USA Constitution debate -

[Doctor Professor Timon]

Cutting of benefits would be considered a violation of human rights. These days, it's not even just money for food and shelter. I wonder if the governments are supplying resources for internet access as part of their human rights. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

Execution is pretty much out of question, even by non-2015 standards.

Even more a-loggish sounding.

Humans don't have rights. Go to a dictatorship and proclaim those. Won't work out too well. Go to Saudi Arabia dressed in a bikini (as a man or woman) or proclaim your homosexuality there.

We only have the "rights" we defend / enforce. Sorry to say it, but rights end where desperation, laws, or enforcement thereof being.

I'm speaking from a logical slash reasonable point of view. For instance, the United States Constitution applies only to the citizens of the United States and guarantees the rights of United States citizens. Not citizens of the world (as our Constitution has no power over gun ownership in other countries, their free speech, etc.). If you are an immigrant (especially illegal) you are not entitled -to- those rights - as you are not a citizen, nor are you part of the civilization you're invading (especially if you refuse to conform to the culture in question).

 

[Marvin]

I'm speaking from a logical slash reasonable point of view. For instance, the United States Constitution applies only to the citizens of the United States and guarantees the rights of United States citizens. Not citizens of the world (as our Constitution has no power over gun ownership in other countries, their free speech, etc.). If you are an immigrant (especially illegal) you are not entitled -to- those rights - as you are not a citizen, nor are you part of the civilization you're invading (especially if you refuse to conform to the culture in question).

This isn't true. The constitution applies to most people in the US, citizen or not. Even if you're here illegally, you are still entitled to due process according to the constitution.

In fact, because of the fifth amendment, it can be pretty hard for law enforcement to even determine your immigration status, because you're not obligated to disclose that.

 

[Doctor Professor Timon]

This isn't true. The constitution applies to most people in the US, citizen or not. Even if you're here illegally, you are still entitled to due process according to the constitution.

In fact, because of the fifth amendment, it can be pretty hard for law enforcement to even determine your immigration status, because you're not obligated to disclose that.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."

If you are not a citizen, you are not a people thereof. You are here illegally and, according to that, excluded from it.

Anything after that point pertains to the people of the United States. Can't pick and choose, I'm afraid, if we're talking, strictly, about the document and not what our government selectively enforces.

 

[Marvin]

If you are not a citizen, you are not a people thereof.

What makes you think this is the case?

 

[Doctor Professor Timon]

What makes you think this is the case?

Every event until this actually became an issue. You don't get a trial before deportation, unless there's something I'm not aware of. If you're caught by border patrol, you're going back.

Illegal immigrants have been deported without question, given no rights or sanctity in the country (unless specifically given asylum, but that's another story) - until the Castro incident. Even then, soldiers were told to let Cuban immigrants drown and die in the sea, because if they made it here, they'd have to get shafted and either deported or imprisoned.

 

[Marvin]

Every event until this actually became an issue. You don't get a trial before deportation, unless there's something I'm not aware of. If you're caught by border patrol, you're going back.

Illegal immigrants have been deported without question, given no rights or sanctity in the country (unless specifically given asylum, but that's another story) - until the Castro incident. Even then, soldiers were told to let Cuban immigrants drown and die in the sea, because if they made it here, they'd have to get shafted and either deported or imprisoned.

You equated "people," as mentioned in the constitution with "citizen". I don't see how you came to that conclusion. There are mentions of both classes in the constitution (and later amendments) and they usually seem to be differentiated. Like it's specified how long a "person" needs to be a "citizen" for that person to be eligible for various offices.

Edit: The US has always had foreigners in its borders from the very beginning. The law had to accommodate them as well, and I really doubt it was in the original framer's plans to go "lol, you're not a citizen, no rights for you".

 

[Doctor Professor Timon]

You equated "people," as mentioned in the constitution with "citizen". I don't see how you came to that conclusion. There are mentions of both classes in the constitution (and later amendments) and they usually seem to be differentiated. Like it's specified how long a "person" needs to be a "citizen" for that person to be eligible for various offices.

I'll spell it out as best I can.

"We the People of the United States." Persons. They did not stutter.

They did not say "surrounding areas" they were talking about the original states that had banded together. The people in them.

People of the United States.

Not People in it. Of. It.

Consisting of the population - the people of the United States.

From there on, they were stating the rights OF those people OF the United States.

Not Joe Dirtbag who comes in randomly and is not OF the United States.

If I went to Canada, I would not be OF Canada. I would not be entitled to the rights of the Canadian Constitution. ESPECIALLY if I skipped their border patrol, went in, and started claiming the resources that should only be available to their citizens. I would be -in- Canada, but not -of-.

Proper knowledge of the English language used during the time period of any document is important.

I'm not doing this to be A-log.

Your average person nowadays, unless it was explained, wouldn't know what 'bearing arms' meant, unless they were told. Trust me, I've met these people.

 

[Marvin]

People of the United States.

Not People in it. Of. It.

Consisting of the population - the people of the United States.

Right, if someone lives in a certain area, they populate that area. They can be said to be "of" that area. Most people don't use that phrasing because it's kind of archaic, but it is correct.

 

[Doctor Professor Timon]

You equated "people," as mentioned in the constitution with "citizen". I don't see how you came to that conclusion. There are mentions of both classes in the constitution (and later amendments) and they usually seem to be differentiated. Like it's specified how long a "person" needs to be a "citizen" for that person to be eligible for various offices.

Edit: The US has always had foreigners in its borders from the very beginning. The law had to accommodate them as well, and I really doubt it was in the original framer's plans to go "lol, you're not a citizen, no rights for you".

People of - consisting of. That equates to citizens / populace.

Further response to your edit: Indians are citizens - we even took their land from them and forced them onto reservations, but seeing as how they were present, they became Americans when we claimed the land.

After borders were officially established and no longer expanded, people coming in had to come in legally. Even then, migrants were treated badly - Asian and Irish especially.

Moving on from there, notice the stipulations.

Adding on.

Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The law already states the illegal immigrants are (gasp) illegal and already breaking laws. They're usually sent back without trial.

Furthermore, you cannot -own- land if you are an illegal immigrant, you have no papers, no claims to ownership. It deprives them of applicability for this - they have no liberty either. As they are criminals, according to laws we already have passed (and the Federal Government refuses to enforce).

The most you can say is, "We can't kill them."

 

[Marvin]

People of - consisting of. That equates to citizens / populace.

Citizens aren't the same thing as populace.

 

[Vitriol]

People of - consisting of. That equates to citizens / populace.

Further response to your edit: Indians are citizens - we even took their land from them and forced them onto reservations, but seeing as how they were present, they became Americans when we claimed the land.

After borders were officially established and no longer expanded, people coming in had to come in legally. Even then, migrants were treated badly - Asian and Irish especially.

Moving on from there, notice the stipulations.

Adding on.

Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The law already states the illegal immigrants are (gasp) illegal and already breaking laws. They're usually sent back without trial.

Furthermore, you cannot -own- land if you are an illegal immigrant, you have no papers, no claims to ownership. It deprives them of applicability for this - they have no liberty either. As they are criminals, according to laws we already have passed (and the Federal Government refuses to enforce).

The most you can say is, "We can't kill them."

I'm afraid you are incorrect. Immigrants etc are entitled to all the protections in your bill of rights. You quoted the relevant portion yourself.

The supreme court has acknowledged the power of congress to deport without a hearing when it is a national security issue (communist and terrorists non citizens) aside from those exceptions immigrants do get a hearing before they are deported.

Edit: split this from main thread in E&N following a user report.

 

[AnOminous]

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."

If you are not a citizen, you are not a people thereof. You are here illegally and, according to that, excluded from it.

You should try reading past the Preamble, which merely states the purpose of the document.

Except there are plenty of people who are not citizens who are nevertheless here entirely legally.

The Fourteenth Amendment extends equal protection of the laws to everyone:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note: this distinguishes between two classes of people. First, there are those "born or naturalized in the United States," who are citizens. No state may "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States[.]" However, further, "nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Generally, non-citizens lawfully present are entitled to the same due process, free speech, and other rights as citizens. They are not entitled to rights such as holding federal office, voting in elections where not specifically authorized, or whatever rights are covered by "privileges or immunities" but not by other provisions.

Non-citizens who are not present in the United States, or are unlawfully present, however, are not entitled to the same protections as those lawfully present. For example, discrimination on the basis of national origin would be unlawful against citizens. However, immigration authorities routinely do things like set quotas based on national origin.

Outside of the Bill of Rights, though, it doesn't make much sense to talk about whether the Constitution "applies" to noncitizens.

The bulk of the Constitution, Articles I-VII, entirely consist of outlining the roles of the branches of government, their powers, their relationship to each other, and the federal and state roles. The federal government is always constrained and limited to those powers actually enumerated in the Constitution, and does not gain extra powers depending on whom it is addressing.

However, the additional positive constraints of the Bill of Rights mostly, but not entirely, apply to non-citizens as well as citizens. The exceptions are few, and are those in which certain rights are expressly or impliedly extended to citizens, but not to people in general.

 

[Zeorus]

Indians are citizens - we even took their land from them and forced them onto reservations, but seeing as how they were present, they became Americans when we claimed the land.

Actually, Native Americans weren't granted full citizenship until the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924. Prior to then, the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted as excluding them. Becoming "Americans" is a bit more complicated than who claims sovereignty over your land.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm afraid you are incorrect. Immigrants etc are entitled to all the protections in your bill of rights. You quoted the relevant portion yourself.

Not all of them. Some are inapplicable to non-citizens, such as voting rights and, arguably, rights deriving from "privileges or immunities" yet not otherwise granted. I went into this in a bit more detail in a post orphaned over in the other thread.

 

[Vitriol]

Not all of them. Some are inapplicable to non-citizens, such as voting rights and, arguably, rights deriving from "privileges or immunities" yet not otherwise granted. I went into this in a bit more detail in a post orphaned over in the other thread.

I must have missed that, will migrate it over.

Edit: done.

 

[Doctor Professor Timon]

You should try reading past the Preamble, which merely states the purpose of the document.

Except there are plenty of people who are not citizens who are nevertheless here entirely legally.

The Fourteenth Amendment extends equal protection of the laws to everyone:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note: this distinguishes between two classes of people. First, there are those "born or naturalized in the United States," who are citizens. No state may "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States[.]" However, further, "nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Generally, non-citizens lawfully present are entitled to the same due process, free speech, and other rights as citizens. They are not entitled to rights such as holding federal office, voting in elections where not specifically authorized, or whatever rights are covered by "privileges or immunities" but not by other provisions.

Non-citizens who are not present in the United States, or are unlawfully present, however, are not entitled to the same protections as those lawfully present. For example, discrimination on the basis of national origin would be unlawful against citizens. However, immigration authorities routinely do things like set quotas based on national origin.

Outside of the Bill of Rights, though, it doesn't make much sense to talk about whether the Constitution "applies" to noncitizens.

The bulk of the Constitution, Articles I-VII, entirely consist of outlining the roles of the branches of government, their powers, their relationship to each other, and the federal and state roles. The federal government is always constrained and limited to those powers actually enumerated in the Constitution, and does not gain extra powers depending on whom it is addressing.

However, the additional positive constraints of the Bill of Rights mostly, but not entirely, apply to non-citizens as well as citizens. The exceptions are few, and are those in which certain rights are expressly or impliedly extended to citizens, but not to people in general.

Won't disagree with a thing said there.

All I'm saying - illegal immigrants aren't entitled to the same rights. Did more searching and found out it's just a proceeding with a 48 hour forewarning on deportation.

So, yes, I admit I'm wrong, but not so much that an illegal immigrant cannot own property or what I have said in regard to that (with lack of identification and so forth). Anchor baby changes that, too.

Debate over.

 

[AnOminous]

Won't disagree with a thing said there.

All I'm saying - illegal immigrants aren't entitled to the same rights. Did more searching and found out it's just a proceeding with a 48 hour forewarning on deportation.

So, yes, I admit I'm wrong, but not so much that an illegal immigrant cannot own property or what I have said in regard to that (with lack of identification and so forth). Anchor baby changes that, too.

Actually, foreigners who aren't even in the country and never have been can own property in their own name in the United States (unlike some other countries). Whether or not they would be legally allowed into the country is a separate issue. Owning property wouldn't entitle them to citizenship or entry.

 

[Doctor Professor Timon]

Actually, foreigners who aren't even in the country and never have been can own property in their own name in the United States (unlike some other countries). Whether or not they would be legally allowed into the country is a separate issue. Owning property wouldn't entitle them to citizenship or entry.

Huh, go figure. Didn't know that. Should have, what with all the land China bought. Once again, I am incorrect.