I am confused. is this discussion about the idea that “some people” are not entitled to equal protection under the law?
That troubles me. The idea of being ruled by law is, that it applies to everyone equally. That is the very foundation of the concept of JUSTICE. Everyone gets the same deal - the same protections and the same restrictions, the same rights to petition and redress and the same punishments.
Anything less is not justice at all.
No, but the right wing demonization of immigrants isn’t productive. We don’t need to have North Korea type sealed borders, we can’t afford to have completely open borders. There’s a happy medium where we allow guest workers who provide an economic benefit to us and we treat them with dignity and respect.
Ok, so the ones that are here illegally, do you feel like they have a right to bear arms? Is that not what the thread is about?
I’m not sure those are good counter-examples. Whether you cross 50 mph or .08 BAC for just a moment or you wildly exceed them for an hour, the violation occurs when the threshold is crossed.
But I think what you’re driving at is generally correct, contrary to my badly worded missive this morning. It is perfectly sensible to understand “in present violation of the law” to mean something like “continues to be in a state that shows the law was previously violated.”
I just don’t think that gets us much closer to understanding what the Court meant by that phrase, along with the word “probable,” in this context.
Which law? This opinion covers anyone in the country illegally, which includes violations of the law ranging from the not-even-punishable to the felonious. Objectively, we as a society don’t think it’s “rather important” to prevent people from overstaying visas – not as important as preventing littering, at least. And entering the country for the first time illegally is also about on par with speeding.
But you only have problems with leprous criminals when they’re foreign, presumably? All the other leprous criminals that are in the country because of an accident of birth: no problem? It strikes me as wholly inconsistent. Citizenship is not contingent on familiarity with the language, nor political knowledge, nor lack of virulent diseases, nor adherence to the law… Unless one happens to be born in the wrong hospital. Involuntary population control is fine as long as the population happens to be brown - legislated xenophobia, the concept of which is so ingrained that only a very few recognise why it is a dog-whistle issue.
nvm better forum for this
The law is a joke. It’s designed to be violated.
But of course, we don’t want to. We want them here, but we want them here illegally so we can not only mistreat and exploit them, but at the same time pat ourselves on the back about how they are all criminal scum and deserve whatever we do to them. If they were here legally we’d have to treat them like they are human, with civil rights and everything.
Can you stop obsessing about “the right wing” for a minute and see that you just contradicted yourself? You don’t know why people want to prosecute illegal immigrants, but you don’t want open borders. You can’t have it both ways. Either you have border controls or you don’t. If you support border controls, then you want to go after illegal immigrants. If you don’t want to go after illegal immigrants, then you want open borders.
Or,. you know, you can prosecute the people who willingly hire them, giving them a reason to stick around. And you can redesign the law to something more enforceable, and grandfather everyone into it.
Note, this is not my position, but it is the one I’ve seen of people wanting to restrict immigration without prosecuting the individuals.
AS for the thread title: I think everyone has the right to defend themselves against an immoral government. I think the Second Amendment doesn’t really help with that, though, since the government now has all the big guns. But, either way, that’s irrelevant, as illegal immigrants don’t currently have a legal right to be here.
EDIT: It’s like asking if criminals have the rights to own a gun. They don’t, but that doesn’t stop them. Any illegal immigrant is already versed in working in a black market system. There’s no way they won’t also be able to get a gun that way if they want one.
Only if you believe the present system is just. There’s a rather large gray area between totally open borders and uncritically supporting all present immigration laws and how they are enforced.
What is unjust about the current (i.e. post Hart-Cellar Act) laws assuming you do not believe in open borders?
I’m sure you’re not stupid enough to actually believe that’s what I think. The difference is that a government has far more options to control disease or crime on their own soil than elsewhere. Unless they want their efforts to be limited by the lowest common denominator, it is necessary to have a filter between the places they can influence and the places they can’t.
Fundamental rights invariably get strict scrutiny, not intermediate scrutiny. The Court never addressed whether the right to bear arms was fundamental in Heller, though it referred to it as a “fundamental right of Englishmen [at the time of the Revolution.” It did deem it to be fundamental in McDonald, though:
[QUOTE=Justice Alito]
Heller explored the right’s origins in English law and noted the esteem with which the right was regarded during the colonial era and at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. This is powerful evidence that the right was regarded as fundamental in the sense relevant here. That understanding persisted in the years immediately following the Bill of Rights’ ratification and is confirmed by the state constitutions of that era, which protected the right to keep and bear arms.
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3023 (2010)
[/QUOTE]
Nonetheless, I don’t think this decision is blatantly wrong. Voting is also a fundamental right, but to grant undocumented aliens the vote would be to obliterate the line between citizens and everyone else entirely.
Actually, I don’t think that is the difference. I think the difference is that a citizen of the country, however criminal or disease-ridden, has residence rights that a would-be immigrant doesn’t.
Just because leprous criminal citizens are still entitled to live in their country of citizenship doesn’t mean that it’s unfair for the same country to reject leprous criminal non-citizens as applicants for immigration.
The jurisdiction of the government encompasses US territory. Are US laws and social institutions insufficient for those they apply to?
Since this topic seems part and parcel of any discussion of illegal immigration, I would add that its not the notion of immigration laws that people find offensive, its the Tom Tancredo type rhetoric that bothers people. Its the focus on brown illegal immigrants that bothers some people. Noone seems that exercised about illegal immigrants from Asia or Europe, anti-immigrant sentiment seems to largely intersect with anti-hispanic sentiment.
People are offended by the apparent racism not immigration laws per se.
Or, I can decide that there is a limit to the amount of resources I want to devote to tracking down and deporting otherwise law abiding illegal aliens. .
I remember a time when lazy Mexicans in sombreros were always on siesta soaking up social services, now they’re taking all our jobs. If you are and able bodied American (born and raised) and you find yourself competing with illegal aliens for a job, you probably made some poor choices in life.
Personally, I would be OK with stapling a greencard to every STEM degree earned by an exchange student and contracting out our prisons to China.