Why does the left think the Constitution applies to non-Americans?

[easyt65]

Libs seem to think the Constitution applies to illegals, but they think the Constitution does NOT apply to them. Liberals also believe the Rule of Law does not apply to illegals or themselves.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Ummmm...No shit Sherlock

Has nothing to do with your ridiculous OP

Aside from the minor technicality that "foreign nationals" are considered "Americans" for the sake of Constitutionality, there is nothing whatsoever ridiculous about the OP.

That's a load of horseshit!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US.

Directly above is from your OP and is ridiculous simply based on your gross lack of basic Constitutional and statutory knowledge! Trump's EO 13769 is violative of Amendments I & V regarding the Establishment, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses AND in enforcing the EO before proper legal notice was given in the Federal Register under 44 USC § 1507. The EO wasn't even filed until Tuesday Jan 31 at 11:15 LONG AFTER it started to be enforced on Jan 28!

 

[jc456]

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....

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.

these goofs think the constitution is for the world. ask them.

I'm sure many do and they're just as wrong as certain other "goofs" think that Constitutional Protections don't apply to foreign nationals on U.S. Soil.

well there are separations for foreign nationals and citizens. It's called rights.

 

[jc456]

Libs seem to think the Constitution applies to illegals, but they think the Constitution does NOT apply to them. Liberals also believe the Rule of Law does not apply to illegals or themselves.

they have no rule of law. Let's starting calling it was is. They are revolutionists on american soil paid for by Soros. Who is Hungarian I believe.

 

[jc456]

Ummmm...No shit Sherlock

Has nothing to do with your ridiculous OP

Aside from the minor technicality that "foreign nationals" are considered "Americans" for the sake of Constitutionality, there is nothing whatsoever ridiculous about the OP.

That's a load of horseshit!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US.

Directly above is from your OP and is ridiculous simply based on your gross lack of basic Constitutional and statutory knowledge! Trump's EO 13769 is violative of Amendments I & V regarding the Establishment, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses AND in enforcing the EO before proper legal notice was given in the Federal Register under 44 USC § 1507. The EO wasn't even filed until Tuesday Jan 31 at 11:15 LONG AFTER it started to be enforced on Jan 28!

sorry bubba, but you're just fking wrong about the EO on restricting entry.

 

[Doc1]

There is some confusion on both sides. Obviously the EO violates the 14th in regards to persons in those countries who have legal status in the US, and Trump's team is already walking that back. Some claim the EO is totally illegal because it singles out Muslims and exempts Christians in those countries. If Trump said we only taking Christian refugees from there PERIOD, there'd be a constitutional problem, but the EO is, at least on it's face, a temporary halt while vetting procedures are reviewed. I'm not sure that is such a constitutional problem.

Nonsense. The President has plenary power under the Constitution. He can apply it to whomever he pleases. There is no restriction of his plenary power as President.

Of course there is, the President can't simply do as he chooses, everything he does MUST be allowed under Constitutional Law, hence Obama's defeats on immigration.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Ummmm...No shit Sherlock

Has nothing to do with your ridiculous OP

Aside from the minor technicality that "foreign nationals" are considered "Americans" for the sake of Constitutionality, there is nothing whatsoever ridiculous about the OP.

That's a load of horseshit!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US.

Directly above is from your OP and is ridiculous simply based on your gross lack of basic Constitutional and statutory knowledge! Trump's EO 13769 is violative of Amendments I & V regarding the Establishment, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses AND in enforcing the EO before proper legal notice was given in the Federal Register under 44 USC § 1507. The EO wasn't even filed until Tuesday Jan 31 at 11:15 LONG AFTER it started to be enforced on Jan 28!

sorry bubba, but you're just fking wrong about the EO on restricting entry.

What impressive citations you have given to back up your assertion! LaLaLa is a source I never would have thought of using from the playground series of blather books! Here's something from your Bro's;

 

[Doc1]

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....

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.

 

[jc456]

Ummmm...No shit Sherlock

Has nothing to do with your ridiculous OP

Aside from the minor technicality that "foreign nationals" are considered "Americans" for the sake of Constitutionality, there is nothing whatsoever ridiculous about the OP.

That's a load of horseshit!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US.

Directly above is from your OP and is ridiculous simply based on your gross lack of basic Constitutional and statutory knowledge! Trump's EO 13769 is violative of Amendments I & V regarding the Establishment, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses AND in enforcing the EO before proper legal notice was given in the Federal Register under 44 USC § 1507. The EO wasn't even filed until Tuesday Jan 31 at 11:15 LONG AFTER it started to be enforced on Jan 28!

sorry bubba, but you're just fking wrong about the EO on restricting entry.

What impressive citations you have given to back up your assertion! LaLaLa is a source I never would have thought of using from the playground series of blather books! Here's something from your Bro's;

they knew more about the constitution than you!!

 

[NightFox]

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....

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.

these goofs think the constitution is for the world. ask them.

I'm sure many do and they're just as wrong as certain other "goofs" think that Constitutional Protections don't apply to foreign nationals on U.S. Soil.

well there are separations for foreign nationals and citizens. It's called rights.

The only "separations" from a Constitutional perspective are privileges and immunities explicitly granted to citizens in the Constitution itself (like for example voting or running for office) which really don't have a lot to do with "rights" since the Constitution doesn't endow any rights it only serves to protect those already endowed by, as the Declaration of Independence put it, "their creator".

Beyond that foreign nationals on U.S. soil (excepting those which have been explicitly barred at ports of entry) enjoy all the Constitutional protections that Citizens do while they're here, that is, according to legal precedent and the faction of the Framers (led by Madison) that won this argument during the Adams I Administration.

 

[Care4all]

Maybe instead of quoting Madison ....you can point to a single legal decision that says non-citizens are not entitled to Constitutional rights

It's simple. We cannot enforce the Constitution in other countries. We have no jurisdiction. Do you think we protect freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia? The Constitution doesn't apply to people who aren't in our country. People who are in the process of entering our country are not "in our country" until we've approved their entry. You're not IN Disneyland while standing on Disney property waiting to enter.

There have been rulings about foreign nationals. They do have constitutional rights. An illegal alien is not a foreign national, they are trespassers.

We already approved their entry with a visa issued from the US Embassy.....then changed the Rules and laws midstream. They should have the right to object and a hearing...

 

[Boss]

Of course there is, the President can't simply do as he chooses, everything he does MUST be allowed under Constitutional Law, hence Obama's defeats on immigration.

His EO conforms with Constitutional Law.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 - Wikipedia
8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

14 (f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

So..... have yourselves a big tall glass of Trump™ STFU!

 

[Dschrute3]

They're Anti-American Globalists. Most of them do actually hate America. Our previous President was one of them. But beyond that, it's about sabotaging Trump. Anything he proposes will be vehemently opposed by the Left/Democrats. They've already made it clear they won't work with Trump on anything. So Trump's just gotta push forward without them. He has the pen & phone now. He'll get things done with or without the Democrats.

Sounds EXACTLY like what you did to Obama. Isn't payback fun?

It is kinda fun. If the Democrats were smarter, they would have tried to work with him. Who knows? Maybe they could have gotten some of what they wanted through compromise. They had nothing to lose.

But now it's all over. Trump will push on without them. Just like Obama's boasts about not needing the Republicans, Trump doesn't need the Democrats.

Why didn't the Republicans even attempt to work with Obama for 8 years?

They worked with him too much. That's what this election was all about. You're in a coma.

Republicans were lazy and spineless during Obama's reign. They didn't stop much. Obama laughed at them. It's why Trump won. Most Republicans couldn't trust the other Republican candidates running.

 

[NightFox]

We already approved their entry with a visa issued from the US Embassy.....then changed the Rules and laws midstream. They should have the right to object and a hearing...

No it doesn't , all a Visa does is approve you to travel to a U.S. port of entry and request permission from DHS and CBP to enter, it doesn't grant entry.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The first seven words of the constitution are " we the people of the united states". That makes it very clear that whenever the word "people" is used in the C it refers to citizens. case closed

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The founding fathers would have laughed at the idea that illegal invaders have constitutional rights.

 

[paperview]

Nonsense. The President has plenary power under the Constitution. He can apply it to whomever he pleases. There is no restriction of his plenary power as President.

Well, looky here. Boss has already elevated Trump to Dictator.

 

[Care4all]

Of course there is, the President can't simply do as he chooses, everything he does MUST be allowed under Constitutional Law, hence Obama's defeats on immigration.

His EO conforms with Constitutional Law.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 - Wikipedia
8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

14 (f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

So..... have yourselves a big tall glass of Trump™ STFU!

Does the president have to show what is 'detrimental' about it?

and the AG can only stop entry when he gets knowlege that their documents are FALSIFIED.

 

[paperview]

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....

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.

Winner winner ^
Chicken Dinner!


"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""

 

[kaz]

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 Constitution doesn't apply to all citizens of starship earth, just the international left and their protected classes. But at the same time, only women who agree with socialism are protected by women's groups not women in general, only blacks who agree with socialism are protected by black groups not blacks in general, and so on. And even that's not absolute. Liberal activist Kathleen Wiley was sold out by women's groups because they liked Slick more.