Illegals and our inalienable rights?

[eldirector]

My wife ran across this gem:
Denver court says illegal immigrants can't have guns - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Monday that illegal immigrants have only limited protection under the Constitution.

While I do NOT agree with immigrants flaunting the laws of the country they have chosen to live in, I find this decision disturbing. Either our rights are inalienable, or they are not. Either our Constitution protects these rights, or it doesn't. Looks like it doesn't...

 

[TopDog]

My wife ran across this gem:
Denver court says illegal immigrants can't have guns - 13 WTHR Indianapolis



While I do NOT agree with immigrants flaunting the laws of the country they have chosen to live in, I find this decision disturbing. Either our rights are inalienable, or they are not. Either our Constitution protects these rights, or it doesn't. Looks like it doesn't...

This has been discussed before. So far it boiled down to two sides. Either the constitution covers the entire world or it covers US citizens. I am of the camp that it covers US citizens only.

Edit to add Legal immigrants. In my haste to post I neglected to include those legal immigrants.

 

[netsecurity]

The constitution is for CITIZENS, but I must admit, the wording is specific in saying that we have these rights inherently, not that we are granted them by the government, like the right to drive. The constitution still only exists to protect these rights for citizens. If the state government passes laws restricting their use, then the feds can't intervene, but technically the feds may not say that anyone cannot own guns.

 

[williamrights]

It is unalianable not inalienable. It may seem a petty difference but it is important to me. I am as passionate about this as I am when I hear people talk about their Indiana concealed carry permit. It is a license not a permit and it is not concealed.

 

[mrjarrell]

While a case could be made that the Constitution applies to citizens and certain aliens only, it should be indisputable that the Rights enumerated therein are natural Rights, belonging to all humans.

 

[eldirector]

It is unalianable not inalienable. It may seem a petty difference but it is important to me. I am as passionate about this as I am when I hear people talk about their Indiana concealed carry permit. It is a license not a permit and it is not concealed.

Is that even a word?

in·al·ien·a·ble/inˈālēənəbəl/

Adjective:Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

 

[Sylvain]

This has been discussed before. So far it boiled down to two sides. Either the constitution covers the entire world or it covers US citizens. I am of the camp that it covers US citizens only.

It covers US citizens and LEGAL immigrants as well.



Legal immigrants can own guns, and even carry them in Indiana.

 

[netsecurity]

While a case could be made that the Constitution applies to citizens and certain aliens only, it should be indisputable that the Rights enumerated therein are natural Rights, belonging to all humans.

Bingo. The constitution is very clear on that.

 

[eldirector]

I was HOPING that the US Constitution defined the limits on the US Government, regardless (or irregardless, for Williamrights) of who is inside of the countries physical bounds.

Just feels like this decision is a solid push down a slope: If the Constitution does NOT limit how the US treats one group, what's to stop the next court decision for naming another group outside of its protection?

 

[Dead Duck]

A federal appeals court says illegal immigrants don't have a right to own firearms under the U.S. Constitution.

The key word is illegal.

 

[netsecurity]

Our penal code seems to apply the same to aliens, so I suppose our rights should too. If they are here illegally though, then we could arrest and deport them when they tried to file the federal paperwork to buy a pistol, for example.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

They should be pitched out of the country upon discovery, then it would be a moot point.

 

[williamrights]

The Declaration of Independence - TEXT Inalienable rights can be ceded by the individual. Unalienable rights cannot. Jefferson struggled with his writing. Of this I am certain. This is what happens when people slowly erode the basis. Just like we are a republic not a democracy. It is these United States not the United States.

 

[Sylvain]

Our penal code seems to apply the same to aliens, so I suppose our rights should too. If they are here illegally though, then we could arrest and deport them when they tried to file the federal paperwork to buy a pistol, for example.

You want to give FFL dealers the right to arrest people?
Also I dont see how a gun dealer would know if a person is legal or not.

You dont have to show any proof of citizenship or a passport to buy a gun.

 

[mrjarrell]

I was HOPING that the US Constitution defined the limits on the US Government, regardless (or irregardless, for Williamrights) of who is inside of the countries physical bounds.

Just feels like this decision is a solid push down a slope: If the Constitution does NOT limit how the US treats one group, what's to stop the next court decision for naming another group outside of its protection?

Exactly. This is a prime example of the slippery slope and it's astounding that so many don't see that. Who's next?

 

[RBM]

The key word is illegal.

I thought it was illegal to call them illegal now. We are to call them immigrants.

 

[thej27]

I thought it was illegal to call them illegal now. We are to call them immigrants.

I believe the politically correct term now is "undocumented" immigrants.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I believe the politically correct term now is "undocumented" immigrants.

Is that something like the 'undocumented pharmacists' we are spending incomprehensible amounts of money to create the pretense of eradicating them?

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Read the rest of it ....

".... that to secure (NOT GRANT OR BEQUEATH) these rights, GOVERNMENTS are instituted among men, drawing their just powers from THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED." Illegals are not due ANY "inalienable" rights in ANY country. Same as if they were caught, processed, and ejected back into their original source country. There also is no such thing as an "anchor-baby."

The constitution is for CITIZENS, but I must admit, the wording is specific in saying that we have these rights inherently, not that we are granted them by the government, like the right to drive. The constitution still only exists to protect these rights for citizens. If the state government passes laws restricting their use, then the feds can't intervene, but technically the feds may not say that anyone cannot own guns.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

No, but ...

.... it might be a start on finding illegals. They won't be buying out of Parker City any more. What's wrong with showing your IN D.L. when buying a gun? I ask for it when I sell a gun in the Dairy Queen parking lot. "Slippery-slopists" need not reply. EBG

You want to give FFL dealers the right to arrest people?
Also I dont see how a gun dealer would know if a person is legal or not.

You dont have to show any proof of citizenship or a passport to buy a gun.