Illegals and our inalienable rights?

[Ted]

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

Do you ever try to avoid run-on sentences, and structure your thoughts into paragraphs?

 

[NapalmFTW]

Wow guys.

Some of you need to take a step back from the keyboard before lumping people like myself, a filthy "non-citizen" in with the illegal aliens.

I'm a legal alien (cue the Sting and the Police song) and I am granted the same rights as you under the constitution. All of them.

I have a green card obtained legally and in a moral way, and I have a LTCH. I am legal to work and I do so, even though your government (rightly so) says I cannot claim welfare, social security or any other local, state or federal funding, including medicaid.

I pay into the pot but I cannot take out of it, even when I am a citizen (until I've been here 10 years, or worked the equivalent of 10 years).

Try and remember this when posting about non-citizens. I can't wait to become a USC - those of you who are born a USC are very, very lucky.

 

[thebishopp]

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".

+1

 

[drifter197]

The key word is illegal.

they are here as an illegal is that not a crime? if not should be. (over ?? million in US-??? thousands in indiana).

 

[Dirtebiker]

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?

Because they ARE engaged in a criminal act, being in this country ILLEGALLY!

 

[Kutnupe14]

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".

Incarcerated criminals forfeit their "inalienable rights" due to their criminal action. Illegals are simply criminals that have yet to be incarcerated. I do not believe that they should be subject to the same rights of the law-abiding simply because they haven't been caught yet.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Incarcerated criminals forfeit their "inalienable rights" due to their criminal action. Illegals are simply criminals that have yet to be incarcerated. I do not believe that they should be subject to the same rights of the law-abiding simply because they haven't been caught yet.

Isn't the first offense a misdemeanor?

Doesn't "legal" infringement upon their rights only apply when a felony is committed?

Aren't they innocent until proven guilty?

There are so many odd legal problems that type of thinking could create... If a citizen jaywalks but has not yet been proven guilty, and then carries a firearm after an alleged jaywalking incident, should their right to bear arms be infringed upon prior to their conviction? Should they be arrested for carrying a firearm when they have not yet been convicted of a crime, and should conviction of a crime merit a retroactive infringement upon their right to bear arms?

Personally, I believe the only time we should infringe on serious fundamental rights is when a individual is proven to have seriously infringed upon the fundamental rights of others - and a jail sentence with release should not be the punishment. If an individual is convicted of murder, they should not be walking the streets with their rights infringed - they should have their right to life infringed. Only when an individual has proven their willingness to infringe on the most critical rights of others - and ignores the most important restrictions of our social contract - should we consider them outside the protections of our social contract.

I cannot think of any right of mine that illegal immigrants infringe upon simply by immigrating illegally to this country.

 

[cobber]

Because they ARE engaged in a criminal act, being in this country ILLEGALLY!

Malum prohibitum, a status offense, as opposed to malum in se, an act which by its very nature is a crime, eg. armed robbery or murder.

If an illegal is simply here illegally, not engaging in any other criminal behaviors other than his status, I'm hard pressed to see why he cannot defend himself, his family and home, against violence.


But the courts say differently, so I guess I'm wrong.


Did the courts also say illegal aliens may be searched without warrants, must incriminate themselves, are subject to cruel and unusual punishments, and are not entitled to due process of law? If no 2A, why the rest? And why the lengthy deportation process, involving hearings, bonds, etc., if no BoR for illegals.

 

[ViperJock]

The key word is illegal.

This. Breaking the law allows you to waive certain rights....

Furthermore, Letting foreign nationals arm themselves in another man's country is downright stupid and a good way to find yourself under foreign leadership. Honestly, I'm suprised the Democrats haven't suggested we do so, it would be like them....

Also, the right to bear arms is an ammendment to our constiution which is not actually listed in the "inalienable rights" that apply to ALL men, but rather the intention (contrary to what the lefties think) of bearing arms was not for sporting purposes but to allow militias and preserve the freedom of our people. As I mentioned above, letting foreign nationals bear arms in our borders is likely to contradict the spirit of this ammendment if not the letter of the law.

 

[ViperJock]

Did the courts also say illegal aliens may be searched without warrants, must incriminate themselves, are subject to cruel and unusual punishments, and are not entitled to due process of law? If no 2A, why the rest? And why the lengthy deportation process, involving hearings, bonds, etc., if no BoR for illegals.

If you were an illegal in another country you would find yourself without ability to exercise any rights at all. We hold ourselves to a higher standard and often a contradictory standard which allows illegals more "rights" than citizens in certain regards. Some of these policies are probably as dangerous in a more insidious way as allowing them to own guns but that is a different argument altogether.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Also, the right to bear arms is an ammendment to our constiution which is not actually listed in the "inalienable rights" that apply to ALL men, but rather the intention (contrary to what the lefties think) of bearing arms was not for sporting purposes but to allow militias and preserve the freedom of our people. As I mentioned above, letting foreign nationals bear arms in our borders is likely to contradict the spirit of this ammendment if not the letter of the law.

I would argue that the "freedom of our people" and "liberty" fall into the same category, and the ideas and beliefs that brought about the declaration of independence are synonymous with the ideals that led to the creation of the bill of rights. They were made for different purposes, but in spirit embody the same ideals.

I think you raise a great issue regarding individuals who come to America with the intent to cause harm, carry out terrorist acts, or conduct acts of war. I feel a great distinction exists between this group of people and the vast majority of illegal immigrants, but how laws could be created that enable us to distinguish between these groups without trampling rights is a big question.

The group of people with malicious intent are not always illegal immigrants, and I do not believe citizenship alone is a characteristic that can be used to distinguish the difference.

Hoping to keep firearms out of the hands of terrorists and the like by legislative or judicial means is eerily similar to the argument that gun control can significantly decrease crime.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

I read, a "legal immigrant" to be ....

... a legalized (not native-born, or indian) citizen, with ALL the rights and obligations of a natural-born citizen, to the exclusion of any so-called "anchor-babies." Our Constitution is a declaration of war; are you prepared to defend it?

It covers US citizens and LEGAL immigrants as well.



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

 

[kludge]

Guns or no guns is irrelevant. All people are entitled to basic human rights, but...

if they are here illegaly breathing our air they only have the right to be immediately deported, and we send the bill to the country they came from.

If they are here legally then all of their rights should be protected.

 

[Ted]

.....All people are entitled to basic human rights,....

This.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So What Exactly Does This Mean?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.


Shouldn't this read "to ourselves and everybody else?"

 

[thebishopp]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.


Shouldn't this read "to ourselves and everybody else?"

No because we can only defend those rights within our own borders.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No because we can only defend those rights within our own borders.

That didn't work out so well for the Mexicans when Americans decided they wanted Texas.

 

[Ted]

That didn't work out so well for the Mexicans when Americans decided they wanted Texas.

Well......kinda. Americans that also became Texicans.

Remember that Texas was an independent republic for 10 years after independence from Mexico, and before annexation to the United States.

 

[MMRUSH]

If your here illegally you should have no American rights.This whole country was made from immigrants unless your a American Indian. There is a process you have to go through to become a citizen to recieve American constitutional rights.

 

[J_Wales]

Well......kinda. Americans that also became Texicans.

Remember that Texas was an independent republic for 10 years after independence from Mexico, and before annexation to the United States.

Texas may well return to the status of independent republic before it is all said and done.