Illegal alien rights in the U.S.
in [Golf]
|
From: Jack Hollis on 14 May 2010 19:58 On Thu, 13 May 2010 07:15:29 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >This should clear up one misconception here. > >The fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: > > >...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 law. > >...The Supreme Court has ruled that these provisions apply to all >...persons in the U.S., without regard to race, or nationality. >...Therefore, U.S. residents -- legal and illegal -- have >...constitutional rights such as equal protection of the law and the >...right to due process. > >BK Persons in the US illegally do not have the rights afforded to citizens. Obviously, unlike citizens, illegal aliens can be deported. There are legal procedures that the government must go through before someone is deported, but those procedures are made by the legislature and are not defined as constitution rights. There are situations where illegal aliens are afforded constitutional rights. For example if the government chooses to prosecute an illegal alien for a crime committed in the US that person is granted all the constitutional rights of a citizen.
From: BAR on 14 May 2010 20:09 In article <4bede2ba$0$4831$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> > >> If you kill a pregnant mother you can be charged with two murders. > >> However, if you kill an unborn child, via abortion, you cannot be > >> charged with murder. What is the difference? The unborn child is dead > >> either way. > >> > >> I guess it is ok to kill unborn children because they cannot speak > >> for themselves. > > > > The vast majority are victims of convenience. > > Cite. > > Now all we need is for the other three cite boys to chime in.
From: bknight on 14 May 2010 22:12 On Fri, 14 May 2010 20:09:27 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >In article <4bede2ba$0$4831$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >> >> >> >> If you kill a pregnant mother you can be charged with two murders. >> >> However, if you kill an unborn child, via abortion, you cannot be >> >> charged with murder. What is the difference? The unborn child is dead >> >> either way. >> >> >> >> I guess it is ok to kill unborn children because they cannot speak >> >> for themselves. >> > >> > The vast majority are victims of convenience. >> >> Cite. >> >> > >Now all we need is for the other three cite boys to chime in. > It wouldn't matter if fifty asked for cites from you. You never can produce them. BK
From: dene on 15 May 2010 01:04 "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message news:MPG.2657871a8175bc1b989f11(a)news.giganews.com... > In article <alangbaker-9AB73F.11414914052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > > > What rights are not codified in the US constitution as the US > > > constitution exists today? > > > > The document is very clear that there are rights in doesn't enumerate. > > > > You don't seriously disagree with this, do you? > > > > > > > > If you kill a pregnant mother you can be charged with two murders. > > > However, if you kill an unborn child, via abortion, you cannot be > > > charged with murder. What is the difference? The unborn child is dead > > > either way. > > > > Parents hold their offsprings rights in trust. A parent can decide that > > they will move self and child across the country and if the child > > doesn't like it, confine the child to his or her room. > > > > But if a third party does that, it's called kidnapping. > > > > What's the difference in that case? > > Are you of the opinion that the US constitution is a living document? > > I am of the opinion that if you want to change the US constitution you > do it through the process it defines and get an amendment passed. > > The problem is that rights come from the creator and the creator did not > and will not give you the "right" to steal your neighbors property to > fund your desires. A document that is one of the base documents of our > laws specifically proscribes stealing. You're wasting your time with Uncle Al, the unborn kiddy's pal. He doesn't believe in a creator....or much of anything for that matter. -Greg
From: Billy on 15 May 2010 01:39
In article <7n_Gn.6403$mi.2229(a)newsfe01.iad>, "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > news:l9rnu5dugg77jus2l08hs6ms20udi7bo9h(a)4ax.com... > > This should clear up one misconception here. > > > > The fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: > > > > > > ...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 law. > > > > ...The Supreme Court has ruled that these provisions apply to all > > ...persons in the U.S., without regard to race, or nationality. > > ...Therefore, U.S. residents -- legal and illegal -- have > > ...constitutional rights such as equal protection of the law and the > > ...right to due process. > > > This is the same constitution wherein we have uncovered a right to abortion. > We don't take what the constitution actually says literally anymore. > > Glad I had a chance to clear that up. You mean that people don't have a right to their own bodies any more? The state can tell them what their bodies are going to do? Is that in the Constitution? -- - Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html |