Sorry, but I believe Tom Tancredo and his many like-minded cohorts in the GOP are way ahead of me here. Credit where credit is due.
Yes, you’re 100% correct. I am so glad that you’re able to read and comprehend such an important document. Perhaps it is I who has trouble with reading comprehension. Would you deign to enlighten me how what you’ve quoted applies to illegal immigrants? Since, you know, that is what I was talking about.
Better you should first respond to post #30, just to clear things up.
I was replying @22 to the discussion fostered by your post @9. Here’s the part of your post @9 having to do with the 14th Amendment:
You were stating that you would like the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants to not be citizens. I responded that I would like to leave it like it is.
That seems pretty plain to me. You may have intended additional meanings. I can’t speak to that.
I realize my statement was glib, but I think that the idea behind it is valid. A new constitution should more clearly define congressional powers to not include the kind of meddling that takes place at a local level. “Because people do buy and sell x interstate, then this production of x at a local level, for personal or local use/consumption, can be regulated by the US Congress.” should not be a valid Constitutional argument.
Defined by the states, of course, but I would start with already existant laws as a good baseline. Convicted Felon? No guns for you! Convicted of a drug offense, mentally unstable (hospitalized for such), or record of domestic violence? No guns for you!
I’m not sure what you’re dubious about. I have a rifle. Most of my friends have rifles, most of them also have handguns. And yet, despite that, we haven’t shot anyone. Not one of us has harmed another human being with those weapons. I am in fact willing to go on record as stating that the VAST majority of legal gun owners will go their lives without shooting another human being with their weapons, and of those that do, the majority of them will be in self defence.
More people are killed by cars every year.
So, it should be legal to (say) incarcerate an illegal alien indefinetly without recourse to a legal hearing? Unilaterally seize his assets? Shoot him in the street like a dog? If illegal immigrants have no rights at all, there’s nothing preventing the government from doing anything we want to them at all, is there?
For that matter, if you’re arguing that civil rights apply only to citizens of the US, then legal aliens are also deprived of their rights. Folks here on work visas are not citizens, after all. Do they not get civil rights, either? What about tourists?
I don’t think you have to be “pro-illegal immigration” to think that this is a really bad idea. I know I’m quite a bit to the left of you on immigration in general, but that’s not why I think civil rights should apply to anyone in this country. I think they should apply because no government should have the ability to strip anyone of those rights, under any circumstances, no matter what country they come from, or what country they currently reside in.
That’s an entirely meaningless ammendment. “Legally able,” means, “No one’s passed a law saying they can’t.” As soon as someone passes such a law (such as, “No one is allowed to own a gun.”) then they are no longer legally able to own a gun, and therefore, are not protected by that ammendment. You’ve essentially wriiten an ammendment that says, “The right to own a gun shall not be infringed unless it’s infringed.”
This seems like a strange statement for you to make, considering that you directly quoted my post in which I clearly said (at least I think it’s clear):
Now you claim that you quoted my post about illegal immigrants, but what you were really talking about was citizens. Odd that.
It seems to me that post #32 does a better job of posting the question you want answered, but either way I’ll answer.
All people in the U.S. legally or illegally, citizens or not, are protected by the First Amendment, because the First Amendment deals with the powers available to government. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”. It’s crystal clear that this is a limit on the reach of government. Agreed? Or do you dispute that?
The rest of the Amendments, however, deal with specific rights held by “The People”. This obviously refers to the residents and citizens of “the several states”. The document is The Constitution of The United States of America, it was never intended to apply to the residents of England, or France or Borneo. It applies to the residents of the US. Illegal immigrants are not legally residents of the US, legally they are residents of whichever country they come from, and as such, these civil rights, enshrined in the Constitution, do not apply to them. This is not a hard concept to grasp.
Now, all that being said, The US is a generous and generally fair country. Over time we have extended many of the protections guaranteed by these rights to illegals because it’s the just and fair thing to do, but that does not mean that illegals have these rights. They enjoy a privilege, not a right. That privilege can be rescinded at any time. I am not aware of any SCOUS decisions that say “the rights of the people”, as stated in The Constitution, apply to every warm body that happens to be in the US. Several of them are explicitly excluded from illegals, does an illegal alien have the right to keep and bear arms, for example? I don’t think so. Absent such a decision, and notwithstanding that certain individual rights may be extended to cover illegals as privileges enshrined in law (Miranda, for example), Civil Rights are reserved for citizens of the US. (and legal residents, although technically the same argument I’m making could be stretched to include them, that seems to be an unreasonable strict interpretation however) Thus my statement, illegal immigrants have no civil rights.
In case anyone is curious, here’s an article about Supreme Court rulings on rights for aliens.
Maybe a good “compromise” would be to eliminate the 100 “Senatorial” delegates from the EC (go from 538 to 438 electoral votes). That way the population ratios of the various states are more accurately reflected in the EC.
By this system, a small state could be left with only a single electoral vote, but only if their population warranted 1/438th (or whatever) or less representation in the EC.
I’m sure this would go over big in Wyoming and Vermont and other such small states.
–after the edit preview I began thinking this might be a violation of the 17th Amendment, somehow. Oh well.
I found this on wikipedia that explains what I had imagined.
You’re right. When writing post 22, I should have taken into account your words in post 24. I’ll do my best to anticipate future posts of yours in the future.
Well, this is just me, but when quoting post 24 while replying in post 40, it seems to me that it’s not unreasonable to assume that you are replying to post 24 and not some completely different post, like 22, but as I said, that’s just me.
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=9620794#post9620794)This statement runs pretty close to personal insult/attacking the poster. Knock it off in GD.
[ /Moderating ]
You are, of course, correct. :smack:
This is why I hope to attend law school some day, rather than just trying to fake it. Hehehehe
Needless to say, the wording would be changed that the right to keep and bear arms would not be infringed on law abiding citizens, and that laws put in place to restrict that right would be limited to only affecting those guilty of criminal offenses.
May, that’s hard to write. You get what I’m getting at though, right?
That’s really not necessary. Convicted criminals already have their individual rights heavily curtailed as part of their incarceration; there’s no need for a disclaimer on this right in particular. In any case, laws against felons possessing firearms have already been in effect for a long time. I’m not sure offhand if they’ve been challenged Constitutionally, but I expect they would be upheld in that eventuality.
EDIT: Not that that would be correct, of course. In the case of federal law, I maintain that the federal government has no authority under the Constitution to regulate possession by felons. Perhaps you were meaning to grant the government that power?
Whatever. A debate over that particular constitutional clause is a debate over whether certain persons born in the U.S. in the future should be U.S. citizens from birth, as those born in the U.S. in the past have been.
I’m sure it just a harmless hobby for you, and other responsible people. The fact of the matter is that guns are specifically designed to kill. I suppose they have some value as paperweights, collector’s items, etc. Cars are used by many more people for much longer periods than guns, and provide much needed utility despite the fact that lots of people are killed by cars.
Having moved to Michigan, I’ve met many people who love to hunt, and I enjoy having some vension when I get the extras. But as much as you love your guns, (cold dead hands springs to mind) you have to recognize that the US has a unique problem when it comes to gun violence. If you want to protect your right to bear arms, you might think of ways to deal with it. What we have now is not working.
My gun is specifically designed to destroy little clay discs. Does that help?
I wanted to get back to this, and apologize for taking my time.
This analysis is wholly, completely incorrect. It not only fails to pay attention to the plain language of the Constitution, it ignores the decisions of the Supreme Court on the matter. Finally, it appears based upon an incorrect understanding of the “rights” involved in the document.
Let’s start with the plain language of the document.
The only reference to individuals and their actions in the original document comes in Article IV, Section 2, where it states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” This language applies on its face to citizens only. The development of exactly what "privileges and immunities are covered is an interesting study, but irrelevant to our purpose.
This brings us to the “rights” guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, Amendments I to X.
In Amendments I, II, IV, IX and X, the rights involved are held by “the people.” There is no qualifier indicating that these “people” are limited to persons who are citizens, nor it is applicable to people who are legally resident. Amendment V specifically applies to “no person” and “any person.” There are again no qualifiers. Amendment VI applies to “the accused,” again, without distinction. Amendments III, VII and VIII apply without attempting to designate the owner of the rights in question. In all these amendments, there is no language indicating that the rights are limited to “citizens.” Indeed, the marked contrast between use of the word “citizen” in the original document, and the use of the words “person,” “people” and “accused” in the amendments would make it clear the framers intended these “rights” to extend to more than just “citizens.”
Which brings us to the most important of the amendments, practically speaking, Amendment XIV.
Note, please the careful distinction drawn between “citizens” and “any person.” Citizens have “privileges and immunities.” But “any person” is entitled to due process and equal protection. Thus, we see a deliberate attempt to extend a considerable sphere of protections to non-citizens.
And note please that “any person” means just that: ANY person. It doesn’t mean “any person here legally,” or “any person except those to whom we don’t wish to extend the rules,” or “any person except those who are governed by different laws when elsewhere.” The plain meaning includes those resident in our country illegally.
Conclusion: The plain language of the Constitution extends the protection of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to illegally present persons, and probably extends the rights of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights similarly.
Now, let’s look at decisions of the Supreme Court on the issue:
The whole idea of the take of the Supreme Court can be easily summarized by looking at the decision in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
In short, there has been a long series of cases which have all concluded that the interpretation of the words “any person” or “all persons” means just that, and the legality of their presence is irrelevant to the discussion.
Please note that this discussion by the Court does not distinguish the rights granted on the basis that they are mere “privileges” offered to those present illegally, and able to be rescinded at anytime the country or the Court chooses. Indeed, the use of the word “privilege” by you is quite inapt, given that it is “privileges and immunities” that are guaranteed to the “citizens.”
Which brings us to the meaning of “rights” and the application of the Amendments.
First, let us discard your incorrect notion that the First Amendment is somehow different from the rest of the amendments in question. The First Amendment states:
You attempt to assert that this is somehow fundamentally different from the rest of the amendments. Clearly, this amendment prohibits Congress from doing things. But let us look at the Second Amendment, which addresses a right of “the people.”
“Shall not be infringed” by whom? By Congress, as it turns out. See Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), and United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875). So, too, are the provisions of the rest of Amendments I - VIII checks upon national government power. They don’t have any different scope than the “rights” guaranteed in the First Amendment. Indeed, it is important to understand what we mean by a “right.” A “right” is something that we believe a person should not be unduly restricted from doing. When we say we have the right of “freedom of speech,” we mean that our ability to say what we think and feel shouldn’t be stifled. Notice that we as a people have never articulated a concept that “rights” enjoyed by “men” (read: humans) are limited to citizens only. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These rights aren’t things that appurtain to citizenship only.
Nor is it the case that “civil” rights are inherently limited to “citizens.” The Congress certainly doesn’t think so: it applied the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to “all persons” (Section 201). While some “civil rights” are at times limited to citizens (the “right” to vote, for example), others are clearly applied to non-citizens (the right to jury trial in criminal cases, for example). Thus, trying to create a distinction called “civil” rights as those applicable to “citizens” only not only ignores the historical use of the phrase, but also avoids the philosophy of the concept.
Nor will you, since what you are “quoting” is not a quote at all, is not found anywhere in the Constitution, and is therefore not subject to interpretation. But, as we have seen, the words “any person” do indeed apply to every warm body that happens to be in the U.S. Even those here illegally. To that extent for certain, and to a great extent to almost all the guarantees of the Constitution for freedom from governmental interference in our personal rights, “civil rights” are held by illegal aliens.