Illegals and our inalienable rights?

[Skywired]

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.

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

GEE WHIZ....Do ya think so???? But that means we'd have to enact the KISS Principle (Keep It Simple Silly) Prolly take Congress 20 years to enact THAT.

 

[J_Wales]

Every human being has the right to defend one's self.

Deny not illegal alien's right to defend themselves.

Deny not my rights to defend my loved ones, my property or my self against those with a demonstrated disregard for the law of the land.

 

[J_Wales]

GEE WHIZ....Do ya think so???? But that means we'd have to enact the KISS Principle (Keep It Simple Silly) Prolly take Congress 20 years to enact THAT.

Agreed.

I am curious, who did you vote for when Coats was running for the senate seat?

 

[Tydeeh22]

not a legal citizen in my country? not guaranteed the legal rights granted by my countries' constitution.

 

[TopDog]

not a legal citizen in my country? not guaranteed the legal rights granted by my countries' constitution.

There it is.

 

[thebishopp]

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.

My stance (and I believe the founders as well based on the wording) is that these rights are rights that everyone is granted at birth by the creator (whatever your concept of that may be). We only defend and protect those rights of people who choose to live on US soil as that is the only place we have a right to do so.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So, if an individual is born in another country, then they do not fall into the category of "all men"?

The second amendment restricts government infringement upon unalienable rights endowed by man's Creator - it does not grant any rights to American citizens.

I fail to see how citizenship changes this concept, allowing infringement upon a right that "shall not be infringed".

 

[femurphy77]

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.

Agree with your assessment but ours is one of few such documents if not the only document in which the .gov acknowledges them as such. Everywhere else you're at the whims of the .gov.

Of course it's easily argued that we're at the whims of our .gov also.

 

[mrjarrell]

not a legal citizen in my country? not guaranteed the legal rights granted by my countries' constitution.

Rights are NOT granted by the Constitution. Your take on that is one of the prime reasons we are at the point in history we're at. Rights are protected by the Constitution and exist whether it's there or not.

 

[cobber]

The constitution still only exists to protect these rights for citizens.

Actually the Constitution is not really 'for' anyone. It recognizes natural rights that the government cannot infringe upon. AFAIK natural rights do not pertain to American citizens only. The limitation is on the government, not on the people.

Ditto with State constitutions. These are natural rights, not government-created rights (which would only be available to citizens and would be more in the realm of privileges or entitlements).

As far as illegal aliens go, you still have to recognize natural rights, otherwise we're going to get cases of police conducting illegal searches of people they "thought" were not citizens/legal.

Best to treat all people as if they enjoy the same natural rights.

That said, I can't say I'm crazy about illegal aliens carrying weapons. But if they're not engaging/engaged in criminal acts, why shouldn't they enjoy the same right as me?

 

[kjf40]

I'm on the NO illegals carrying wagon.

Let them get citizenship first....or they can go carry where they came from.

Laws here are for everyone, not just a chosen few.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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.

As am I

 

[jgreiner]

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...

Geez, they can't have guns...but they CAN be president? (At least according to Dick Durbin).

 

[Kutnupe14]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So, if an individual is born in another country, then they do not fall into the category of "all men"?

The second amendment restricts government infringement upon unalienable rights endowed by man's Creator - it does not grant any rights to American citizens.

I fail to see how citizenship changes this concept, allowing infringement upon a right that "shall not be infringed".

I see this as working in only one way. If the creator allows all men "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness", then by default, we should have open borders and there would be no such thing as an illegal immigrant (something I do not agree with).

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I see this as working in only one way. If the creator allows all men "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness", then by default, we should have open borders and there would be no such thing as an illegal immigrant (something I do not agree with).

If men are "allowed" to exercise their rights is dependent upon the infringement of others. You can have a right, and still not be "allowed" to exercise it.

We do not have an amendment that restricts government infringement on immigration. While many people disagree on the issue of immigration, and one could debate if immigration is a right - it is not protected from infringement by the bill of rights.

What we do have is an amendment that restricts government infringement on the right to bear arms. It has been a recognized right since the founding of our nation.

The second amendment does not grant a single American citizen a right - it restricts government infringement upon a right that already existed, and specifically acknowledges that bearing arms is a right.

If we believe in the concepts and ideas that led to the creation of the bill of rights, then I see no reason why excluding large groups of people based on the geographic location of their birth would be just.

If we are going to neuter the second amendment by constantly re-interpreting the infringement it outlaws whenever we feel a group of people should not be permitted to exercise their right, then we might as well start referring to it as "the privilege to bear arms".

 

[Ted]

......I am of the camp that it covers US citizens only.....

No person.....shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....

Good to know that a non citizen can be summarily executed without as much as a court hearing.

 

[TopDog]

No person.....shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....

Good to know that a non citizen can be summarily executed without as much as a court hearing.

I suppose a non citizen could be executed when sent back to their country. If they are here they should be sent back. So to satisfy you perhaps we should make illegal entry into this country a capital offense and execute them as they come in, using due process. See the problem is they are cirminals that are not being subjected to due process in the first place. If they are here they should be receiving no benefits, they should not be cheating the tax system etc. So in fact they should not be here at all. Living as criminals, criminals should be put through due process and gone. Not rewarded for their criminal acts.

 

[lucky4034]

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

exactly

 

[Ted]

I suppose a non citizen could be executed when sent back to their country. If they are here they should be sent back. So to satisfy you perhaps we should make illegal entry into this country a capital offense and execute them as they come in, using due process. See the problem is they are cirminals that are not being subjected to due process in the first place. If they are here they should be receiving no benefits, they should not be cheating the tax system etc. So in fact they should not be here at all. Living as criminals, criminals should be put through due process and gone. Not rewarded for their criminal acts.

I have little problem with your position of holding a criminal accountable for their actions....or in some cases, inactions. However, I believe that you now both understand and agree with my point, that constitutional protections just aren't limited to the citizenry.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Few documents and/or oaths are universal.

BTW, NONE of the toilet-paper pledges to the U.N. are worth more than browned t.p., and no citizen is obliged to live according to them. Our Senate must approve those papers before they beome "law." The one oath I am stressing here is the pledge to our flag. Particularly "... with Liberty and Justice for 'ALL' " as in where-ever we military are sent to establish freedom and tranquility. Every place conquered by our military, and especially the USMC, the sign of victory has been the raising of Old Glory over the objective, a la Mount Suribachi as commemorated in the monument in D.C. Well, did you know that the act of raising our flag as sign of victory is no longer P.C.? When the USMC took Hue City back from the V.C./NVA, 1967, we raised our flag over the Citadel. Next day, orders came down from CInCPaC, Hawaii, that our flag could not be there. It had to be struck, and a Viet Nam flag hoisted in its place. I have my pictures stashed away somewhere, of the deed. The flag is both emblem and guarantee of our universal God-given (also a non-PC phrase) rights, and has existed long before any U.N. nightmare came into being. I say that "our" rights are for "us" and for everyone who wants them strongly enough to bleed for them, as many of us have. I add, "For both born and not-yet-born." EBG

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.