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

[Contumacious]

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​

Yo fucktard , stop listening to bullshit and READ about our History


"Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.


For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or anyone it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons,

U.S. Supreme Court
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 393 (1856)

.

 

[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.

.

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]

I know, but read post #261. I do not believe that the particular precedent or issue was squarely before the court.


.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Does the Left think Muslims believe Non-Muslims should have the same rights as Muslims?

 

[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]

I know, but read post #261. I do not believe that the particular precedent or issue was squarely before the court.


.

Well, I guess that depends entirely upon the justices of the Supreme Court. They hold the power whenever a case is brought before them. The idea of that makes me very uncomfortable too for some reason.

 

[Lakhota]

It was white Christian Europeans that caused all the terror for my people.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

evidently, many do

isn't there an altar you should be kneeling at?

 

[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​

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").

"Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens." = wrong. dead wrong

stop playing games. you were dead wrong. admit it and move along

 

[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​

ChrisL "Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens." = wrong. dead wrong

 

[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​

ChrisL "Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens." = wrong. dead wrong

Whatever, people from other countries certainly don't have any "constitutional right" to immigrate here.

 

[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​

ChrisL "Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens." = wrong. dead wrong

Whatever, people from other countries certainly don't have any "constitutional right" to immigrate here.

whatever -- no one says they do

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

CHRISL SAID:

'Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens.'

As opposed to illegal American citizens.

But yes, all persons in the United States are entitled to Constitutional protections, including those undocumented, not just American citizens.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

CHRISL SAID:

'Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens.'

As opposed to illegal American citizens.

But yes, all persons in the United States are entitled to Constitutional protections, including those undocumented, not just American citizens.

Based upon what?

 

[bripat9643]

CHRISL SAID:

'Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens.'

As opposed to illegal American citizens.

But yes, all persons in the United States are entitled to Constitutional protections, including those undocumented, not just American citizens.

The are entitled to due process of law. Otherwise they can be deported for any reason we like.

 

[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​

ChrisL "Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens." = wrong. dead wrong

Whatever, people from other countries certainly don't have any "constitutional right" to immigrate here.

whatever -- no one says they do

Well that's the OP question, so what are you arguing about?

 

[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​

ChrisL "Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens." = wrong. dead wrong

Whatever, people from other countries certainly don't have any "constitutional right" to immigrate here.

whatever -- no one says they do

Well that's the OP question, so what are you arguing about?

really? the OP:

So what if I were to suggest that the United States stop all immigration from Islamic nations and all immigration from Muslims.

Would that be....racist? Would I be violating their "civil rights"? Isn't the point of immigration policy for any nation to select only those immigrants that are believed to be a net benefit to the country?

We can choose our immigration policy based on anything we like, even religion and national origin. And many nations are now seeing the wisdom of discussion the sequestering of any more Muslims in their country. We should too.
​

please, ChrisL highlight where this is so

 

[ChrisL]

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​

ChrisL "Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens." = wrong. dead wrong

Whatever, people from other countries certainly don't have any "constitutional right" to immigrate here.

whatever -- no one says they do

Well that's the OP question, so what are you arguing about?

really? the OP:

So what if I were to suggest that the United States stop all immigration from Islamic nations and all immigration from Muslims.

Would that be....racist? Would I be violating their "civil rights"? Isn't the point of immigration policy for any nation to select only those immigrants that are believed to be a net benefit to the country?

We can choose our immigration policy based on anything we like, even religion and national origin. And many nations are now seeing the wisdom of discussion the sequestering of any more Muslims in their country. We should too.
​

please, ChrisL highlight where this is so

Yes, that's what I said. The OP asks if it is Muslims have a constitutional right to immigrate to America? I say no. Nobody has a constitutional right to immigrate to America.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

ChrisL "Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens." = wrong. dead wrong

Whatever, people from other countries certainly don't have any "constitutional right" to immigrate here.

whatever -- no one says they do

Well that's the OP question, so what are you arguing about?

really? the OP:

So what if I were to suggest that the United States stop all immigration from Islamic nations and all immigration from Muslims.

Would that be....racist? Would I be violating their "civil rights"? Isn't the point of immigration policy for any nation to select only those immigrants that are believed to be a net benefit to the country?

We can choose our immigration policy based on anything we like, even religion and national origin. And many nations are now seeing the wisdom of discussion the sequestering of any more Muslims in their country. We should too.
​

please, ChrisL highlight where this is so

Yes, that's what I said. The OP asks if it is Muslims have a constitutional right to immigrate to America? I say no. Nobody has a constitutional right to immigrate to America.

Hello? you reply to a nutty post as if it were sane?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Does the Left think Muslims have a Constitutional right....
to immigrate to this country?

I'm just wondering since the idea of mirandizing enemy combatants on the battle field was the brain child of the idiot Left. They clearly think the whole world is a beneficiary of the American Constitution.

who said the
USA had to mirandize enemy combatants on the battle field?

can you be more specific?

 

[auditor0007]

to immigrate to this country?

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

I actually disagree with that. I think there is a very good reason to keep almost all of them out. We have enough already. We don't need any more. Because most of Europe allowed so many Muslims into their countries, Europe now has a very big long term problem. If you want evidence of what happens to democratic Christian societies when Muslims move in and eventually become the majority, take a very close look at Lebanon. Lebanon was once a thriving country that many people would go to for vacation. Today, Lebanon is a Hell Hole. Even those who still have family members living there are afraid to go to visit. In the few Muslim countries that have been "successful" with democracy and with a secular form of government, a large percentage of citizens are against that secular government, i.e. Turkey.

 

[ninja007]

do libs realize that Muslims (in the US and Canada) have an avg of over 3 kids per family vs just 1.5 for US households? (eta- might be as low as 1.2 now).