[QUOTE=Weirddave]
That’s a real nice take on things, DSYoung, but it’s nothing more than a bunch of hot air. It seems that you have ignored the substance of what I am saying. Just because an illegal alien might have certain protections extended to them by law, it does not make them rights. The very nature of your argument refutes itself. You go on and on about this or that right that has been extended by this or that law or court decision to cover illegal aliens, which proves my point completely. A right is something that is held by an individual by virtue of his or her being a citizen of the U.S. No further action is needed, rights are universal to citizens. The fact that illegals have had to have some of the protections that citizens enjoy a rights extended to them by law proves that they are not rights, but privileges. Rights are universal to any given group. A citizen of age has the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. An illegal alien of age does not. A citizen over 18 has the RIGHT to vote. An illegal alien does not. Your argument refutes itself. The fact that a citizen has the right not to be subject to illegal search and seizure and an illegal alien has a legal protection against search and seizure does not mean that the two are equivalent. Both citizen and illegal may have the same protection in practice, but the basis for that protection is very different between the two. Read the link provided by Captain Amazing, it’s very interesting, and it backs up what I am saying, with case citings.
Actually it is you who are doing exactly this, ignoring the clear meaning of the word AND it’s meaning as historically interpreted by the SCOUS the majority of the time, plus the basic concept of civil rights. Tell me then, using your world view, what exactly is the difference between an illegal alien and a citizen? AFAICT, you’re stating that there is none.
[/QUOTE]
I can only say that you need some to receive some education on the basic meanings of things like “rights.” You’re professed “right” to bear arms has no meaning if it could be infringed by the Congress; the Second Amendment precludes Congress from doing that. Similarly, the Fourteenth Amendment precludes the states from infringing upon the “right” of any person, alien or otherwise, legally present or otherwise, to due process and equal protection. There is nothing “extended” to them at all. They have this “right” as assuredly as you do.
And your assertion that an illegally present person does not have a “right” to bear arms is not tested. Indeed, it is doubtful that a law that specifically denied the right to own or posses “arms” to anyone illegally present in the country would pass muster before the Court. So you are presuming that which is not yet demonstrated in support of your argument.
I think you need to read the link provided by Captain Amazing a little more carefully. If you think that it means that people illegally present in this country have no “civil rights,” you haven’t read it carefully enough. You might also try actually reading the cases in question.
Do “citizens” have more “rights” than those who are not citizens? Assuredly. Citizens of this country have a “right” to vote in national elections, they have a “right” to move freely from state to state, they have a “right” to petition Congress for redress. There are others that have been suggested (e.g.: the right of habeas corpus, though this is hotly debated; see the current litigation over the internees at Gitmo). But the fact that your status as a citizen offers you even more guarantees than your status as a resident does not in any way obviate the fact that your status as a person provides you with certain rights, and that our Constitution protects those rights by precluding governmental action to infringe upon them.
As for the Supreme Court’s interpretation: I suggest you read the cases on the subject. When you can discourse on them, with appropriate citations, please come back. Until then, you are not helping your argument by incorrectly characterizing the Court’s decisions on the topic.