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

[Procrustes Stretched]

The view that foreign nationals do not deserve the same constitutional protections as U.S. citizens was given some support in April 2003 when a divided Supreme Court in Demore v. Kim3 upheld a 1996 statute imposing mandatory detention on foreign nationals charged with being deportable for having committed certain crimes.

The statute at issue mandated detention pending the adjudication of the deportation hearing even where, as in Kim's case, the government agreed that detention was not necessary, because the individual posed neither a flight risk nor a danger and could be released on bond.

For the first time ever outside the war setting, the Court in Kim upheld categorical preventive detention without any individualized assessment of the need for detention. And the majority did so by expressly invoking a double standard, claiming that in regUlating immigration, "Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens."4

Yet fifty years earlier, the Court had stated that the Due Process Clause does not "acknowledge[] any distinction between citizens and resident aliens.

...

...it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. II But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. The significance of the citizen/noncitizen distinction is more often presumed than carefully examined.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

Dante asks: 'Why do so many right wingers, libertarians, and others who claim some sort of constitutionalist leanings or authority know so little about the constitutional battles in American history?"​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Are foreign nationals entitled only to reduced rights and freedoms? The difficulty of the question is reflected in the deeply ambivalent approach of the Supreme Court, an ambivalence matched only by the alternately xenophobic and xenophilic attitude of the American public toward immigrants.

On the one hand, the Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. Because the Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office, equality between non-nationals and citizens would appear to be the constitutional rule.

On the other hand, the Court has permitted foreign nationals to be excluded and expelled because of their race.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens.12 All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused."

And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people."

The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."13 For more than a century, the Court has recognized that the Equal Protection Clause is "universal in [its] application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of ... nationality."

The Court has repeatedly stated that "the Due Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."15 When noncitizens, no matter what their status, are tried for crimes, they are entitled to all of the rights that attach to the criminal process, without any distinction based on their nationality.16
​

Dante asks: 'Why do so many right wingers, libertarians, and others who claim some sort of constitutionalist leanings or authority know so little about the constitutional battles in American history?"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

do your homework saintmichaeldefendthem or

 

[ChrisL]

The view that foreign nationals do not deserve the same constitutional protections as U.S. citizens was given some support in April 2003 when a divided Supreme Court in Demore v. Kim3 upheld a 1996 statute imposing mandatory detention on foreign nationals charged with being deportable for having committed certain crimes.

The statute at issue mandated detention pending the adjudication of the deportation hearing even where, as in Kim's case, the government agreed that detention was not necessary, because the individual posed neither a flight risk nor a danger and could be released on bond.

For the first time ever outside the war setting, the Court in Kim upheld categorical preventive detention without any individualized assessment of the need for detention. And the majority did so by expressly invoking a double standard, claiming that in regUlating immigration, "Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens."4

Yet fifty years earlier, the Court had stated that the Due Process Clause does not "acknowledge[] any distinction between citizens and resident aliens.

...

...it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. II But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. The significance of the citizen/noncitizen distinction is more often presumed than carefully examined.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

Dante asks: 'Why do so many right wingers, libertarians, and others who claim some sort of constitutionalist leanings or authority know so little about the constitutional battles in American history?"​

Are you confused? The question was do Muslims have a constitutional right to immigrate to the United States? NO, they do not have any right to do that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The view that foreign nationals do not deserve the same constitutional protections as U.S. citizens was given some support in April 2003 when a divided Supreme Court in Demore v. Kim3 upheld a 1996 statute imposing mandatory detention on foreign nationals charged with being deportable for having committed certain crimes.

The statute at issue mandated detention pending the adjudication of the deportation hearing even where, as in Kim's case, the government agreed that detention was not necessary, because the individual posed neither a flight risk nor a danger and could be released on bond.

For the first time ever outside the war setting, the Court in Kim upheld categorical preventive detention without any individualized assessment of the need for detention. And the majority did so by expressly invoking a double standard, claiming that in regUlating immigration, "Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens."4

Yet fifty years earlier, the Court had stated that the Due Process Clause does not "acknowledge[] any distinction between citizens and resident aliens.

...

...it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. II But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. The significance of the citizen/noncitizen distinction is more often presumed than carefully examined.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

Dante asks: 'Why do so many right wingers, libertarians, and others who claim some sort of constitutionalist leanings or authority know so little about the constitutional battles in American history?"​

Are you confused? The question was do Muslims have a constitutional right to immigrate to the United States? NO, they do not have any right to do that.

and in that debate shitstainedmichael asked/stated: "How is it a grey area when it comes to the Constitution? What in the 1st Amendment confers rights to foreign nationals?"

this is ALL Dante addressed. Earlier in the thread I am sure Dante took a position on the main question.

so:
Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens? addresses Dopey's stupidity regarding the 1st Amendment

 

[CowboyTed]

Its not racist because your bias is theological, ANYONE can become a Muslim, its not dependent on race, and for the most part "moderate Islam" is just a left-wing mythology.

When they ignore their Holy Book like the Christians do, we'll have very few issues. True Believers are always nuts and therefore dangerous.

If they were true believers they would love there neighbour...

So they are not true christian, just people who carry bibles

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

2) 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.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/02/01/first-norway-now-denmark-wants-to-stop-muslim-immigration/

Senior Dansk Folkeparti party leaders say, “No More Muslims!” There are enough Muslims in Denmark and border controls should be established to stop more from entering the country.

... missing video ---

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

4) 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?

5) 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.

1) said before: Nope. Dumb friggin question

2) Idiot left? Again, what a dumb arse. quote: "U.S. commanders told FOX News soldiers are not reading Miranda rights to detainees" -- the cases where high-level prisoners have been mirandized was to "preserve the quality of evidence" --- SO this occasional mirandizing was happening DURING the Bush Administration…And that fact is being reported by FOX, The Weekly Standard and lol, Newt Gingrich. Soldier Police


3) (a rhetorical question) I'd say go ahead.

4) Yes. No. Yes, but we also open the doors to refugees and others

5) "sequestering? wtf are you talking about? do you know what the words you use actually mean, and how to use them correctly?

 

[bripat9643]

the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither
the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges
any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."​

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub


saintmichaeldefendthem

saintmichaeldefendthem: "What in the 1st Amendment confers rights to foreign nationals?"

We aren't discussing resident aliens. We're talking about foreign nationals still living in their countries of origin. And the First Amendment only gives them the right to practice their religion while here. It doesn't confer the right to citizenship on them.

 

[ChrisL]

The view that foreign nationals do not deserve the same constitutional protections as U.S. citizens was given some support in April 2003 when a divided Supreme Court in Demore v. Kim3 upheld a 1996 statute imposing mandatory detention on foreign nationals charged with being deportable for having committed certain crimes.

The statute at issue mandated detention pending the adjudication of the deportation hearing even where, as in Kim's case, the government agreed that detention was not necessary, because the individual posed neither a flight risk nor a danger and could be released on bond.

For the first time ever outside the war setting, the Court in Kim upheld categorical preventive detention without any individualized assessment of the need for detention. And the majority did so by expressly invoking a double standard, claiming that in regUlating immigration, "Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens."4

Yet fifty years earlier, the Court had stated that the Due Process Clause does not "acknowledge[] any distinction between citizens and resident aliens.

...

...it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. II But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. The significance of the citizen/noncitizen distinction is more often presumed than carefully examined.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

Dante asks: 'Why do so many right wingers, libertarians, and others who claim some sort of constitutionalist leanings or authority know so little about the constitutional battles in American history?"​

Are you confused? The question was do Muslims have a constitutional right to immigrate to the United States? NO, they do not have any right to do that.

and in that debate shitstainedmichael asked/stated: "How is it a grey area when it comes to the Constitution? What in the 1st Amendment confers rights to foreign nationals?"

this is ALL Dante addressed. Earlier in the thread I am sure Dante took a position on the main question.

so:
Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens? addresses Dopey's stupidity regarding the 1st Amendment

Oh, my mistake. I thought you were still talking about the question on the original post.

 

[ChrisL]

the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither
the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges
any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."​

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub


saintmichaeldefendthem

saintmichaeldefendthem: "What in the 1st Amendment confers rights to foreign nationals?"

We aren't discussing resident aliens. We're talking about foreign nationals still living in their countries of origin. And the First Amendment only gives them the right to practice their religion while here. It doesn't confer the right to citizenship on them.

Yes, it's only smart to have some immigration policies and qualifications, given that any country could just send their dirtbags here like Cuba did in the 80s. Or maybe that was the 70s. Not sure.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither
the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges
any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."​

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub


saintmichaeldefendthem

saintmichaeldefendthem: "What in the 1st Amendment confers rights to foreign nationals?"

We aren't discussing resident aliens. We're talking about foreign nationals still living in their countries of origin. And the First Amendment only gives them the right to practice their religion while here. It doesn't confer the right to citizenship on them.

Dante responded to silly-old-saint-mick's comments on the 1st amendment

 

[bripat9643]

The view that foreign nationals do not deserve the same constitutional protections as U.S. citizens was given some support in April 2003 when a divided Supreme Court in Demore v. Kim3 upheld a 1996 statute imposing mandatory detention on foreign nationals charged with being deportable for having committed certain crimes.

The statute at issue mandated detention pending the adjudication of the deportation hearing even where, as in Kim's case, the government agreed that detention was not necessary, because the individual posed neither a flight risk nor a danger and could be released on bond.

For the first time ever outside the war setting, the Court in Kim upheld categorical preventive detention without any individualized assessment of the need for detention. And the majority did so by expressly invoking a double standard, claiming that in regUlating immigration, "Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens."4

Yet fifty years earlier, the Court had stated that the Due Process Clause does not "acknowledge[] any distinction between citizens and resident aliens.

...

...it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. II But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. The significance of the citizen/noncitizen distinction is more often presumed than carefully examined.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

Dante asks: 'Why do so many right wingers, libertarians, and others who claim some sort of constitutionalist leanings or authority know so little about the constitutional battles in American history?"​

You're still talking about resident aliens, dumbshit.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The view that foreign nationals do not deserve the same constitutional protections as U.S. citizens was given some support in April 2003 when a divided Supreme Court in Demore v. Kim3 upheld a 1996 statute imposing mandatory detention on foreign nationals charged with being deportable for having committed certain crimes.

The statute at issue mandated detention pending the adjudication of the deportation hearing even where, as in Kim's case, the government agreed that detention was not necessary, because the individual posed neither a flight risk nor a danger and could be released on bond.

For the first time ever outside the war setting, the Court in Kim upheld categorical preventive detention without any individualized assessment of the need for detention. And the majority did so by expressly invoking a double standard, claiming that in regUlating immigration, "Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens."4

Yet fifty years earlier, the Court had stated that the Due Process Clause does not "acknowledge[] any distinction between citizens and resident aliens.

...

...it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. II But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. The significance of the citizen/noncitizen distinction is more often presumed than carefully examined.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

Dante asks: 'Why do so many right wingers, libertarians, and others who claim some sort of constitutionalist leanings or authority know so little about the constitutional battles in American history?"​

Are you confused? The question was do Muslims have a constitutional right to immigrate to the United States? NO, they do not have any right to do that.

and in that debate shitstainedmichael asked/stated: "How is it a grey area when it comes to the Constitution? What in the 1st Amendment confers rights to foreign nationals?"

this is ALL Dante addressed. Earlier in the thread I am sure Dante took a position on the main question.

so:
Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens? addresses Dopey's stupidity regarding the 1st Amendment

Oh, my mistake. I thought you were still talking about the question on the original post.

It's easy to see how that happens. and StM. kept blurring the lines and moving his goal post

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The view that foreign nationals do not deserve the same constitutional protections as U.S. citizens was given some support in April 2003 when a divided Supreme Court in Demore v. Kim3 upheld a 1996 statute imposing mandatory detention on foreign nationals charged with being deportable for having committed certain crimes.

The statute at issue mandated detention pending the adjudication of the deportation hearing even where, as in Kim's case, the government agreed that detention was not necessary, because the individual posed neither a flight risk nor a danger and could be released on bond.

For the first time ever outside the war setting, the Court in Kim upheld categorical preventive detention without any individualized assessment of the need for detention. And the majority did so by expressly invoking a double standard, claiming that in regUlating immigration, "Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens."4

Yet fifty years earlier, the Court had stated that the Due Process Clause does not "acknowledge[] any distinction between citizens and resident aliens.

...

...it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. II But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. The significance of the citizen/noncitizen distinction is more often presumed than carefully examined.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

Dante asks: 'Why do so many right wingers, libertarians, and others who claim some sort of constitutionalist leanings or authority know so little about the constitutional battles in American history?"​

You're still talking about resident aliens, dumbshit.

what do you not understand about the phrase: foreign national?

 

[bripat9643]

The view that foreign nationals do not deserve the same constitutional protections as U.S. citizens was given some support in April 2003 when a divided Supreme Court in Demore v. Kim3 upheld a 1996 statute imposing mandatory detention on foreign nationals charged with being deportable for having committed certain crimes.

The statute at issue mandated detention pending the adjudication of the deportation hearing even where, as in Kim's case, the government agreed that detention was not necessary, because the individual posed neither a flight risk nor a danger and could be released on bond.

For the first time ever outside the war setting, the Court in Kim upheld categorical preventive detention without any individualized assessment of the need for detention. And the majority did so by expressly invoking a double standard, claiming that in regUlating immigration, "Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens."4

Yet fifty years earlier, the Court had stated that the Due Process Clause does not "acknowledge[] any distinction between citizens and resident aliens.

...

...it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. II But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. The significance of the citizen/noncitizen distinction is more often presumed than carefully examined.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

Dante asks: 'Why do so many right wingers, libertarians, and others who claim some sort of constitutionalist leanings or authority know so little about the constitutional battles in American history?"​

You're still talking about resident aliens, dumbshit.

what do you not understand about the phrase: foreign national?

If they are "deportable," then they are living in the United States.

Do you understand the government can't deport anyone who isn't physically located in the USA?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

bripat9643 is as clueless as saintmichaeldefendthem

resident aliens | non resident aliens | foreign nationals | citizens

 

[bripat9643]

bripat9643 is as clueless as saintmichaeldefendthem

resident aliens | non resident aliens | foreign nationals | citizens

Explain the significance of each.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

bripat9643 is as clueless as saintmichaeldefendthem

resident aliens | non resident aliens | foreign nationals | citizens

Explain the significance of each.

go look them up

 

[bripat9643]

bripat9643 is as clueless as saintmichaeldefendthem

resident aliens | non resident aliens | foreign nationals | citizens

Explain the significance of each.

go look them up

It doesn't matter. When your article refers to foreign nationals as "deportable," we know they mean resident aliens.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens."

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub