Quoted: Quoted: 1) Illegal immigration is not about race, its about legally being in this country.  So, don't let yourself get baited into a racial argument.   A "white" from Europe, a "black" from Africa, a "red" from India, and and a "yellow" from Asia, are just as "illegal" as a "brown" from Mexico. 2) The US Constitution only applies to US Citizens.  There  is no such thing as a "right to a better life," or a "right to the American dream."  These are not from the Constitution or even case law.  They are propaganda sound bites from the pro-illegal alien crowd. 3) If you are not in this country legally, you HAVE NO Constitutional rights.  The US Constitution protects US Citizens--not people here illegally.  This one must be repeated over and over again . . . 4) Illegal immigrants benefit from the taxes you pay.    For example, if you live in Texas, especially Houston, a large portion of your property tax goes to pay for healthcare and education of illegals.  Not-for-profit hospitals (funded by tax dollars) do not turn away illegals; AND, it is against the law in Texas for a school to ask for citizenship information.  This message sent is: get here, and we will take care of you, and educate your children. 5) If a person is born in the US, they are a citizen of the US.  So, if two illegals have a child on US soil, that child is a US citizen, who can then provide a legal avenue for the two illegal parents to gain citizen ship. 6)  The US has a quota system that allows X-number of people from various countries to legally/lawfully obtain citizenship.  Prospective citizens get on lists in their respective countries.  When their number comes up, they come over--LEGALLY.  Some countries, like Mexico and the Phillipines have so many wanting to come here that the wait is 10-15+ YEARS.  So, at least in the case of the Mexicans, its faster to just cross illegally. the last one is the one that really gets me. The mexicans think they are better than/have priority over people that have been trying to get into this country for many years. That shit just irks me the wrong way. That is why I have absolutely no respect for illegals. I dont have a single problem with immigrants, as long as they wait in line for there slice of the pie.

I agree 100%

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If "person" meant the same as "citizen" in the constitution, there would have been no reason to make that specific distinction in Article I. I don't follow. The "citizen" distinction was made because citizenry was the topic at hand in those particular articles. Specificity was called for in order to clarify what they were talking about in that context. It wouldn't have made much sense if they had said... "No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen person of the United States"   Exactly! If "person" was synonymous with citizen, there would be NO qualifier at all.  It would never even have been mentioned.  It would simply say, "No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, "  - if "person" meant the same as "citizen" there would never have been a mention of citizenship being an ADDITIONAL qualifier, just as a certain age is, and just as residing in the state is.  Not only do you have to be a "person" - but in addition, you ALSO have to be a certain age, live in a certain location, AND be a citizen. I really don't see how it can be any clearer. Food for thought: U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) . . . While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. . . . and... U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. EX REL. TURNER v. WILLIAMS, 194 U.S. 279 (1904) . . . It is, of course, true, that if an alien is not permitted to enter this country, or, having entered contrary to law, is expelled, he is in fact cut off from worshipping or speaking or publishing or petitioning in the country; but that is merely because of his exclusion therefrom. He does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter, forbidden by law. To appeal to the Constitution is to concede that this is a land governed by that supreme law, and as under it the power to exclude has been determined to exist, those who are excluded cannot assert the rights in general obtaining in a land towhich they do not belong as citizens or otherwise. . . .

I'm totally in favor of denying some (or all, for that matter) Consitutional protections for people who are in the country illegally.  It sure would make raids, looking for illgeal aliens, much easier.

I don't think it's a stretch to argue that people who enter and live in the United States ILLEGALLY are not really "persons of the United States"

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If "person" meant the same as "citizen" in the constitution, there would have been no reason to make that specific distinction in Article I. I don't follow. The "citizen" distinction was made because citizenry was the topic at hand in those particular articles. Specificity was called for in order to clarify what they were talking about in that context. It wouldn't have made much sense if they had said... "No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen person of the United States"   Exactly! If "person" was synonymous with citizen, there would be NO qualifier at all.  It would never even have been mentioned.  It would simply say, "No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, "  - if "person" meant the same as "citizen" there would never have been a mention of citizenship being an ADDITIONAL qualifier, just as a certain age is, and just as residing in the state is.  Not only do you have to be a "person" - but in addition, you ALSO have to be a certain age, live in a certain location, AND be a citizen. I really don't see how it can be any clearer. Food for thought: U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) . . . While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. . . . and... U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. EX REL. TURNER v. WILLIAMS, 194 U.S. 279 (1904) . . . It is, of course, true, that if an alien is not permitted to enter this country, or, having entered contrary to law, is expelled, he is in fact cut off from worshipping or speaking or publishing or petitioning in the country; but that is merely because of his exclusion therefrom. He does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter, forbidden by law. To appeal to the Constitution is to concede that this is a land governed by that supreme law, and as under it the power to exclude has been determined to exist, those who are excluded cannot assert the rights in general obtaining in a land towhich they do not belong as citizens or otherwise. . . . I'm totally in favor of denying some (or all, for that matter) Consitutional protections for people who are in the country illegally.  It sure would make raids, looking for illgeal aliens, much easier.

Too bad the SCOTUS is schizophrenic on this issue.

Although it has implied that "the people" in the Constitiution excludes illegal aliens, it has repeatedly thrown out convictions of illegal aliens who were stopped and searched without warrant and without enough "probable cause".  

The concept of the "anchor baby" is through error on the part of the Court.  I believe it's a major fraud that was foisted upon us by a decision involving a Chinese person born on American soil by foreign parents.  The decision was here.... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark  In light of the discussion and definitons of the authors of the 14th Amendment (posted below) it is flat wrong.

Citizenship Clause

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.

The Citizenship Clause did not originate from John Bingham but was inserted while the bill was under consideration in the Senate by Sen. Jacob Howard. It was intended to establish who is, and who isn't, a citizen of the United States. The clause itself is straightforward and came with ample documentary construction over how "subject to the jurisdiction" was to be construed. Sen. Howard introduced the clause this way:

[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Of course the only other class of persons left that can be considered is US Citizens. Note that Sen. Howard considered it "the law of the land" already, confirming that it was already established national law that it was not enough to simply be born within the US to become a United States citizen. Sen. Howard later confirms just this when he said the Citizenship Clause "ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."

Essentially then, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" was not used in any sense of geographical location -- but in the full sense of allegiance. This is confirmed by Sen. James Kelly a few years later when he said "in order to be a citizen of the United States he must been not only be born within the United States, but born within the allegiance of the United States."

One might wonder to why Sen. Jacob Howard choose to use the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" rather than the language of the civil rights bill of 1866 and 1870 that declared: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"?

Answer: Howard feared that States could eventually impose a tax on Indians thereby making them eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth. Because of the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" required direct allegiance to the United States, Indian's would be disqualified because they owed their allegiance to their respective tribes which in return were considered foreign nations.

It is also important to understand what the text of the clause actually says: subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and not any particular State jurisdiction. This is why laws at the time were written to include both limits and jurisdiction of the United States when speaking of aliens. Take for example U.S. title XXX of 1875, sec 2165 where it states: "Any alien who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States..."

It was never considered that a foreigner within the limits of a State was also automatically under the jurisdiction of the United States at the same time as they were considered still under the jurisdiction of their native country. Only time it could be said the United States had any jurisdiction over a alien is when the alien violates some U.S. law and the United States brings the alien under U.S. jurisdiction through a process of law.

Supreme Court rulings that followed after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment confirms the adopted understanding of the Citizenship Clause beginning with the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1873 where the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. Jumping to 1884, the court in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), held that he phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical location. This is confirmed by the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment and the definition used by the Senate.

Quoted: #7 Illegal immigrants are exploited at the expense of the Illegal alien and the Citizen. #8 Jobs americans dont want to do are jobs that do not pay a sustainable or equitable wage. Therefore ALL jobs are potentially jobs amercians dont want to do. Im not against guest workers either A guest worker program should definatly be considered, AFTER all the illegals are back in their country AND the borders are secure. Guest workers should also be paid the prevailing wages for the job by prospective employers and Will have secured a job BEFORE being admitted.

Take your BS and walk.

Illegal immigrants are no more exploited than any other thief or criminal.

There are no such things as "jobs Americans don't want." That is a lie of the highest order.

Long before there was massive illegal immigration we had no problem getting oranges picked and lawns mowed. I detassled corn when I was a kid for LESS than minimum wage.

That is because the job was AVAILABLE and hadn't been given to an illegal.

Quoted: #7  Stock up on ammo.

tag-r-riffic

BTT, for one of the best quotes on this subject:

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

--Theodore Roosevelt, 1919


These words are as true today as they were when originally spoken.


. . . send this quote to those who think there is "nothing wrong" with carring any other country's  flag as they protest immigration reform . . .

. . . send this quote to those US TV reporters/politicians/public figures who insist on pronouncing their names in a language other than English . . .

. . . send this quote to those bleeding-heart apologists who call the Minute Men vigilantes; and while you are at it, send it to Bush and tell him the Minute Men volunteers have done more for this country in the last few years, then his own daughters have done their entire lives . . .  If he disagrees with you, ask him why his daughters have not served in the military like he and his father (has the tradition ended with "W") . . . The fact is, love him or hate him, Bush is not doing all he can on this issue . . .

. . .  send this quote to whomever needs to be brought back into reality . . . you know, academics, activists, apologists, those who cannot accept the truth . . .

#2 and #3 are dead wrong.  

Quoted: Precisely - when the Consitution means citizen, it says citizen. As a legal immigrant, I believe I am protected by the Bill of Rights, and don't have to worry about unreasonable search and seizure, or being imprisoned without the right to a trial, or troops being quartered in my house, or my private property being seized without compensation. Unfortunately, the BOR doesn't distinguish between LEGAL "people" and illegal "people" - but I guess that's why accused murders still have the right to due process and a trial by jury.

+1 to the above.

I put this in another thread.  The message is the same.  The Bill of Rights uses the word "people" and believe me, if the Framers intended to use the word "citizen", they would have.

--
The Bill of Rights, at the very least, speaks in terms of the rights inuring to the people, not the citizenry. It was intended to apply to non-citizens, and the Framers knew it.

Compare and contrast the use of the words "people" and "citizen":

US Const., Amendment II: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Art I, Section 21, Pennsylvania state constitution: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

There is no question that the Framers chose their words carefully, to be embodied in the highest law of the land (federal and state). The use of the word "people" in the Second Amendment is no mistake, nor is the use of the word "citizen" in Pennsylvania's constitution. The Framers meant "people", not "citizen", to be used in the Second Amendment ... otherwise they would have used "citizen", as Pennsylvania did.

We tout the words of the Second Amendment (and the remainder of the Bill of Rights, which embody the very concept of "civil rights" in this Nation) very much on this board. I wonder how many truly stand behind the right to arms as enumerated in our Constitution, given this context?

Or do we only tout the Second Amendment when we agree with what it says?

I suspect this thread will reveal who is truly supportive of the Second Amendment, as our founding fathers wrote it ... and those who merely pay it lip service because of convenience.
--

We say this to the Brady Bunch all the time:  if you don't like the way the Second Amendment was written, there is a mechanism to amend it (by ratification of the amendment by 2/3 of the States in the Union).  

The same message goes to those who believe the Bill of Rights applies only to "citizens".  It does not.  If you don't like it, amend it by a 2/3 ratification vote of the States.  

Otherwise, you are in the same boat as the Brady Bunch ... trying to amend the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) through subversive techniques instead of going through proper channels.

Quoted: Quoted: #7 Illegal immigrants are exploited at the expense of the Illegal alien and the Citizen. #8 Jobs americans dont want to do are jobs that do not pay a sustainable or equitable wage. Therefore ALL jobs are potentially jobs amercians dont want to do. Im not against guest workers either A guest worker program should definatly be considered, AFTER all the illegals are back in their country AND the borders are secure. Guest workers should also be paid the prevailing wages for the job by prospective employers and Will have secured a job BEFORE being admitted. Take your BS and walk. Illegal immigrants are no more exploited than any other thief or criminal. There are no such things as "jobs Americans don't want." That is a lie of the highest order. Long before there was massive illegal immigration we had no problem getting oranges picked and lawns mowed. I detassled corn when I was a kid for LESS than minimum wage. That is because the job was AVAILABLE and hadn't been given to an illegal.

I couldn't agree with Steyr more.  I am sick of the talk of jobs Americans won't do.

We all started our working lives somewhere, and I damn well guarantee you it was at the bottom of the barrel pickings - no 18-year old CEO's out there.  People like me expect our kids to begin with menial labor.

Menial labor promotes many qualities:  integrity, dedication, ethics, and sweat of the brow while building muscles for a few examples.  It is at this critical time we decide if we want to succeed by building on these precepts or if we wish to continue being the laborer.  

And any 16-year old is happy to mow lawns for 5 bucks a pop - but so are the illegals.  It is simply easier to hire a company for more money that employs the illegals with "under the table" cash payments for their labor.  

I can "buy" laborers at $25 a day at the local Home Depot.  Instead, I pay people $15 an hour to dig ditches, clean up job sites, and generally perform the myriad little tasks I and my skilled employees haven't the time for (or would rather pay others for).  If they are good workers, I teach them the trade so they can better themselves.  If they are not motivated, they sweep a few floors and are then replaced.

And I have an ABUNDANCE of legal employees to choose from that are willing to bust their ass in AZ's 120-degree heat digging ditches to make a better life for themselves.  Do they enjoy the work?  No.  But they realize they get to start at the bottom, just as I did.  Where they go from there is their problem and is solely up to their desire.

The whole "jobs Americans won't do" is a liberal fallacy some spologist made up and popularized through venues such as Al Sharpton.  There is NO merit to it whatsoever, regardless of what claims the illegals make to justify their crime.

tag for later reading.

BTT for the apologists to provide some kind, any kind, of proof that #2 & #3 are wrong.  This country works on the rule of law, so please provide us with a case, statute, executive order, appelate decision, etc. (i.e. a rule)supporting your assertion that these two facts are not true.

. . . because you apologists have heard the pro-illegal crowd claiming (over and over again) that illegals have rights, you now actually believe it.  Are any of you apologists attorneys?  I mean actual attorneys, not shit-house lawyers . . .

Quoted: BTT for the apologists to provide some kind, any kind, of proof that #2 & #3 are wrong.  This country works on the rule of law, so please provide us with a case, statute, executive order, appelate decision, etc. (i.e. a rule)supporting your assertion that these two facts are not true. . . . because you apologists have heard the pro-illegal crowd claiming (over and over again) that illegals have rights, you now actually believe it.  Are any of you apologists attorneys?  I mean actual attorneys, not shit-house lawyers . . .

Sigh.

It shouldn't take a Supreme Court case to convince you that "people" does not equal "citizen".   Regardless of what you may think, the Founding Fathers were very intelligent, highly literate people.  They didn't write the Constitution on the back of a napkin, you know.

Next time, do your own research.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211-212 (1982)

Again, it shouldn't take a Supreme Court opinion to state the obvious.  If you believe in the Second Amendment, you believe the right to arms inures to the "people" (which is what the 2A says).  

Otherwise, turn in your NRA card as you don't support the Second Amendment, as the Framers wrote it.

You do yourself no favor by trumpeting clearly erroneous material as "facts" and name-calling (labeling).

I'm against illegal immigrants as much as you.  But you undermine the entire platform when you pass off your uninformed opinion as fact.

Quoted: #7  Stock up on ammo. img421.imageshack.us/img421/5129/3104490eq.jpg

Ok, I counted roughly 665 mags in that pic

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211-212 (1982)

Nice try, but the Plyler decision was a very narrow one, and dealt with educating illegals as it applied under the 14th Amendment:

Plyler v. Doe
457 U.S. 202 (1982)
Docket Number: 80-1538
Abstract

Argued:
December 1, 1981

Decided:
June 15, 1982

Subjects: Civil Rights: Residency Requirements, Access to Public Education

Facts of the Case
A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens. This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child.

Question Presented
Did the law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion
Yes. The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.

Quoted: Quoted: #7  Stock up on ammo. img421.imageshack.us/img421/5129/3104490eq.jpg Ok, I counted roughly 665 mags in that pic

I estimated it at 1000.  I think they are two deep for about half the pile. no?

Quoted: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211-212 (1982) Nice try, but the Plyler decision was a very narrow one, and dealt with educating illegals as it applied under the 14th Amendment: Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982) Docket Number: 80-1538 Abstract

That's precisely the point.  You do know about the incorporation doctrine, don't you?

1.  You said "the US Constitution applies only to US Citizens." The case cited shows you are wrong.  The Fourteenth Amendment is part of the US Constitution and the case says it applies to illegals.

2.  You said "If you are not in this country legally, you HAVE NO Constitutional rights."  The case cited shows you are wrong (again).  Through the incorporation doctrine, the Fourteenth Amendment has been held to apply the provisions of almost all of the Bill of Rights to the States.  As an example, this means the First Amendment to the federal Constitution applies to restrict the power of state governments, in addition to the federal government.  

In fact, if you had bothered to read the text of the Plyler decision (instead of citing to the headnotes, which are NOT part of the decision -- some drone at Lexis or Westlaw composed that summary by him/herself, and as such they have no force of law), you would have seen that the opinion goes into detail about some of the Bill of Rights that are incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment:

"In concluding that "all persons within the territory of the United States," including aliens unlawfully present, may invoke the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to challenge actions of the Federal Government, we reasoned from the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to afford its protection to all within the boundaries of a State. Wong Wing, supra, at 238. n11 Our cases applying the Equal Protection Clause reflect the same territorial theme ... "

As such, illegals have many constitutional rights.

I repeat:  you are doing the fight against illegal immigration no favors by citing erroneous facts and name-calling.  Do your homework, otherwise you lose all credibility.

Quoted: BTT for the apologists to provide some kind, any kind, of proof that #2 & #3 are wrong.  This country works on the rule of law, so please provide us with a case, statute, executive order, appelate decision, etc. (i.e. a rule)supporting your assertion that these two facts are not true. . . . because you apologists have heard the pro-illegal crowd claiming (over and over again) that illegals have rights, you now actually believe it.  Are any of you apologists attorneys?  I mean actual attorneys, not shit-house lawyers . . .

 So I guess your problem is one of two things:

(1) You cannot actually READ the English language, or have never actually bothered to read the Consitution clearly.

(2) Or, you do understand the Consitution, but you think EXACTLY like a liberal, and you are desperately trying to pretend that the Constitution says what you WANT it to say, instead of what it ACTUALLY says.

Seriously - what you are doing is NO different from some whiny anti-gun liberal claiming that the 2nd Amendement is about the National Guard, and sticking their head in the sand whenever someone points out the specific langauge of the 2nd Amendement.


But I guess that anyone who disagrees with you - by pointing out where you are factually incorrect - are just liberal apologists, right?    





I guarantee you that every person in this thread who is correcting your error about what the Constitution says, is a person who fucking HATES illegal immigrants, and would be perfectly happy rounding them up by the busload and shooting them back into Mexico using a giant cannon!  

Quoted: Quoted: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211-212 (1982) Nice try, but the Plyler decision was a very narrow one, and dealt with educating illegals as it applied under the 14th Amendment: That's precisely the point.  You do know about the incorporation doctrine, don't you? 1.  . . .  The Fourteenth Amendment is part of the US Constitution and the case  says children of illegals can be educated 2.  . . . The case cited shows . . . Through the incorporation doctrine, the Fourteenth Amendment as it relates to educating children of illegals has been held to apply . . . .

Now don't go getting emotional on me . . .

I acknowledged that the case says what you say it does.  My point was that Plyler was a LIMITED and NARROW ruling, and decided--at the time--based on partisan politics.  Plyler does not bestow search and seizure protections (4th Amendment), firearm priveleges (2nd Amendment), or even freedom of speech or assembly (1st Amendment) on illegal aliens.

You have sucessfully diverted attention away from the two examples in #2, the alleged "right to a better life" [there is no such thing], and the alleged "right to the American dream" [again, no such thing] . . . and it is because you have diverted attention from the two most prominent themes in the pro-illegal movement, you just may be . . . . an apologist.  So, if this qualifies as name calling, then I am guilty as charged.

I do note however, that prior to this post, I made no mention of anyone specifically . . .

Quoted: Quoted: 2) The US Constitution only applies to US Citizens.  There  is no such thing as a "right to a better life," or a "right to the American dream."  These are not from the Constitution or even case law.  They are propaganda sound bites from the pro-illegal alien crowd. 3) If you are not in this country legally, you HAVE NO Constitutional rights. The US Constitution protects US Citizens--not people here illegally. This one must be repeated over and over again . . . Those are a bit difficult to present as a "fact" - as much as I personally agree that people who are here illegally should perhaps NOT be protected. The Constitution is a legal document, and the language is very specific.  When it means "people" it says "people" and when it means "citizens" it says "citizens."  A reading of the constitution, and the bill of rights specifically, suggests that most constitutional protections DO in fact apply to immigrants, tourists, etc. - NOT just U.S. citizens. Just being a little technical, but I think it is important if you are going to present that statement as absolute fact, which a lot of people woudl argue it is not.

+1, the Constitution's wording is very specific.  See US v. Verdugo-Urquidez for more on the Constitutional rights of non-citizens.

Kharn

Quoted: #7  Stock up on ammo.

holy shit!!! did you guys notice that stack is TWO DEEP!!!

i'm not impressed easily but THAT is awesome!!!

Quoted: You have sucessfully diverted attention away from the two examples in #2, the alleged "right to a better life" [there is no such thing], and the alleged "right to the American dream" [again, no such thing] . . . and it is because you have diverted attention from the two most prominent themes in the pro-illegal movement, you just may be . . . . an apologist.  So, if this qualifies as name calling, then I am guilty as charged.

Nobody is trying to "divert attention" from anything, and if you think the people arguing with you are "apologists" for ilelgal immigrants, then you are a complete fucking moron.

Everyone here probably AGREES with you that this "right to a better life" and "American Dream" stuff is just stupid nonsense, and obviously isn't a Constitutional issue.  What people are arguing with you about it your incorrect claim that non-citizens living in the U.S. are not protected by the Bill of Rights.  


That is factually incorrect.  Everyone agrees with you that illegal immigrants don't have the "right" to a better life, or the American Dream or anything like that.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The taxes in Houston are a drop in the bucket compared to how much illegals are paying into social security that they'll never get to draw out.   If we got rid of them all the system would crash....   atleast Bush's is trying to address the problem with out collapsing the system.... Really??? And the source of your information is.... what? Actually, quite the contrary, most illegals work off the books, no SS paid! Well lets just say that I work construction....  Between me and my two business partners we've been to plenty of BIG construction jobs....  I'm one of the few 'white' guys there and I speak Spanish...  one of my partners is a former ileagal who fell in love with, married, and found out five years after getting married that his wife had legal status and hence he got real papers.... While you may think most illegals work under the table you'd be wrong from my experience....  they seem to have no trouble producing papers and paying their taxes....   problem is they aren't the same guy who they got papers for and never file a return, and never collect the social security. Its not uncommon to have a big job going and have the payroll guys get confused cause you got to separate Juan Gonzalez's with the same SSN....  both of them usually get fired. So I can't pull any web-fu and start posting links... I just know what I've seen.

Ahh those words in red.

They have no problem stealing other folks identities. Thats what that is when they have real papers in another name.

And things are fine untill they wreck a car and have no insurance. Then they get sued and have a judgement aginst the "papers with a name".

Or they run up a shit ton of credit cards, phone and electric service, buy a house, and then default on it.

Yeah they have no problem ruining the credit of children, they get a lot of those papers with different names from schools.

You think it's so damn wonderful that they pay taxes untill they ruin your 10 year olds credit.

And they take out far far more than they pay in. When Juan and Bonita,  ant there 5 kids are renting a tiny ass apartment they aren't paying city tax, yet they send there five kids to school.

Oh and they don't have health insurance so the kids get medicade.

And if Juan or Bonita get sick they go to the ER and get treated there, but don't pay there fucking bill. Then that cost gets passed on to the paying health care consumer.

Then Mariano there cousin comes in to live with them, and he his running hash across the border. He gets busted and spends 30 years in prison. In California over 50% of the prisoners in the penal system are illegal aliens.

The majority of Illegal day workers DO NOT PAY taxes. A pal used to run a "day worker" shop w/another pal.The taxes the illegals thought they were paying went in the companies pocket.period. Its out of business now. Yeah....it was wrong. But so's the whole system, it's all about $$$$$$ to misapproprieate.

Quoted: #7  Stock up on ammo. img421.imageshack.us/img421/5129/3104490eq.jpg

I count 516 or so mags (rear row is 13 high, front row is 8.5 high, count 24 mags wide). That's over 15,000 rounds, or a LOT of zombies!

. . . then you are a complete fucking moron.

. . . being called a complete fucking moron by DK-Prof is like being called ugly by a frog . . .



So long, and good night

There is something being overlooked on this immigration issue. It is said in the media spin machine of the republican party that Hispanics will do the jobs that whites won't. THere might be some truth if by "whites" they mean 'whites over 30 yrs old. What about college kids? My parents both worked to make ends meet. I did get a couple of grants, but I had to work. The jobs I could get were limited to basically menial labor. I needed a job to get through college. There were times when I considered dropping out of college due to finances.

I truly believe that if amnesty is granted, the middle class will lose their ability to attend college. This will raise the upper class because those kids that don't need college jobs will graduate with degrees, and with the middle class kids being forced to drop out, there will be a shortage in degreed applicants, thus forcing higher pay for these positions. THe rich will get richer, and the gap between the classes will widen. Crime rates will rise dramatically, causing the government to impose even tighter societal controls, like total gun control.. Micor chip implantation will become an even more attractive course. Without guns in the hands of the populace, and micorchips monitoring personal finance, the "mark of the beast" prophecy could easily come to fruition.

Just a thought.

Quoted: Exactly! If "person" was synonymous with citizen, there would be NO qualifier at all.

I disagree.
A person can be a citizen and a citizen can be a person.
Depending on the topic at hand, one might need to use more specific language in order to delineate a "citizen" from a "person" whereas other times, the word "person" is sufficient to convey "citizen" when it's prefixed by things like "people of the United States".

Here is an example...

“Persons of the United States are afforded a very open degree of free speech. While it is a guaranteed right, people who abuse free speech by shouting fire in a crowded theater are subject to penalties.”

From reading that sentence, would you assume that I meant to imply that US Citizens are exempt from penalties should they shout fire in a crowded theater since I didn’t specifically say “citizens”?
Of course not…Quarreling the minutiae of word definitions while ignoring their governing context is a classic liberal debate tactic.

Anyway, your position holds that anyone who enters the United States illegally is a “person of the United States” and as such, afforded all protections, rights and benefits provided thereto.

Do you believe that illegal aliens should be allowed to purchase firearms?
Do you believe that illegal aliens should receive services that come from the collective taxation from the citizenry, such as schooling for children, etc?

Quoted: . . . then you are a complete fucking moron. . . . being called a complete fucking moron by DK-Prof is like being called ugly by a frog . . . So long, and good night

Wow - a snappy comeback worthy of your liberal style of thinking.  Color me unsurprised.

Quoted: Quoted: Exactly! If "person" was synonymous with citizen, there would be NO qualifier at all. I disagree. A person can be a citizen and a citizen can be a person. Depending on the topic at hand, one might need to use more specific language in order to delineate a "citizen" from a "person" whereas other times, the word "person" is sufficient to convey "citizen" when it's prefixed by things like "people of the United States". Here is an example... “Persons of the United States are afforded a very open degree of free speech. While it is a guaranteed right, people who abuse free speech by shouting fire in a crowded theater are subject to penalties.” From reading that sentence, would you assume that I meant to imply that US Citizens are exempt from penalties should they shout fire in a crowded theater since I didn’t specifically say “citizens”? Of course not…Quarreling the minutiae of word definitions while ignoring their governing context is a classic liberal debate tactic. Anyway, your position holds that anyone who enters the United States illegally is a “person of the United States” and as such, afforded all protections, rights and benefits provided thereto. Do you believe that illegal aliens should be allowed to purchase firearms? Do you believe that illegal aliens should receive services that come from the collective taxation from the citizenry, such as schooling for children, etc?

I don't mean to sound dismissive towards your opinion, so please don't take my response that way - but I really don't understand your point.

The language of the constitution is very clear.

The term "person" is a general term that describes human beings in general, specifically those resident within the United States when described as "people of the United States"

The term "citizen" is a more specific term, that is used to describe a subset of the general set of "people" - just as being of a particular age and state of residence is a subset of the general set that makes up "people"

That part is VERY clear.  All citizens are people, but not all people are citizens.  That is Logic 101, and is very unambiguous in the Consitution.


The part that IS ambiguous, is whether "people of the United States" refers to the inclusive set of ALL people in the United States (which would unfortunately include illegal immigrants), or refers more specifically to the set of legal, legimitate residents of the United States, which would reasonbly be expected to include all citizens, legal immigrants, and legal tourists/visitors.

The answer to THAT more specific question seems to be less clear, and while I would LOVE to believe that the Constitution specifically excludes illegal immigrants, I am not sufficiently versed in Constitutional Law to be able to conclude it one way or the other.  Other links provided in this thread seems to suggests that higher court interpretations can go either way, with some precedent being in place for include illegal immigrants, while others excluse them.

Well, if you don't get it, I must not be doing a good job explaining it.
Let's try it again.

The entire Constitution is prefixed with a preamble.
Everything contained therein is caveated by the words used by said preamble and those words have meaning.
The purpose of the Constitution, as laid out by the very first words used in the preamble to the document, is to do such good things as establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty FOR OURSELVES- ourselves being the "people" of the United States.

So when they use the word "people", one must bear in mind that the preamble clearly establishes "people" as being "people of the United States" (Unless, of course, you think the framers just tossed that whole "people of the United States" thing in there for dramatic effect and it really has no meaning)

Where you and I seem to diverge is that you believe that "the people of the United States" doesn't constitute sufficiently succinct verbiage that might suggest it's meaning as being a "citizen" (In spite of the fact that one would be hard pressed to define the word "citizen" without using the words "person of" and a nation of origin, much like the founders did in the preamble).

I do believe that “people of the United States” means “Citizen” and that any use of the word “people” or “person” in the Constitution must be measured against the preamble which establishes “people” to mean “people of the United States”.

I believe that when someone says "a person of the United States", it's pretty universally accepted that they are speaking about a citizen, and not foreign nationals who happen to be in the United States at any given time.
If I take a trip to Denmark, am I then a bona-fide “Person Of Denmark” just because I so happen to be there?

Would the German Spies who entered the US illegally via U Boats during World War be a “person of the United States” and as such, subject to all protections afforded by the constitution just because they happen to be a “person” and “in the United States”?

That anyone who sneaks in to the country and doesn't get caught is a "Person of the United States?"

That’s the logic of your position, and it’s flawed. The founders knew what they were talking about when they preambled the document with "People Of The United States" and used words like "for ourselves".

Furthermore, I believe Denmark should be excommunicated from Scandinavia and sold to Germany in exchange for cars, beer and engineers

The term "person" is a general term that describes human beings in general, specifically those resident within the United States when described as "people of the United States"

The term "citizen" is a more specific term, that is used to describe a subset of the general set of "people" - just as being of a particular age and state of residence is a subset of the general set that makes up "people"


Word games. Any reasonable person would know that the founders never meant people that have illegally entered the US is somehow automatically entitled to the benefits of citizens. Keep playing the legal word games because I for one am not impressed. This is like 60 ways to twist the meaning of the word "is'.
 

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211-212 (1982) Nice try, but the Plyler decision was a very narrow one, and dealt with educating illegals as it applied under the 14th Amendment: That's precisely the point.  You do know about the incorporation doctrine, don't you? 1.  . . .  The Fourteenth Amendment is part of the US Constitution and the case  says children of illegals can be educated 2.  . . . The case cited shows . . . Through the incorporation doctrine, the Fourteenth Amendment as it relates to educating children of illegals has been held to apply . . . . Now don't go getting emotional on me . . . I acknowledged that the case says what you say it does.  My point was that Plyler was a LIMITED and NARROW ruling, and decided--at the time--based on partisan politics.  Plyler does not bestow search and seizure protections (4th Amendment), firearm priveleges (2nd Amendment), or even freedom of speech or assembly (1st Amendment) on illegal aliens. You have sucessfully diverted attention away from the two examples in #2, the alleged "right to a better life" [there is no such thing], and the alleged "right to the American dream" [again, no such thing] . . . and it is because you have diverted attention from the two most prominent themes in the pro-illegal movement, you just may be . . . . an apologist.  So, if this qualifies as name calling, then I am guilty as charged. I do note however, that prior to this post, I made no mention of anyone specifically . . .

No one's getting emotional here.  You're the one calling people "apologists", when all they are doing is reading the Constitution by its plain text.  

Again, you are incorrect about Plyler not applying the right to free speech, etc. against illegal immigrants.  The US Supreme Court writes its opinions for the legal audience.  Those people learned in law school (first year Constitutional Law) that the incorporation doctrine incorporates almost all the Bill of Rights to the States.  The USSC is not going to repeat material that a 1L (first year law student) should already know, otherwise each opinion would be 100+ pages long and repeat basic principles of legal construction.  

The First Amendment, among others of the Bill of Rights, has been expressly incorporated via the Fourth Amendment against the states in another opinion of the USSC.   As such, you are incorrect that the right to free speech is not a protected right of illegal immigrants.

Here is a short list of SOME of the rights that have been incorporated against the states due to the incorporation doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of the Press
Assistance of Counsel
Freedom of Assembly
Free Exercise of Religion
Establishment of Religion
Public Trial
Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure
Freedom of Association
Exclusionary Rule - (see 4th Amendment)
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Assistance of Counsel
Right Against Self-Incrimination
Right to Confront Adverse Witnesses
Miranda Warning
Right to Speedy Trial
Right to Compulsory Process to Obtain Witness Testimony
Trial by Jury

... and there are several more which I'm sure I've forgotten.  Each one of the above represents one or more USSC cases affirming that those rights are incorporated against the states via the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  If you read the Plyler decision, the application of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was a key issue being decided.  The court decided that illegals were covered, meaning they have all the above rights (and more).

As a RKBA advocate, I am sad to say that the Second Amendment has not been incorporated by the USSC.  This is a sad state of affairs, but if you are a student of Second Amendment jurisprudence you know that the 2A has been given short shrift by the USSC.  In any event, the various state constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right to arms (exclusive of those who limit it to "citizens", as Pennsylvania does) make this a moot point.  

And I'm not diverting anything.  I'm just going by your plain words.  Did you or did you not say:

2) The US Constitution only applies to US Citizens. 3) If you are not in this country legally, you HAVE NO Constitutional rights.

By the plain text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, both your statements are wrong.  I say again, it should not take a ruling of the highest court in our land to tell you the difference between the words "people" and "citizen".  

Then again, should we be surprised that the USSC has to issue an opinion to clarify something which is evident to any person versed in basic English?  The anti-gunners are a perfect example of why we shouldn't be surprised.  How many times have we heard them say that the word "people" in the 2A means the "people" as a collective and not on an individual basis.  The USSC has said several times (most recently in Planned Parenthood v. Casey) that it's an individual right and they still won't listen.

Your statements are similar in that you can't get past the meaningful distinction that the Framers of the Constitution intended to say "people" instead of 'citizen".  It should be obvious from a plain reading of the BoR but apparently the USSC has to set people straight.  The Framers were not idiots.  They were highly educated individuals and every word in our Constitution was written very carefully.  Don't disparage them by pretending that they didn't know what they were doing.  

Your statement that Plyler is limited and narrow is incorrect.  As mentioned above, any 1L knows that the incorporation doctrine applies to the gamut of rights secured under the Bill of Rights, with the possibility of exclusion of the 2A.  As such, there is no "limited" nature at all.  Look at the above list ... that long list is nowhere near "limited and narrow".  The breadth of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporation doctrine (incorporating almost every right in the Bill of Rights) makes the Plyler decision the exact opposite  of "limited and narrow".

And nobody is deflecting.  I was just using YOUR words.  But let's discuss.  Is there a right to a "better life"?  What about the right to the "American dream"?  Those are NOT specifically enumerated rights in our Constitution, so NO, they are not "rights".  But those statements apply equally to illegal aliens and US citizens.  As such, they are irrelevant to this discussion because a US citizen has no right to a "better life" or the "American dream", as enumerated by the Constitution.

Again, you should be more careful in spouting "facts" which are incorrect.  If you are an illegal alien, you are protected by the Constitution and you have many rights thereunder.  

You can ignore the plain text of the Constitution if you want, or call them "word games".  Just think about it next time an anti tells you that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the "people" as individuals, but to the collective as a whole.

God help us.

OK, so illegals enjoy all the rights that citizens do, minus the right to vote (although many vote anyway in states that only ask for driver's licenses, so soon that distinction will be moot too), AND thanks to the 14th amendment are owed all the perks and benefits "for the general welfare" citizens are to receive without having to pay any taxes.

If this is the case, what's the point of citizenship?

As mentioned before, by being here illegally they have 'no papers' - which virtually guarantees that they must commit fraud and ID theft to get jobs. It's a kind of catch 22.... either they work for cash (in which case they pay no taxes while enjoying all the benefits from government subsidies and programs) OR they steal SS numbers and IDs to get jobs 'on paper' and pay taxes but ruin someone else's (i.e. some American citizen or LEGAL immigrants') ID and credit.

Either way illegals either don't pay their fair share or they do while committing fraud and ID theft.... which is a felony is it not?

And voting while not a citizen...isn't that at least a misdemeanor case of fraud?