Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/2/2006 7:03:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2006 4:24:57 AM EDT by FaceTime]
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. [Too often--especially in large metropolitan areas--the apologists and pro-illegal alien crowd try to turn the debate into a racial issue.]

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.
[There are some apologists who doubt this. OK Mr. apologist, give us some case law or any other jurisprudence that enumerates a "right to a better life," or a "right to the American dream" for illegal aliens . . . ]

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 . . . [There are some apologists who are trying to put a religious spin on this one. Of course you can't just kill an illegal, of course you can't torture an illegal, these were extreme and poor examples for the apologists to use. My retort is to point out the obvious: illegals have no right to free speech or assembly (1st Amend), no right to keep and bear arms (2nd Amend), no search and seizure rights (4th Amend), and the list goes on. Look, I fully undrestand that for some of you apologists, the truth hurts . . . but always remember, you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free . . .]

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. [Many realists have pointed out--correctly--that my example is but a drop in the bucket. They are correct, the drain on the tax base by illegals is staggering. Most citizens would be outraged if they new just how profound and pervasive this drain is.]

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.



Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:07:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FaceTime:
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.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:07:34 PM EDT
#7 Stock up on ammo.

Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:13:33 PM EDT
Damn good thread!!
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:16:07 PM EDT
#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.

Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:16:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By realwar:
#7 Stock up on ammo.

img421.imageshack.us/img421/5129/3104490eq.jpg




wtf?
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:19:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:

Originally Posted By realwar:
#7 Stock up on ammo.

img421.imageshack.us/img421/5129/3104490eq.jpg




wtf?



Thats what I thought. How long does it take you to lopad all those?

Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:20:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By realwar:
#7 Stock up on ammo.

img421.imageshack.us/img421/5129/3104490eq.jpg



Dude, stock up with a spare barrel next.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:20:44 PM EDT

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.



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....
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:23:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mytwocents:
#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.




I'm going to take a WAG(Wild Ass Guess), but what local do you belong to?
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:30:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Top_prop:

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?

Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:33:02 PM EDT
Not in a Union.
Watched a Union movement go down in flames. Company was 60% illegal. Owner told illegals if they supported the union he would close shop and have them all arrested.

American citizens working at this company never got raises, when asking why the foreman always nodded across the shop to point out that those guys ( the illegals) made a third less. And you better stfu or one of em was going to replace you.

Yep the Union supports amnesty. I dont. They need to go. However I dont think we should go after the Ileegals. We should go after the employers. Like use RICO and toss those fuckers in prison.
If there are no jobs they will leave. The minutemen know this now. Thats where im throwing my support.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:34:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 7:36:40 PM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By FaceTime:
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.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:36:35 PM EDT
When the 14th Amendment was written and passed, the drafters and Congress said kids born to illegals or noncitizens would not become citizens by being born here. Only kids of parents legally here could be citizens. Omitted diplomat kids too and they are not given citizenship. The whole thing with kids of illegals is a lie
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:37:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FaceTime:
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.

I don't recall anyplace in the constitution where it declares this.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:37:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 357mag:

Originally Posted By Top_prop:

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!
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:40:03 PM EDT
I agree that Illegal is Illegal, but there is one thing to keep in mind when using the Constitution as a basis for an agrument.

For example, the Fourteenth Amendment, after addressing the concept of citizenship, 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."

So does this apply to Illegal immigrants as well? As it is worded it seem to.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:40:17 PM EDT
#9: Don't fool yourself. "Migrant" "Undocumented worker" and "Guest" are all PC terms to cover up the real term- "illegal immigrant."

#10: Illegal immigrants are not just above immigration law. Often times they are above criminal law as well. If a cop busts an illegal, they have to deport them. Often times it costs the department far more to deport them that is feasable, so the illegal is just let go to save money.

#11: There are far more than the 7 million illegals that congress is talking about. Some estimates go as high as 30-40 million. Since they are illegal they are not counted, do an accurate number is hard to tell, but most current sources place the number between 20 and 30 million.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:46:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Flyskate:

Originally Posted By 357mag:

Originally Posted By Top_prop:

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.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:48:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By neophyte:
I agree that Illegal is Illegal, but there is one thing to keep in mind when using the Constitution as a basis for an agrument.

For example, the Fourteenth Amendment, after addressing the concept of citizenship, 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."

So does this apply to Illegal immigrants as well? As it is worded it seem to.




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.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:50:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 7:51:05 PM EDT by HarrySacz]

Originally Posted By realwar:
#7 Stock up on ammo.

img421.imageshack.us/img421/5129/3104490eq.jpg



Now we know where all the pre-ban mags are.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:51:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FaceTime:
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 (Any hospital that is funded in any part by tax dollars) do cannot turn away people based on their ability to pay, or insurance status, like 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.



Corrected it for you. Not that the sentiment was wrong by any means.

Seen the stats on hospital closings in the border states?

COBRA, baby. Gotta love it.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:51:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HarrySacz:

Originally Posted By realwar:
#7 Stock up on ammo.

img421.imageshack.us/img421/5129/3104490eq.jpg



Now we know where all the pre-ban mags are.



I thought I had a lot of mags!
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:55:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By neophyte:
I agree that Illegal is Illegal, but there is one thing to keep in mind when using the Constitution as a basis for an agrument.

For example, the Fourteenth Amendment, after addressing the concept of citizenship, 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."

So does this apply to Illegal immigrants as well? As it is worded it seem to.



Interesting line of thought.
Following the precepts of your logic, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" would include illegal immigrants as well since they're "people" too.
Sneak across the border, walk into a gun shop and buy whatever you want.
Right?

I think there is a presumption in the bill of rights that it applies to the citizenry (native born or naturalized).

Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:00:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 8:02:44 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Although I greatly applaud your effort and intent, some of your "facts" need to be corrected:


Originally Posted By FaceTime:
2) The US Constitution only applies to US Citizens. WRONG! Immigrants and even illegal aliens have the right to counsel, right to speedy trial, right to remain silent, right to be secure from unreasonable search & seizure, right to be protected from cruel & unusual punishment, right to religious freedom, etc.

3) If you are not in this country legally, you HAVE NO Constitutional rights. The US Constitution protects US Citizens--not people here illegally. Still wrong (and recursive)



Dump those two "facts" and you'll be better received.

Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:02:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By neophyte:
I agree that Illegal is Illegal, but there is one thing to keep in mind when using the Constitution as a basis for an agrument.

For example, the Fourteenth Amendment, after addressing the concept of citizenship, 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."

So does this apply to Illegal immigrants as well? As it is worded it seem to.




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.




As much as I hate to I have to throw in the obvious here, something we all know.

While the U.S. Constitution and BOR may have been written in the formation of this country, none of the rights listed are granted by these documents, they are just acknowledged and and marked as "untouchable"

So if we believe these are Inalienable Rights, granted by God, or Natural Rights, it would seem that we believe that all people, all over the world have these same rights.

I hate saying it, I am as guilty as anyone of saying stuff like "The aren't U.S. citizens, so our BOR doesn't apply to them. But in reality, if we truly believe that these are natural rights, then they do apply to them. Maybe not legally, but morally.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:02:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 8:04:46 PM EDT by Yossarian]

Originally Posted By Top_prop:

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.



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....



That is a load man.

What percent actually pay their payroll and social security? Not many. The vast majority of illegal workers are paid under the table/cash transactions.

The costs for paying to educate, house, and pay for medical costs for illegals alone outweight any costs savings realized. Add to that the costs to insurance companies that need to pony up more cash for uninsured illegals involved in accidents. Add to the at the costs that result from disincentives to improve harvesting technology (the illegal work is cheaper than mechanizing harvesters so we loose the innovation, the jobs to engineer and build/manufacture/transport/repair new machines). Add to that all the dollars spent to catch, prosecute, and incarcerate illegals. Add to that the cost of loosing the tax revenue and property values of entire neighborhoods and bussiness districts to illegals.

The benefits of cheap labor cease to be benefits when the costs associated with it are more greater
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:03:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DjangosMissingFinger:

Originally Posted By neophyte:
I agree that Illegal is Illegal, but there is one thing to keep in mind when using the Constitution as a basis for an agrument.

For example, the Fourteenth Amendment, after addressing the concept of citizenship, 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."

So does this apply to Illegal immigrants as well? As it is worded it seem to.



Interesting line of thought.
Following the precepts of your logic, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" would include illegal immigrants as well since they're "people" too.
Sneak across the border, walk into a gun shop and buy whatever you want.
Right?

I think there is a presumption in the bill of rights that it applies to the citizenry (native born or naturalized).




It's a legal document, and is very clear about the definition of "citizen" - when the Consitution used the term "people" instead of citizen, it is deliberate - and not something you can presume away.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:03:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DjangosMissingFinger:

Originally Posted By neophyte:
I agree that Illegal is Illegal, but there is one thing to keep in mind when using the Constitution as a basis for an agrument.

For example, the Fourteenth Amendment, after addressing the concept of citizenship, 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."

So does this apply to Illegal immigrants as well? As it is worded it seem to.



Interesting line of thought.
Following the precepts of your logic, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" would include illegal immigrants as well since they're "people" too.
Sneak across the border, walk into a gun shop and buy whatever you want.
Right?

I think there is a presumption in the bill of rights that it applies to the citizenry (native born or naturalized).




Not necessarily as gun laws are covered under the 10th Amendment. Each state creates its own laws regarding firearms.

I agree with you on the fact that the presumption exists but in Constitutional law will a presumption hold up?
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:07:13 PM EDT
Here is a guy that argues "adverse possession". I don't think it's a good analogy but it attempts to answer why some are claiming "rights". This is what you get when you don't enforce the laws.



Paul Campos
email | bio
March 28, 2006
A striking feature of Anglo-American property law is that one can acquire good title to land by trespassing on it for long enough. In seeking to explain this doctrine of "adverse possession" - which goes back to the 13th century - Oliver Wendell Holmes made an acute point about the relationship between legal rules and human psychology.
"I should suggest," Holmes wrote, "that the foundation of the acquisition of rights by lapse of time is to be looked for in the position of the person who gains them. The connection is further back than the first recorded history. It is in the nature of man's mind. A thing which you have enjoyed and used as your own for a long time, whether property or an opinion, takes root in your being and cannot be torn away without your resenting the act and trying to defend yourself, however you came by it. The law can ask no better justification than the deepest instincts of man."
In downtown Denver this past Saturday I saw 50,000 people illustrate Holmes' point. This immense crowd was only one-tenth as large as that which gathered in Los Angeles to protest a bill that would, among other things, transform anyone in the United States without proper documentation into a felon. Gazing at that sea of brown faces, I got a certain grim amusement from the thought of the panic that these gatherings must produce in the likes of Rep. Tom Tancredo and other demagogues who have been exploiting anxieties about illegal immigration.
After the rally, I spent nearly two hours listening to animated Spanish-language conversations between various participants. Most had come from Mexico, although a few were from Central America. Some had overstayed visas, while others had entered the country illegally. Without exception, all these people worked full-time jobs, and many had more than one. They were construction workers, cooks, landscapers and housekeepers. Several were taking English classes in what spare time they had.
I spoke with a married couple who came to Denver from Mexico City seven years ago. Now in their mid-40s, with two teenage children, Carlos and Maria (not their real names) were middle-class Mexicans who found it increasingly difficult to do more than feed themselves and their children in Mexico's broken economy. Carlos had been an engineer for a large computer company that downsized him when it merged with an American firm. Maria had been trained as a laboratory technician, but until Carlos lost his job she was a housewife.
Desperate for work, they headed north. Carlos now changes tires for a trucking firm, while Maria cleans Cherry Creek's elegant houses. Both pay income and Social Security taxes. They would like their children to go to college in America, but realize this will be difficult if not impossible without some change in their legal status.
There are no simple answers to the dilemma created by our collective willingness to allow Carlos and Maria, and millions of others like them, to build our buildings and cook our food and trim our gardens and raise our children. The longer such people stay in this country, the longer they feel - and with justification - that they belong here.
It is true they have broken the law. But, as Holmes points out, laws that we allow to be broken for long enough cease to have any moral or practical force - especially when we have indulged in such negligence to our advantage.
Indeed, the origins of all legal rights become suspect if one examines them too closely. For example, those in the immigration debate who prattle about the sanctity of the rule of law ought to consider how throughout our history the spoils of war have been transformed almost instantly into "property rights," by immigrant conquerors wishing to give their conquests a more respectable name.


Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. Reach him at paul.campos@colorado.edu.
About Paul Campos
A native of Colorado, Paul Campos practiced law in Chicago before returning to his home state in 1990 to join the law faculty at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He has written extensively on the role of law in American society. His most recent book is The Obesity Myth: Why America's Obsession with Weight is Hazardous to Your Health. Since March of 1999 he has written a weekly column for the Rocky Mountain News.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:08:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 8:10:21 PM EDT by DjangosMissingFinger]

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
WRONG! Immigrants and even illegal aliens have the right to counsel, right to speedy trial, right to remain silent, right to be secure from unreasonable search & seizure, right to be protected from cruel & unusual punishment, etc.




I think we as a society have come to grant those protections to all people, but I don't know if there is an automatic presumption that the Bill of Rights applies to non-Citizens.

When James Madison proposed the thing to Congress, he outlined his thinking in his letter of June 8, 1789 and he was pretty clear that it's basis was one for the benefit of the citizenry


"It appears to me that this house is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first session pass over without proposing to the state legislatures some things to be incorporated into the constitution, as will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them.


People "of the United States".


First. That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration --

That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people.

That government is instituted, and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.



Note, these most basic principles in Madisons decretum are closely tied to it's applicability to "the people of the United States" as opposed to a broader, philosophical theorem where they might apply to everyone.

Anyway, again. I think it's a matter of present-day evolved reality, where we DO offer aliens these protections as a matter of conscience and what we consider to be "fairness", but if you examine the words of the founders and understand the logic that they held when they wrote this stuff, these protections were very much for the benefit of "the citizenry" even though we have elected to modify that.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:11:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

It's a legal document, and is very clear about the definition of "citizen"



No where in the Bill of Rights is "citizen" or “people” codified with any specific definition,
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:14:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 8:17:20 PM EDT by DjangosMissingFinger]

Originally Posted By neophyte:

Not necessarily as gun laws are covered under the 10th Amendment. Each state creates its own laws regarding firearms.





" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "


Er, gun rights are VERY MUCH delegated to the United States as a whole by way of Amendment II.
Right, people, "shall not be infringed" and all that...

If the presumption that the US Bill Of Rights was being drafted for the benefit of all people, it would then hold that any person who set foot on our shores should enjoy the full benefit of the 2nd Amendment without regard to their legal status.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:17:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DjangosMissingFinger:
Interesting line of thought.
Following the precepts of your logic, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" would include illegal immigrants as well since they're "people" too.
Sneak across the border, walk into a gun shop and buy whatever you want.
Right?

I think there is a presumption in the bill of rights that it applies to the citizenry (native born or naturalized).



The Bill Of Rights is based on the belief that rights are God-given, not granted or taken away by any country - which could be argued to mean that they apply to anyone who happens to be inside the United States.

BTW, the idea that illegals don't pay significant amounts of taxes is debatable - They most certainly pay sales taxes on any taxible goods and services purchased in stores, restaurants, motels, etc. Every time they buy gasoline, they pay state and federal taxes. If they have a cell phone, use an internet service provider, pay for rent, electricity, natural gas, water, sewer or other utilities, they pay scads of city/county/regional taxes.

If there is indeed a serious problem with illegals not paying income taxes, here's one easy way of fixing it: Eliminate income tax altogether, and go with a federal sales tax instead.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:18:17 PM EDT
***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.***

The children born to illegals are known as anchor babies and once upon a time in America they were not automatically granted citizenship. Today a pregnant female can slip into the country while in labor, give birth to her child in the backseat of a border patrol vehicle (I feel for the Agent!) and that child becomes a US citizen. As the law is written today, if the parents are illegals and there is no one who can legaly remain in the country to care for the child, then the family must return to their country of origin with native born child in tow. Once the child reaches the age of 18, he/she can then return to the U.S. and petition for their parents lawful entry. But this is enforced about as often as employers of illegals are fined. (something like 4 fines handed out last year?) As I type this I cant remember the year these laws were changed, sometime in the late 60's I think. Immigration laws are the second most complicated laws in America. Can you guess which is first? hint...$$$
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:25:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 8:27:03 PM EDT by DjangosMissingFinger]

Originally Posted By Skibane:

The Bill Of Rights is based on the belief that rights are God-given, not granted or taken away by any country - which could be argued to mean that they apply to anyone who happens to be inside the United States.



Actually, the preamble to the Bill Of Rights talks about extending public confidence in Government and a desire to further elaborate on the Constitution which came about earlier, but the framers felt wasn't "enough".....


THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:


So, the Bill Of Rights is very much predicated on the Constitution.
We cannot ignore that.
So, what does the Constitution say?
Well, the preamble to the Constitution:


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:28:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:

Originally Posted By realwar:
#7 Stock up on ammo.



wtf?



Now how many magazines did you buy a while back? People like you and realwar need to be used as a yardstick in answering "How many magazines do I need?".

Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:34:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:

Originally Posted By realwar:
#7 Stock up on ammo.

img421.imageshack.us/img421/5129/3104490eq.jpg


wtf?



Now how many magazines did you buy a while back? People like you and realwar need to be used as a yardstick in answering "How many magazines do I need?".





I estimated that at a little over 700 mags with 21,000 rounds of ammo. It looks 3 deep on the bottom part of the stack to 2/3 the way up.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:36:13 PM EDT
To all applied in this thread:

If you have the right to vote, you have the right to all said legal predilection.

Only a citizen has this.

Those of you with green cards that think you have this right can go fuck yourselves.

Yo are not citizens.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:36:45 PM EDT
#7 They are not immigrants, they're colonists.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:37:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DjangosMissingFinger:

So, the Bill Of Rights is very much predicated on the Constitution.
We cannot ignore that.
So, what does the Constitution say?
Well, the preamble to the Constitution:


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.





Not sure what you mean by saying the BOR is "predicated" on the Consitution. It is a part of the Constitution, and thus consistent with the language and definitions.

The Consitution is very specific when it talks about "citizen" - look at Sections 2 and 3 of Article I for example. It definies how a "person" cannot become a Senator or Representative unless they have been a "citizen" for a certain amount of time.

If "person" meant the same as "citizen" in the constitution, there would have been no reason to make that specific distinction in Article I.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:38:26 PM EDT
Here's a guy that's arguing "adverse possession". It's what you get when you don't enforce the law OR your RIGHTS.



Paul Campos
email | bio
March 28, 2006
A striking feature of Anglo-American property law is that one can acquire good title to land by trespassing on it for long enough. In seeking to explain this doctrine of "adverse possession" - which goes back to the 13th century - Oliver Wendell Holmes made an acute point about the relationship between legal rules and human psychology.
"I should suggest," Holmes wrote, "that the foundation of the acquisition of rights by lapse of time is to be looked for in the position of the person who gains them. The connection is further back than the first recorded history. It is in the nature of man's mind. A thing which you have enjoyed and used as your own for a long time, whether property or an opinion, takes root in your being and cannot be torn away without your resenting the act and trying to defend yourself, however you came by it. The law can ask no better justification than the deepest instincts of man."
In downtown Denver this past Saturday I saw 50,000 people illustrate Holmes' point. This immense crowd was only one-tenth as large as that which gathered in Los Angeles to protest a bill that would, among other things, transform anyone in the United States without proper documentation into a felon. Gazing at that sea of brown faces, I got a certain grim amusement from the thought of the panic that these gatherings must produce in the likes of Rep. Tom Tancredo and other demagogues who have been exploiting anxieties about illegal immigration.
After the rally, I spent nearly two hours listening to animated Spanish-language conversations between various participants. Most had come from Mexico, although a few were from Central America. Some had overstayed visas, while others had entered the country illegally. Without exception, all these people worked full-time jobs, and many had more than one. They were construction workers, cooks, landscapers and housekeepers. Several were taking English classes in what spare time they had.
I spoke with a married couple who came to Denver from Mexico City seven years ago. Now in their mid-40s, with two teenage children, Carlos and Maria (not their real names) were middle-class Mexicans who found it increasingly difficult to do more than feed themselves and their children in Mexico's broken economy. Carlos had been an engineer for a large computer company that downsized him when it merged with an American firm. Maria had been trained as a laboratory technician, but until Carlos lost his job she was a housewife.
Desperate for work, they headed north. Carlos now changes tires for a trucking firm, while Maria cleans Cherry Creek's elegant houses. Both pay income and Social Security taxes. They would like their children to go to college in America, but realize this will be difficult if not impossible without some change in their legal status.
There are no simple answers to the dilemma created by our collective willingness to allow Carlos and Maria, and millions of others like them, to build our buildings and cook our food and trim our gardens and raise our children. The longer such people stay in this country, the longer they feel - and with justification - that they belong here.
It is true they have broken the law. But, as Holmes points out, laws that we allow to be broken for long enough cease to have any moral or practical force - especially when we have indulged in such negligence to our advantage.
Indeed, the origins of all legal rights become suspect if one examines them too closely. For example, those in the immigration debate who prattle about the sanctity of the rule of law ought to consider how throughout our history the spoils of war have been transformed almost instantly into "property rights," by immigrant conquerors wishing to give their conquests a more respectable name.


Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. Reach him at paul.campos@colorado.edu.
About Paul Campos
A native of Colorado, Paul Campos practiced law in Chicago before returning to his home state in 1990 to join the law faculty at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He has written extensively on the role of law in American society. His most recent book is The Obesity Myth: Why America's Obsession with Weight is Hazardous to Your Health. Since March of 1999 he has written a weekly column for the Rocky Mountain News.

AND here's a modern day example of it in South Central LA.

www.southcentralfarmers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=25


Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:39:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 8:40:08 PM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By otto-nyc:
To all applied in this thread:

If you have the right to vote, you have the right to all said legal predilection.

Only a citizen has this.

Those of you with green cards that think you have this right can go fuck yourselves.

Yo are not citizens.




Nobody has said that immigrants are entitled to vote.

It is a technical matter of the language of the Constitution. The Constitution means what it says, not what you WANT it to say. That's how liberals work - they try to make the Consitution mean what they want it to.

Good luck with that line of thinking.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:41:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DjangosMissingFinger:

Originally Posted By neophyte:

Not necessarily as gun laws are covered under the 10th Amendment. Each state creates its own laws regarding firearms.





" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "


Er, gun rights are VERY MUCH delegated to the United States as a whole by way of Amendment II.
Right, people, "shall not be infringed" and all that...

If the presumption that the US Bill Of Rights was being drafted for the benefit of all people, it would then hold that any person who set foot on our shores should enjoy the full benefit of the 2nd Amendment without regard to their legal status.



Well you are correct to some extent. What I was attempting to explain is that the states develope their own individual gun laws. For example handguns are illegal in New York and California has some very restrictive gun laws as well. Therefore states cannot prohibit all guns yet they can prohibit some types of guns. We do not have the right to keep and bear whatever type of gun we want due to state law and to some extent federal law when dealing with machine guns.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:55:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 9:02:13 PM EDT by DjangosMissingFinger]

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Not sure what you mean by saying the BOR is "predicated" on the Constitution. It is a part of the Constitution, and thus consistent with the language and definitions.



I could have phrased that better.
I should have said "the drafting of the Bill Of Rights was predicated on the earlier draft of the Constitution" which the framers felt was incomplete.
What we have here is people trying to extract the Bill of Rights from the rest of the Constitution, including the preamble which is highly specific about the tenets contained therein having to do with the "people of the United States" (which in and of itself is a definition of "Citizen") and not just "people" in general.
.
The preamble to the constitution is very clear that the rights are there to... "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves...

Ourselves.
Seems pretty important.


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"
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 8:56:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DjangosMissingFinger:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



More notable is what it doesn't say:

We the citizens of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure civil tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to our citizens and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note that wherever the Constitution specifically refers to citizens of the United States, it specifically calls them "citizens of the United States". For example:

AMENDMENT XXVI

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Again, as DK Prof and others have previously noted, the use of the word "people" - like most other words in the Constitution - is carefully and purposefully chosen.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 9:01:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 9:04:19 PM EDT by DjangosMissingFinger]

Originally Posted By Skibane:

More notable is what it doesn't say:

We the citizens of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure civil tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to our citizens and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



Now you're word gaming.
What it DOES say is what's notable.
Ourselves, domestic, "people of the United States".

Your position holds that people who enter this country illegaly would be classified as a "person of the United States".
You maintain they qualify for all protections afforded very specifically to "people of the United States"...

That's some innovative thinking you've got going on...
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 9:04:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DjangosMissingFinger:



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.

Link Posted: 4/2/2006 9:06:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FaceTime:
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.
Yup - I agree.


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.
Wrong. God-given, inalianable rights are not just for U.S. citizens. They are for everyone God creates. People in Communist China have the same rights we do, its just that their government infringes upon those rights.

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 . . .
Wrong. By your argument, illegals don't even have the right to be alive and can be shot, killed, or run over for fun & entertainment.

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.
Hard to argue about that. Don't take money from my pocket (by force, no less) and give it to others.

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.
True. Citizen-by-birth is written into the Constitution. I have a hard time supporting this benefit for pregnant women waiting just over the border in Mexico to go into labor, then cross over to a US hospital and drop an 'anchor' kid.

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.
Yup, that is the way its set up now.


What I'd like to see is a guest worker program set up that has NO ties to becoming a citizen. Come on over, do the work, get paid ON THE BOOKS, pay appropriate taxes, then go home. Make the penalties for hiring illegals stiff enough that there is no market for hiring these people off the books. As much as I hate Federal taxes (and taxes in general), this whole illegal job market is growing and is becoming a large problem.

I's also like to see these people make their own countries into places where they would like to stay. If your own country is such a sh!t-hole, do something about it!





Link Posted: 4/2/2006 9:12:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 9:15:00 PM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By DjangosMissingFinger:

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.
.
.
.




Link Posted: 4/2/2006 9:19:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 9:22:03 PM EDT by Skibane]

Originally Posted By DjangosMissingFinger:
Your position holds that people who enter this country illegaly would be classified as a "person of the United States".



My position holds that the Constitution refers to anyone who resides in the United States - regardless of their national affiliation - as a "person of the United States", and is acknowledged to have certain rights. Wherever a further distinction beyond the "person" designation is necessary, the Constitution specifically provides it:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top