Drug Wars tooooo close to home!

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Non-citizens have no rights and should have none. They should be deported to their country of origin//.

The Bill of Rights applies to "all persons"....the same for subsequent amendments unless specifically limited.

Period...end of story.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The Bill of Rights applies to "all persons" unless specifically specified otherwise.

Period...end of story.

Fail again.

The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation).

We the People of the United States..

Not we the people of every swinging dick country in the world; not we the people of the US and Russia; not we the people of the US and Mexico; no, we the people of the United States...

[jinx]

Ya, I agree with that.

It's not for the state to decide who it will extend constitutional rights to.

Yick Wo v Hopkins, 1886
....Even though the Chinese laundry owners were usually not American citizens, the court ruled they were still entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

“The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China… . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘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.’ These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws… . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.”

The rights of non-citizens have been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions since then....when the rights are limited to citizens (ie right to vote or hold office), the Constitution makes a clear distinction between citizens and "the people".

[TheMercenary]

Sorry, 1886 is a total fail.

See recent laws in AZ.

[TheMercenary]

The popular nature of the Constitution
The Constitution claims to be an act of "We the People." However, because it represents a general social compact, there are limits on the ability of individual citizens to pursue legal claims allegedly arising out of the Constitution.

Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. The Immigration and Naturalization Act sets forth the legal requirements for the acquisition of, and divestiture from, citizenship of the United States. The requirements have become more explicit since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, with the most recent changes to statutory law having been made by the United States Congress in 2001.

Adult citizens of the United States who are residents of one of the 50 states have the right to participate in the political system of the United States, as well as their state and local governments (with most states having restrictions on voting by persons convicted of felonies, and a federal constitutional prohibition on naturalized persons running for President and Vice President of the United States), to be represented and protected abroad by the United States (through U.S. embassies and consulates), and to reside in the United States and certain territories without any immigration requirements.

Not "Citizens of Russia"; Not "Citizens of Mexico"; Not "Citizens of Albania"; Not " Citizens of Canada"...

Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Right...the US Congress has the sole power....not the states.

Thanks for pointing that out.

This, along with the Supremacy Clause and the 4th and 14th amendment issues all come into play on the constitutionality of the AZ law.

[Aliantha]

It seems to me that in discussions with opposing points of view about the US constitution, there must be a great deal of ambiguity. If there were not, then why would the US constitution continually cause people to interpret it in different ways?

eta: by people I mean ordinary people who post on forums online. Scholars who study the constitution, and even judges who award rulings different to those in the past even though they may be referencing the same section of the constitution.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

It seems to me that in discussions with opposing points of view about the US constitution, there must be a great deal of ambiguity. If there were not, then why would the US constitution continually cause people to interpret it in different ways?

There are some issues that are not that ambiguous based on overwhelming Supreme Court precedents, including guaranteed rights to non-citizens.

But, ultimately, the Court will decide.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

eta: by people I mean ordinary people who post on forums online. Scholars who study the constitution, and even judges who award rulings different to those in the past even though they may be referencing the same section of the constitution.

And even they disagree.

[TheMercenary]

If the Gobberment wants to afford some Rights to individuals who are here illegally it does not make them citizens. No way, no how. Even if it gets the Demoncrats more illegal voters.

None of your cites makes any swinging dick who falls across the border a "CITIZEN OF the United States of America". Go back to High School and learn some Gobbernment 101.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

If the Gobberment wants to afford some Rights to individuals who are here illegally it does not make them citizens. No way, no how. Even if it gets the Demoncrats more illegal voters.

None of your cites makes any swinging dick who falls across the border a "CITIZEN OF the United States of America". Go back to High School and learn some Gobbernment 101.

Please point out where I stated that they would have the rights of citizens or it makes them citizens?

I said the Constitution distinguishes between the rights of "the people" including non-citizens, as the Court has affirmed on numerous occasions over the last 200 years, and rights of citizens.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Please point out where I stated that they would have the rights of citizens?

I said the Constitution distinguishes between the rights of the people and rights of citizens.

The Constitution is for the citizens of the United States, not for the Citizens of Canada, not for the Citizens of Poland, not for the Citzens of Mexico.

People here Illegally are not Citizens, therefore our Constitution does not apply. Period.

[Aliantha]

Yes that seems to be the case.

The thing I find difficult to get my head around is the fact that so many people tout the constitution and violations of it, and yet it really doesn't seem that much of it is really guaranteed because it might depend on how an individual judge feels about an individual case.

Even such things as guaranteed rights aren't always awarded. See gitmo as an example. Many of those prisoners were taken from other countries, deposited in a US jail and have never been given the right to a 'speedy trial' in order to prove their innocence if possible. I understand that people will argue that some of them are prisoners of war etc, but from an outsiders point of view, it still seems a very hypocritical situation.

eta: of course, the onus really is on the court to prove guilt rather than the prisoner needing to prove their innocence, but that doesn't seem to be the case in gitmo either.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Yes that seems to be the case.

The thing I find difficult to get my head around is the fact that so many people tout the constitution and violations of it, and yet it really doesn't seem that much of it is really guaranteed because it might depend on how an individual judge feels about an individual case.

The Supreme Court relies heavily on precedent which limits the interpretation of any one justice.

Even such things as guaranteed rights aren't always awarded. See gitmo as an example. Many of those prisoners were taken from other countries, deposited in a US jail and have never been given the right to a 'speedy trial' in order to prove their innocence if possible. I understand that people will argue that some of them are prisoners of war etc, but from an outsiders point of view, it still seems a very hypocritical situation.

It took the Supreme Court awhile, but it did affirm the prisoners at Gitmo do have constitutional rights, albeit limited because of their status as prisoners of war.