Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's because the Constitution doesn't say it applies only to citizens. It applies to everyone in the USA.
That is, the lefties actually follow the Constitution, and the righties don't.
And, looking at this thread, the righties here are all very proud of not following the Constitution.
There is no city that is actually granting sanctuaryIt's because the Constitution doesn't say it applies only to citizens. It applies to everyone in the USA.
That is, the lefties actually follow the Constitution, and the righties don't.
And, looking at this thread, the righties here are all very proud of not following the Constitution.
Since there was no such thing as "illegal immigration" when the Constitution was written, it applied to native born as citizens and then everybody else. Since immigration was regulated, those here illegally get no extra right to be exempted from the crime they committed when they jumped the border. "Sanctuary" can be granted by a church but not by a government entity.
There is no city that is actually granting sanctuary
I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.
Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!
Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!
There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.
I think it is because the left thinks that immigration is a natural right, which automatically makes them a citizen.
I think you will find that a particular city may not be enforcing certain laws, but they have never granted actual sanctuary
What does immigration have to do with the US being a world power, or disappear as a world power completely?I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.
Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!
Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!
There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.
I think it is because the left thinks that immigration is a natural right, which automatically makes them a citizen.
they keep repeating that we are a "Nation of Immigrants" as a way to break down rules and borders but in reality all nations are made up of immigrants at some point, and all countries reserve the right to put the needs of their citizens first and the right to not let their country dissolve by voluntarily tying their own hands behind their own back. These people are truly confused. many of them are so well meaning but the ones behind this Idea would love to see the US dissapear as a world power completely.
I think you will find that a particular city may not be enforcing certain laws, but they have never granted actual sanctuary
Statistics show that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, commit far fewer crimes than do our citizensI think you will find that a particular city may not be enforcing certain laws, but they have never granted actual sanctuary
Knock it off....parsing words doesn't change what they are doing. When ICE asks for an illegal incarcerated for another crime, these cities are releasing the illegal rather than hand him over. You won't have a problem with that apparently until you're raped or murdered by a piece of shit who would otherwise have been deported.
Statistics show that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, commit far fewer crimes than do our citizens
The part I have a problem with is your belief that it applies to foreigners who aren't on American soil. They aren't "within it's jurisdiction."What part of this are you having trouble with?Winner winner ^Yes and no, the Supreme Court has held for more than a century that non-citizens on US soil are entitled to Constitutional Protections that are not expressly reserved for Citizens, the primary application of which has been sourced in the 14th Amendment's "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" and the 5th Amendments "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury", in other words foreign nationals on American Soil are "persons" and thus entitled to Constitutional Protections explicitly set aside for "person" (but not those explicitly set aside for "citizen"). Things get a little foggier where the Constitution refers to protections set aside for "the people" though such as First and Fourth Amendment protections although the court has tended to interpret those protections to also apply to non-citizens on US Soil as well.the constitution applies to everyone on our soil....do some reading up on it.
HINT-this is why we had to set up GITMO, off our soil....
Of course this wouldn't apply to foreign nationals that have been explicitly barred entry since they aren't legally on American Soil anyways.
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws""
That is indeed the phrase in question.
Chicken Dinner!
"
Gotcha, the Constitution was a suicide pact.
So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
violent crimes, son?Statistics show that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, commit far fewer crimes than do our citizens
BULLSHIT you are LYING!!!!!!~! ILLEGALS all committed a crime by coming here illegally so they all are criminals! It is pathetic to even read your one line lies
are u a legal scholar?The part I have a problem with is your belief that it applies to foreigners who aren't on American soil. They aren't "within it's jurisdiction."What part of this are you having trouble with?Winner winner ^Yes and no, the Supreme Court has held for more than a century that non-citizens on US soil are entitled to Constitutional Protections that are not expressly reserved for Citizens, the primary application of which has been sourced in the 14th Amendment's "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" and the 5th Amendments "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury", in other words foreign nationals on American Soil are "persons" and thus entitled to Constitutional Protections explicitly set aside for "person" (but not those explicitly set aside for "citizen"). Things get a little foggier where the Constitution refers to protections set aside for "the people" though such as First and Fourth Amendment protections although the court has tended to interpret those protections to also apply to non-citizens on US Soil as well.
Of course this wouldn't apply to foreign nationals that have been explicitly barred entry since they aren't legally on American Soil anyways.
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws""
That is indeed the phrase in question.
Chicken Dinner!
"
Gotcha, the Constitution was a suicide pact.
So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.
Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!
Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!
There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.
THe "incredibly dangerous situation" that Obama left us in is terrorists flooding into our country by the hundreds.What was this "incredibly dangerous situation" that Obama left us in?They weren't deprived of anything, the people in question were barred entry which isn't a Constitutionally Protected right, if you're barred entry you're not legally on U.S. Soil so for lack of a better phrase you're in "International Waters" a situation which (If I'm not mistaken) affords them international treaty protections but nothing with respect to the U.S. Constitution.Gotcha, the Constitution was a suicide pact.
So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?
IMHO The left's argument regarding this EO is incredibly specious since it was the Obama Administration that put together the list of 7 Nations and they did it for a very good reason; the Nations on that list either do not have the systems in place or have proven to be unwilling to properly screen travelers and share that screening information with the United States (they're also historically origination points for radical Islamic Terrorist and/or state sponsors of Terrorism) which makes them a PERFECT origination point for those wishing to commit violence and other criminal acts on U.S. Soil. The only reason the Obama Administration didn't issue the same EO that Trump did was they didn't want to face the political backlash from their own party, in other words, they knowing allowed this incredibly risky situation to continue unabated for political reasons.
You really got to chill out. Where oh where are these terrorists of yours?THe "incredibly dangerous situation" that Obama left us in is terrorists flooding into our country by the hundreds.What was this "incredibly dangerous situation" that Obama left us in?They weren't deprived of anything, the people in question were barred entry which isn't a Constitutionally Protected right, if you're barred entry you're not legally on U.S. Soil so for lack of a better phrase you're in "International Waters" a situation which (If I'm not mistaken) affords them international treaty protections but nothing with respect to the U.S. Constitution.Gotcha, the Constitution was a suicide pact.
So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?
IMHO The left's argument regarding this EO is incredibly specious since it was the Obama Administration that put together the list of 7 Nations and they did it for a very good reason; the Nations on that list either do not have the systems in place or have proven to be unwilling to properly screen travelers and share that screening information with the United States (they're also historically origination points for radical Islamic Terrorist and/or state sponsors of Terrorism) which makes them a PERFECT origination point for those wishing to commit violence and other criminal acts on U.S. Soil. The only reason the Obama Administration didn't issue the same EO that Trump did was they didn't want to face the political backlash from their own party, in other words, they knowing allowed this incredibly risky situation to continue unabated for political reasons.
I think even a snowflake moron can understand what "within its jurisdiction" means. Furthermore, the SC has already ruled on this issue. It said Trump is within his authority to ban any group he wants for whatever reason he wants.are u a legal scholar?The part I have a problem with is your belief that it applies to foreigners who aren't on American soil. They aren't "within it's jurisdiction."What part of this are you having trouble with?Winner winner ^"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws""
That is indeed the phrase in question.
Chicken Dinner!
"
Gotcha, the Constitution was a suicide pact.
So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
What does immigration have to do with the US being a world power, or disappear as a world power completely?I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.
Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!
Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!
There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.
I think it is because the left thinks that immigration is a natural right, which automatically makes them a citizen.
they keep repeating that we are a "Nation of Immigrants" as a way to break down rules and borders but in reality all nations are made up of immigrants at some point, and all countries reserve the right to put the needs of their citizens first and the right to not let their country dissolve by voluntarily tying their own hands behind their own back. These people are truly confused. many of them are so well meaning but the ones behind this Idea would love to see the US dissapear as a world power completely.
What supreme court ruling are you referring to? Please be specificI think even a snowflake moron can understand what "within its jurisdiction" means. Furthermore, the SC has already ruled on this issue. It said Trump is within his authority to ban any group he wants for whatever reason he wants.are u a legal scholar?The part I have a problem with is your belief that it applies to foreigners who aren't on American soil. They aren't "within it's jurisdiction."What part of this are you having trouble with?Winner winner ^
Chicken Dinner!
"
Gotcha, the Constitution was a suicide pact.
So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
You really got to chill out. Where oh where are these terrorists of yours?THe "incredibly dangerous situation" that Obama left us in is terrorists flooding into our country by the hundreds.What was this "incredibly dangerous situation" that Obama left us in?They weren't deprived of anything, the people in question were barred entry which isn't a Constitutionally Protected right, if you're barred entry you're not legally on U.S. Soil so for lack of a better phrase you're in "International Waters" a situation which (If I'm not mistaken) affords them international treaty protections but nothing with respect to the U.S. Constitution.Gotcha, the Constitution was a suicide pact.
So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?
IMHO The left's argument regarding this EO is incredibly specious since it was the Obama Administration that put together the list of 7 Nations and they did it for a very good reason; the Nations on that list either do not have the systems in place or have proven to be unwilling to properly screen travelers and share that screening information with the United States (they're also historically origination points for radical Islamic Terrorist and/or state sponsors of Terrorism) which makes them a PERFECT origination point for those wishing to commit violence and other criminal acts on U.S. Soil. The only reason the Obama Administration didn't issue the same EO that Trump did was they didn't want to face the political backlash from their own party, in other words, they knowing allowed this incredibly risky situation to continue unabated for political reasons.
