Does the Left think Muslims have a Constitutional right....

[ChrisL]

Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens. Not to mention, our immigration laws are NOT very tough. There are some countries where you have to meet some very stringent requirements just to live there and even then it's difficult to get citizenship, like Germany, Switzerland, etc. Other countries also have harsher penalties for illegal immigrants.

 

[bodecea]

Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens. Not to mention, our immigration laws are NOT very tough. There are some countries where you have to meet some very stringent requirements just to live there and even then it's difficult to get citizenship, like Germany, Switzerland, etc. Other countries also have harsher penalties for illegal immigrants.

So...someone from another country here....gets arrested...they don't have Miranda rights, etc.?

 

[Contumacious]

Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens. Not to mention, our immigration laws are NOT very tough. There are some countries where you have to meet some very stringent requirements just to live there and even then it's difficult to get citizenship, like Germany, Switzerland, etc. Other countries also have harsher penalties for illegal immigrants.

Remember the states are ----supposed to be ----SOVEREIGN entities . They never gave up the right to control immigration.

Do NOT confuse the power to naturalize which is within the exclusive authority of the federal government.


.

 

[ChrisL]

Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens. Not to mention, our immigration laws are NOT very tough. There are some countries where you have to meet some very stringent requirements just to live there and even then it's difficult to get citizenship, like Germany, Switzerland, etc. Other countries also have harsher penalties for illegal immigrants.

Remember the states are ----supposed to be ----SOVEREIGN entities . They never gave up the right to control immigration.

Do NOT confuse the power to naturalize which is within the exclusive authority of the federal government.


.

Well, apparently they have . . . involuntarily anyway. I remember when the gov of Arizona was trying to crack down on illegal immigration. The state was sued by the federal government.

 

[ChrisL]

Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens. Not to mention, our immigration laws are NOT very tough. There are some countries where you have to meet some very stringent requirements just to live there and even then it's difficult to get citizenship, like Germany, Switzerland, etc. Other countries also have harsher penalties for illegal immigrants.

So...someone from another country here....gets arrested...they don't have Miranda rights, etc.?

No, if they are found to be illegal, they should be deported. I wonder which is more expensive . . deportation or trials and holding them indefinitely in prisons, etc.?

 

[ChrisL]

^^^

I suppose that would also depend upon the crime committed though. A serious crime, like murder or rape or something, then I'd probably like to see them tried for that. A traffic/drug law violator? Deport them back to their countries of origin.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'll bet you would put a revolver in your mouth and pull the trigger if you thought it would piss off a right-winger.

no, but I'd pull my pecker out of your butt and without wiping it off, stick it in your big fat mouth, if it would make you stop talking shit.

Your infantile sexual fantasies aren't interesting to the adults in this forum.

so you like the taste of shite flavored pecker?

You're disgusting.

of course you ignore the other side.

fuck off

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'll bet you would put a revolver in your mouth and pull the trigger if you thought it would piss off a right-winger.

no, but I'd pull my pecker out of your butt and without wiping it off, stick it in your big fat mouth, if it would make you stop talking shit.

Your infantile sexual fantasies aren't interesting to the adults in this forum.

so you like the taste of shite flavored pecker?

You're disgusting.

Assholes like him are the reason the phrase POS was coined.

oh, and this is so inspiring and positive "I'll bet you would put a revolver in your mouth and pull the trigger if you thought it would piss off a right-winger."??

 

[ChrisL]

I'll bet you would put a revolver in your mouth and pull the trigger if you thought it would piss off a right-winger.

no, but I'd pull my pecker out of your butt and without wiping it off, stick it in your big fat mouth, if it would make you stop talking shit.

Your infantile sexual fantasies aren't interesting to the adults in this forum.

so you like the taste of shite flavored pecker?

You're disgusting.

of course you ignore the other side.

fuck off

Stop being disgusting. No one wants to read your disgusting posts. That was really, really gross.

 

[ChrisL]

no, but I'd pull my pecker out of your butt and without wiping it off, stick it in your big fat mouth, if it would make you stop talking shit.

Your infantile sexual fantasies aren't interesting to the adults in this forum.

so you like the taste of shite flavored pecker?

You're disgusting.

Assholes like him are the reason the phrase POS was coined.

oh, and this is so inspiring and positive "I'll bet you would put a revolver in your mouth and pull the trigger if you thought it would piss off a right-winger."??

Nobody wants to hear about your poop fantasies. That is disgusting.

 

[Contumacious]

Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens. Not to mention, our immigration laws are NOT very tough. There are some countries where you have to meet some very stringent requirements just to live there and even then it's difficult to get citizenship, like Germany, Switzerland, etc. Other countries also have harsher penalties for illegal immigrants.

Remember the states are ----supposed to be ----SOVEREIGN entities . They never gave up the right to control immigration.

Do NOT confuse the power to naturalize which is within the exclusive authority of the federal government.


.

Well, apparently they have . . . involuntarily anyway. I remember when the gov of Arizona was trying to crack down on illegal immigration. The state was sued by the federal government.

I do not remember that the issue was before the court. But It would not surprise me if that is another power that has been usurped.

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens. Not to mention, our immigration laws are NOT very tough. There are some countries where you have to meet some very stringent requirements just to live there and even then it's difficult to get citizenship, like Germany, Switzerland, etc. Other countries also have harsher penalties for illegal immigrants.

ChrisL

You have to be one of the BIGGEST imbeciles to grace these boards:

Aliens also receive treatment very similar to the treatment that U.S. citizens receive in the context of the judicial system. For instance, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution apply to aliens residing within the United States. As such, the courts guarantee aliens the right to due process of law and equal protection of the laws. Courts have generally construed the Fourth Amendment as applicable to aliens as well. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures.

Alien Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Contumacious

Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens. Not to mention, our immigration laws are NOT very tough. There are some countries where you have to meet some very stringent requirements just to live there and even then it's difficult to get citizenship, like Germany, Switzerland, etc. Other countries also have harsher penalties for illegal immigrants.

Remember the states are ----supposed to be ----SOVEREIGN entities . They never gave up the right to control immigration.

Do NOT confuse the power to naturalize which is within the exclusive authority of the federal government.


.

stop making shite up

You are the second BIGGEST imbecile (after ChrisL) to grace these boards

Immigration is regulated at the federal level, chiefly under the rules established in 1952 with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was enacted to curb illegal immigration, denying welfare benefits to undocumented immigrants and strengthening sanctions against employers who hire them.

The U.S. Congress has control over all immigration-related regulations, while the White House is in charge of enforcing immigration laws.

- See more at: Alien Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute​

 

[Jarlaxle]

Nope, but there's no reason to keep all but a few out.

Which we already TRY to do.

But there are thousands on the "no fly list'.

What the OP suggests and what others have said they are in favor of, is changing the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does not give foreigners the right to immigrate to the USA. You have to be a complete numskull to believe that.

Complete numbskull? Dude...look who you're quoting!

 

[ChrisL]

Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens. Not to mention, our immigration laws are NOT very tough. There are some countries where you have to meet some very stringent requirements just to live there and even then it's difficult to get citizenship, like Germany, Switzerland, etc. Other countries also have harsher penalties for illegal immigrants.

Remember the states are ----supposed to be ----SOVEREIGN entities . They never gave up the right to control immigration.

Do NOT confuse the power to naturalize which is within the exclusive authority of the federal government.


.

Well, apparently they have . . . involuntarily anyway. I remember when the gov of Arizona was trying to crack down on illegal immigration. The state was sued by the federal government.

I do not remember that the issue was before the court. But It would not surprise me if that is another power that has been usurped.

.

Ninth Circuit opinion and way to Supreme Court decision[edit]
On November 1, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in the case. The three-judge panel was composed of Judges Richard Paez, Carlos Bea, and John T. Noonan.[22] On April 11, 2011, the Ninth Circuit panel upheld the district court's ban on parts of the law taking effect, thus ruling in favor of the Obama administration and against Arizona. Judge Richard Paez gave the majority opinion, in which Judge John T. Noonan, Jr. joined; Judge Carlos Bea dissented in part.[23][24] Paez agreed with the administration's view that the state had intruded upon federal prerogatives. Noonan wrote in his concurrence: "The Arizona statute before us has become a symbol. For those sympathetic to immigrants to the United States, it is a challenge and a chilling foretaste of what other states might attempt."[24]

On May 9, 2011, Governor Brewer announced that Arizona would appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court rather than request a hearing en banc before the Ninth Circuit;[25] that appeal was filed on August 10, 2011.[26] In response, the Justice Department requested that the Supreme Court stay out of the case, saying that the lower courts actions were appropriate.[27] Observers thought it likely that the Supreme Court would take up the matter,[26] but if it declined to step in, the case most likely would be returned to the trial judge in the District Court to review the case on its merits and determine whether the temporary injunction that blocked the law's most controversial provisions should become permanent.[28] The Supreme Court announced in December 2011 that it would review Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,[29][30] and oral arguments took place on April 25, 2012.[31][32]

On December 12, 2011, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case. The court heard oral arguments for this case on April 25, 2012. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because while she was the United States Solicitor General, she defended the federal government's position in this case under the Obama administration.[33]

On June 25, 2012, the Court struck down three of the four provisions of S.B. 1070. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor.[34] Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each concurred in part and dissented in part in separate opinions joined by no other justice.

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion held that Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 were preempted by federal law.[34][35][36] The three provisions struck down: required legal immigrants to carry registration documents at all times; allowed state police to arrest any individual for suspicion of being an illegal immigrant; and made it a crime for an illegal immigrant to search for a job (or to hold one) in the state.[37][38][39]

All justices agreed to uphold the provision of the law allowing Arizona state police to investigate the immigration status of an individual stopped, detained, or arrested if there is reasonable suspicion that individual is in the country illegally. However, Justice Kennedy specified in the majority opinion that state police may not detain the individual for a prolonged amount of time for not carrying immigration documents; and that cases of racial profiling are allowed to proceed through the courts, if such cases happen to arise later on.[33]

 

[ChrisL]

Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens. Not to mention, our immigration laws are NOT very tough. There are some countries where you have to meet some very stringent requirements just to live there and even then it's difficult to get citizenship, like Germany, Switzerland, etc. Other countries also have harsher penalties for illegal immigrants.

ChrisL

You have to be one of the BIGGEST imbeciles to grace these boards:

Aliens also receive treatment very similar to the treatment that U.S. citizens receive in the context of the judicial system. For instance, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution apply to aliens residing within the United States. As such, the courts guarantee aliens the right to due process of law and equal protection of the laws. Courts have generally construed the Fourth Amendment as applicable to aliens as well. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures.

Alien Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute​

Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens. Not to mention, our immigration laws are NOT very tough. There are some countries where you have to meet some very stringent requirements just to live there and even then it's difficult to get citizenship, like Germany, Switzerland, etc. Other countries also have harsher penalties for illegal immigrants.

ChrisL

You have to be one of the BIGGEST imbeciles to grace these boards:

Aliens also receive treatment very similar to the treatment that U.S. citizens receive in the context of the judicial system. For instance, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution apply to aliens residing within the United States. As such, the courts guarantee aliens the right to due process of law and equal protection of the laws. Courts have generally construed the Fourth Amendment as applicable to aliens as well. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures.

Alien Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute​

You're the idiot. Your own link on the first paragraph says that they are defining "alien" as the below, which means that they are not necessarily referring to "illegal" immigrants. There are lots of different status of immigrant. As far as I know, illegals are only entitled to SOME protections, but since they aren't citizens and our constitution is about citizens, then I don't think a lot of things would cover illegal immigrants, unless of course you're talking to a liberal, who seem to be confused about citizen/non-citizen.

For purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any person who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. There are different categories of aliens: resident and nonresident, immigrant and nonimmigrant, asylee and refugee, documented and undocumented ("illegal").

 

[ChrisL]

Contumacious

Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens. Not to mention, our immigration laws are NOT very tough. There are some countries where you have to meet some very stringent requirements just to live there and even then it's difficult to get citizenship, like Germany, Switzerland, etc. Other countries also have harsher penalties for illegal immigrants.

Remember the states are ----supposed to be ----SOVEREIGN entities . They never gave up the right to control immigration.

Do NOT confuse the power to naturalize which is within the exclusive authority of the federal government.


.

stop making shite up

You are the second BIGGEST imbecile (after ChrisL) to grace these boards

Immigration is regulated at the federal level, chiefly under the rules established in 1952 with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was enacted to curb illegal immigration, denying welfare benefits to undocumented immigrants and strengthening sanctions against employers who hire them.

The U.S. Congress has control over all immigration-related regulations, while the White House is in charge of enforcing immigration laws.

- See more at: Alien Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute​

You're the biggest idiot, talking about your gay sex fantasies online to total strangers. Not to mention, you are disgusting pig.

 

[rightwinger]

First amendment seems to say so......Congress shall pass no law regarding establishment of religion

 

[Moonglow]

to immigrate to this country?

Nope, but there's no reason to keep all but a few out.

Right. Keep them all out.

And that has been said many times, including about your group.

What happened in the past is irrelevant. It's history.

What you just posted is history, can we forget it also???

 

[ChrisL]

First amendment seems to say so......Congress shall pass no law regarding establishment of religion

That's not my issue. My issue would be people coming here and collecting public assistance because they are unskilled and can't find work, or can't find enough work to support themselves. Then, instead of becoming an asset, they become a burden to the taxpayers and people who have been paying into the system for years.

So, yeah, I guess I'm a little off topic in applying the OP question to ALL immigrants.