conflate being a hillbilly with being an American so what the hell do you know?

Jack shit, that’s what.

The Contitution gives certain rights, though not the full sleight of rights of citizens, to all persons regardless of their citizenship status as our courts have ruled that certain rights are universal human rights. Those rights all people in our nation are entitled too include full rights to first amendment rights, and due process of law rights under the fifth and fourteen amendment.

So to listen to an ingnoramous like you accuse someone of being a traitor because they understand our laws, our traditions and the principles of the American Revolution and you don’t is beyond funny.

What a Maroon! LOL
Click to expand...

Anyone that thinks someone that isn't legally supposed to be here should get any protections from the Constitution is a fucking dumbass including, but not limited, to the judges that are supposed to understand the document.

I know a lot more than a motherfucking, leftwing n-lover like you, boy.

Anything else useless you'd like to add, traitor? Just like I told kuntzu, I hope and pray that one of those illegals you think should be here does something negative to a family member of yours. You'll get exactly what you deserve.
 
CFM said:
Anyone that thinks someone that isn't legally supposed to be here should get any protections from the Constitution is a fucking dumbass including, but not limited, to the judges that are supposed to understand the document.

I know a lot more than a motherfucking, leftwing n-lover like you, boy.

Anything else useless you'd like to add, traitor? Just like I told kuntzu, I hope and pray that one of those illegals you think should be here does something negative to a family member of yours. You'll get exactly what you deserve.
Click to expand...

Every person on US soil is under US jurisdiction and US law. How is it that you don't know that?
 
CFM said:
Anyone that thinks someone that isn't legally supposed to be here should get any protections from the Constitution is a fucking dumbass including, but not limited, to the judges that are supposed to understand the document.

I know a lot more than a motherfucking, leftwing n-lover like you, boy.

Anything else useless you'd like to add, traitor? Just like I told kuntzu, I hope and pray that one of those illegals you think should be here does something negative to a family member of yours. You'll get exactly what you deserve.
Click to expand...

That illegal would have to get in line behind a pissed off white boy with an AR-15 (or similar weapon).
 
Truth Detector said:
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
Click to expand...

and anyone who actually believes this tripe exists in the constitution needs to READ the constitution instead of having it force fed to them from big brother government.......provided they actually believe in the constitution.
 
CFM said:
You're a traitor if you think illegals should stay here. How is it that you don't know that?
Click to expand...

NO I think illegals should be deported.. and I think we should have a 20 year moratorium on ALL immigration..

But, I KNOW you are stupid because you still don't understand jurisdiction.
 
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
 
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...

"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"

BECAUSE they are under US jurisdiction.
 
kudzu said:
"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"

BECAUSE they are under US jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Still hoping one of your beloved illegals negatively affects your family. You’ll deserve it.
 
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...


Well then Obviously Obama got away with it ... by 9.5 and 5 Million Votes ... Back-2-Black

 
SmarterthanYou said:
and anyone who actually believes this tripe exists in the constitution needs to READ the constitution instead of having it force fed to them from big brother government.......provided they actually believe in the constitution.
Click to expand...

The only tripe here is the crap you're dishing out. ;)
 
SmarterthanYou said:
i'll bet you believe that 'shall not be infringed' actually means 'reasonable regulations', don't ya, moron?
Click to expand...

No, I believe that if you enter the country illegally, the only right you have is to be immediately sent back to where you came from. It isn't rocket science. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top