Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

[P@triot]

Funny. What is it about Section One of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that you can't understand - which doesn't say anything about "courtesy"? Holy shit...

I already addressed that you illiterate, hateful person who mocks the mentally handicapped. Here is the 14th Amendment:

"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."

The entire damn thing specifically sites citizens, you freaking nitwit. The 14th Amendment does not apply to illegal aliens and never did. Moron.

 

[P@triot]

Two federal courts just did.

Yeah....and last night women across the globe were illegally raped. Just because something happened, doesn't make it legal (you freaking moron).

 

[P@triot]

It is freaking hilarious watching Dumbocrats like Lakhota flailing around wildly, desperately trying to come up with a way to justify all of the illegal things they irrationally support.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I repeat from the OP:

These words, from Section One of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution rank along with the Constitution's Bill of Rights as — in these precincts — the most important in world and American history:

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.​

Yes, you repeat a passage that specifically states "citizens of the United States"

Duh, you conveniently left out this part from Section One of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution: "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."

I didn't leave it out. It simply doesn't apply. People within the jurisdiction aren't deprived due process. When an illegal is picked up in this country they are given a hearing before deportation. That has no bearing on non-citizens being stopped at a border check point and being denied entry

 

[Boss]

Funny. So-called enumerated powers may be subject to court review and maybe even input from Congress if the president is bending and stretching those powers - and ultimately the Supreme Court.

There is no such thing as a "so-called enumerated power" dipshit, They are outlined in Articles I, II and III of the Constitution. They are not "subject to review" by anyone and you've simply not made the argument they can be.

Now, if the President, Congress or even the Court is doing something OUTSIDE their enumerated powers... Fucking totally different story!

That is not the case here, so it's a moot point.

 

[Boss]

It is freaking hilarious watching Dumbocrats like Lakhota flailing around wildly, desperately trying to come up with a way to justify all of the illegal things they irrationally support.

What gets me is they don't have ANY problem whatsoever when Obama LITERALLY writes a legislative bill from the Oval Office and signs it into law (see DOCA and DOPA)!

Not a fucking PEEP from these hypocrites!

 

[Lakhota]

Bwahahahahaha! It's only February and already Lakhota takes home the award for "Dumbest Thread of 2017". Sweetie...the U.S. Constitution is not an international document. It applies to U.S. citizens only on U.S. land only.

My constitutional rights do not travel with me when I land in France. Likewise, a Mexican coming here does not have a single constitutional right. It applies to U.S. citizens only on U.S. land only.

Dear Retarded Dumbass: Where did I say it applied to anyone not on American soil? Please read the OP.

Dear Dumbocrat who pretends to be appalled by language which isn't "inclusive" and then goes around calling people "retard" as a derogatory term in an attempt to insult them:

Please read my post again. It stated that the U.S. Constitution applies to Americans only on American soil only. IE anyone who steps on U.S. soil that is not a citizen is not entitled to received protections from the U.S. Constitution. They might receive them out of courtesy - but they are not entitled to them.

You are truly a very special kind of stupid. And you show your true feelings about people who are handicapped. Typical repulsive Dumbocrat.

Funny. What is it about Section One of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that you can't understand - which doesn't say anything about "courtesy"? Holy shit...

Where does it say that it covers foreigners who aren't currently residing on U.S. soil?

Where did I say it did?

 

[Boss]

Where did I say it did?

Look, shit-for-brains, you nuked your own goddamn OP argument in post #237. Now you're trolling your own failed thread to stick little smiley faces on everyone's posts.

All you really need is a funny looking hat!

 

[Lakhota]

Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens?

1. ALIENS, CITIZENS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

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."14 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

There are strong normative reasons for the uniform extension of these fundamental rights. As James Madison himself argued, those subject to the obligations of our legal system ought to be entitled to its protections:

It does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage.17​

While Madison's view was not without its Critics, his view prevailed in the long run.I8

Much More: Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens?

Some more food for thought to support the OP.

 

[Lakhota]

Where did I say it did?

Look, shit-for-brains, you nuked your own goddamn OP argument in post #237. Now you're trolling your own failed thread to stick little smiley faces on everyone's posts.

All you really need is a funny looking hat!

Below is exactly what I said in post #237 - so how does it differ from what I've said throughout this thread?

Who said the federal Constitution provides illegal aliens "full Constitutional rights"? Also, who's talking about "not in our country" - besides you?

 

[Boss]

Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens?

1. ALIENS, CITIZENS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

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."14 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

There are strong normative reasons for the uniform extension of these fundamental rights. As James Madison himself argued, those subject to the obligations of our legal system ought to be entitled to its protections:

It does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage.17​

While Madison's view was not without its Critics, his view prevailed in the long run.I8

Much More: Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens?

Some more food for thought to support the OP.

No it doesn't support the OP because "foreign nationals" are NOT "illegal aliens" by any possible stretch of the imagination. A "foreign national" is someone here legally on a visa or green card. There is no question they are protected by the Constitution and have full Constitutional rights.

 

[Boss]

Where did I say it did?

Look, shit-for-brains, you nuked your own goddamn OP argument in post #237. Now you're trolling your own failed thread to stick little smiley faces on everyone's posts.

All you really need is a funny looking hat!

Below is exactly what I said in post #237 - so how does it differ from what I've said throughout this thread?

Who said the federal Constitution provides illegal aliens "full Constitutional rights"? Also, who's talking about "not in our country" - besides you?

Because it totally contradicts what you argued in the OP and the very title of the fucking thread, moron!

You said in the OP:
"Aliens," legal and illegal, have the full panoply of constitutional protections American citizens have with three exceptions: voting, some government jobs and gun ownership.

The thread title is: Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights.

In Post #237 you walk that WAY back and say you're not claiming they have FULL Constitutional rights and you can only support an argument they have "due process" rights. No one has argued they don't have due process rights but that's not because they have Constitutional rights, it's because the US Congress passed an Act to give them due process rights.

Furthermore, you keep pointing to a line in the 14th Amendment which says the STATES must afford persons due process. It doesn't say the Federal government must give them Constitutional rights...or ANY rights! That is a matter of US statutory code passed by Congress.

 

[Staidhup]

Constitutional rights? Really, Lakhota, your sticking with this argument? Apparently we have a legal scholar from the 9th interpreting the Constitution, or is it someone who would like to have become an attorney, but clearly did not rendering their personal interpretation.

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, the federal Constitution says that states have to give "persons" due process. It doesn't define the limits or parameters of "due process" and so, we have a statutory law which outlines that. Giving illegal aliens due process is not giving them full Constitutional rights. Nowhere does the Constitution say that. It also doesn't say the Federal government has to give aliens not in our country due process or any other rights.

Who said the federal Constitution provides illegal aliens "full Constitutional rights"? Also, who's talking about "not in our country" - besides you?

All you douche bags are claiming that so-called "refugees" have the right to immigrate here. That's obvious horseshit.

They do have the right to immigrate here if they follow the rules - but that's not what this thread is about.

Yes, and the president has the right to change the rules. That is a presidential ability.

Subject to court review - and maybe even input from Congress.

Ordinarily I would agree. But the legislate from executive order didn't start with Trump, nor will it end with him. Obama did that endless, without court and congressional approval. Where was your protest then? You didn't. Nor do we care what you think now, because you are hypocritical in your protest.

 

[Lakhota]

Who said the federal Constitution provides illegal aliens "full Constitutional rights"? Also, who's talking about "not in our country" - besides you?

All you douche bags are claiming that so-called "refugees" have the right to immigrate here. That's obvious horseshit.

They do have the right to immigrate here if they follow the rules - but that's not what this thread is about.

Yes, and the president has the right to change the rules. That is a presidential ability.

Subject to court review - and maybe even input from Congress.

Ordinarily I would agree. But the legislate from executive order didn't start with Trump, nor will it end with him. Obama did that endless, without court and congressional approval. Where was your protest then? You didn't. Nor do we care what you think now, because you are hypocritical in your protest.

But, but, but Obama.

Sorry, Mr. President: The Obama Administration Did Nothing Similar to Your Immigration Ban

 

[Boss]

The Obama Administration Did Nothing Similar to Your Immigration Ban

Correct. Obama unconstitutionally penned legislation from the Oval Office in the form of DOCA and DOPA. Trump issued an EO pursuant to his Constitutionally enumerated powers. Totally different!

 

[Andylusion]

Subject to court review - and maybe even input from Congress.

Enumerated powers under the Constitution are NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW!

It's like you are arguing... quite literally... that the court can "review" a Declaration of War by Congress! It cannot! It has no Constitutional jurisdiction. Declaring wars is an enumerated power granted to Congress and only to Congress... NOT THE COURT!

Good heavens..... Boss is making a 100% accurate and logically sound argument, and you people things that's funny?

This is how stupid left-wingers are. In Left-wing land, if the courts ruled the constitution, unconstitutional, some idiot left-wingers would be celebrating the brilliance of the ruling.

 

[buckeye45_73]

These words, from Section One of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution rank along with the Constitution's Bill of Rights as — in these precincts — the most important in world and American history:

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.​

The critics all claim that undocumented workers or immigrants or migrants — whichever label is the flavor of the day — don't have legal rights because they are lawbreakers by entering the country illegally and owe no loyalty to the United States. They claim that only U.S. citizens (natural born or naturalized) are protected by the Constitution. The critics are not only wrong — they are really, truly and sincerely wrong.

The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the second president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory."

In summary, the entire case of illegal aliens being covered by and protected by the Constitution has been settled law for 129 years and rests on one word: "person." It is the word "person" that connects the dots of "due process" and "equal protection" in the 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution and it is those five words that make the Constitution of the United States and its 14th amendment the most important political document since the Magna Carta in all world history.

"Aliens," legal and illegal, have the full panoply of constitutional protections American citizens have with three exceptions: voting, some government jobs and gun ownership (and that is now in doubt) — Glenn Beck and others notwithstanding.

More w/Supporting Cases: Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

That should be clear enough for everyone to understand.

No they don't. That was for slaves dipshit. The constitution gives us the right to vote, non citizens don't get it...I win!

 

[Boss]

Good heavens..... Boss is making a 100% accurate and logically sound argument, and you people things that's funny?

This is how stupid left-wingers are. In Left-wing land, if the courts ruled the constitution, unconstitutional, some idiot left-wingers would be celebrating the brilliance of the ruling.

Yep... Lack-whoota is literally trolling his own failed thread now.

 

[P@triot]

Subject to court review - and maybe even input from Congress.

Enumerated powers under the Constitution are NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW!

It's like you are arguing... quite literally... that the court can "review" a Declaration of War by Congress! It cannot! It has no Constitutional jurisdiction. Declaring wars is an enumerated power granted to Congress and only to Congress... NOT THE COURT!

Good heavens..... Boss is making a 100% accurate and logically sound argument, and you people things that's funny?

This is how stupid left-wingers are. In Left-wing land, if the courts ruled the constitution, unconstitutional, some idiot left-wingers would be celebrating the brilliance of the ruling.

I'm not going to lie...I'm thoroughly enjoying watching you own Lakhota with facts. She just makes stuff up as she goes so watching her get taken to school is amusing.