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

[kaz]

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 deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws""

Gotcha, the Constitution was a suicide pact.

So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?

 

[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!


"

Gotcha, the Constitution was a suicide pact.

So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?

What part of this are you having trouble with?
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

 

[Darkwind]

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.

??

You may want to elaborate on that a bit more. The President has limited, Constitutional powers. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[kaz]

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!


"

Gotcha, the Constitution was a suicide pact.

So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?

What part of this are you having trouble with?
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

A logical fallacy that is called "begging the question." You didn't answer the question, you just reasserted your belief in the truth of your statement. To remind you, this was the question:

So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?

 

[NightFox]

Gotcha, the Constitution was a suicide pact.

So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

except for the right to vote and to run for federal elected offices, owning land, being cops or public school teachers. They are expected to be obedient to the laws of the land. And tax codes are different resident alien or nonresident alien.

And those rights they do receive are only while on US soil and no fking place else.

 

[NightFox]

except for the right to vote and to run for federal elected offices, owning land, being cops or public school teachers. They are expected to be obedient to the laws of the land. And tax codes are different resident alien or nonresident alien.

That was Madison's argument, to wit; we expect them to obey the law while they're here so we cannot deprive them of the protections afforded by the law while they're here.

It's pretty clear when you're talking about legal aliens; the somewhat murky part is that according to legal precedent illegal aliens are entitled to due process (and I suspect some others as well) not sure where Constitutional Protections begin and end for illegals since I haven't looked all that deeply into the precedent but I do know they're entitled to due process.

 

[jc456]

except for the right to vote and to run for federal elected offices, owning land, being cops or public school teachers. They are expected to be obedient to the laws of the land. And tax codes are different resident alien or nonresident alien.

That was Madison's argument, to wit; we expect them to obey the law while they're here so we cannot deprive them of the protections afforded by the law while they're here.

It's pretty clear when you're talking about legal aliens; the somewhat murky part is that according to legal precedent illegal aliens are entitled to due process (and I suspect some others as well) not sure where Constitutional Protections begin and end for illegals since I haven't looked all that deeply into the precedent but I do know they're entitled to due process.

I expect since we are a compassionate nation that we treat illegals with respect and afford them due process of the law If picked up, create another crime, They can and most likely will be deported. they have no other expected rights of a foreign national.

If they are earning money, they won't be paying any income taxes. that money most likely goes to their mother land.

 

[jc456]

except for the right to vote and to run for federal elected offices, owning land, being cops or public school teachers. They are expected to be obedient to the laws of the land. And tax codes are different resident alien or nonresident alien.

That was Madison's argument, to wit; we expect them to obey the law while they're here so we cannot deprive them of the protections afforded by the law while they're here.

It's pretty clear when you're talking about legal aliens; the somewhat murky part is that according to legal precedent illegal aliens are entitled to due process (and I suspect some others as well) not sure where Constitutional Protections begin and end for illegals since I haven't looked all that deeply into the precedent but I do know they're entitled to due process.

I expect since we are a compassionate nation that we treat illegals with respect and afford them due process of the law If picked up, create another crime, They can and most likely will be deported. they have no other expected rights of a foreign national.

If they are earning money, they won't be paying any income taxes. that money most likely goes to their mother land.

knowingly harboring illegals which is what a sanctuary city does, is against the law Ms. Pelosi!!!!

 

[Silhouette]

Trump will soon fix CA's little red wagon...

 

[Silhouette]

The OP is correct. Though "nation of origin" is a reason not to discriminate against a naturalized citizen, the key word here is "citizen". If a nation poses a threat uniquely as Trump's banned nations do, who have gleefully advertised using refugee flows as trojan horses to insert terrorists into the Homeland's midst, our CIC has every authority and indeed a mandate to act to protect the ACTUAL citizens of the US from a foreign influx dedicated to harm.

This never comes up but if the Syrians and other peoples are screwed because of the terrorists in their midst, perhaps they ought to turn on them instead of us for the blame. When we had civil disagreements in this country, we went to war WITH EACH OTHER, HERE AT HOME. We didn't insist that England take in our countrymen who were advertising at that time "death to the English!" And if any such influx demanded to knock down England's doors, the English would've promptly strung them up by the neck. I'd say Trump's travel ban was quite gentle by comparison.

The Islamic people need to turn and face their oppressors: the radicals in their own midst. If Syrians want peace at home then they should fight for it with all their might. Men women and children died aplenty here in America for our growing pains. Many savagely and horribly too. We are not the world's nursery school. If something is wrong in your country, fix it! Turn and fix it.

 

[Doc1]

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!

That wasn't your point son, your point was that the President has any authority he wants, you used the word "plenary".

"ple·na·ry
ˈplenərē/
adjective
adjective: plenary
unqualified; absolute.

My suggestion is two fold, A) Remember what you actually type and B) Educate yourself so you use words correctly.
Oh yes, I voted for Trump.

 

[Care4all]

Gotcha, the Constitution was a suicide pact.

So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?

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.

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.

What was this "incredibly dangerous situation" that Obama left us in?

 

[jillian]

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.

there's a body of caselaw that addresses what constitutional protections and what level of constitutional protections are due to people.

you should try studying the issue.

 

[NightFox]

Gotcha, the Constitution was a suicide pact.

So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?

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.

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.

What was this "incredibly dangerous situation" that Obama left us in?

Which part about not doing anything about Nations that his own administration determined were not only inadequately screening and sharing said screening of travelers to the United States but are also historical origination points for radical IslamicTerrorists and/or State Sponsors of Terrorism other than making a list of them didn't you understand?

 

[namvet]

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 left IS non American

 

[kaz]

Gotcha, the Constitution was a suicide pact.

So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?

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.

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.

What was this "incredibly dangerous situation" that Obama left us in?

You mean besides freely importing terrorists? Oh, wait, that was it ...

 

[jillian]

Gotcha, the Constitution was a suicide pact.

So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?

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.

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.

What was this "incredibly dangerous situation" that Obama left us in?

there isn't one.... the loons just keep on trying to justify their bigotry and disgusting hate

 

[jillian]

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 left IS non American

only to treasonous rightwingnuts

 

[bodecea]

LOL and on cue they show up to reveal their lack o knowledge on the Constitution

Ever read the 14th Amendment, Bi-Catfish?

Here it is:
Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.