Illegal alien rights in the U.S.
in [Golf]
|
From: Alan Baker on 14 May 2010 03:59 In article <MPG.265643159bd6602a989efa(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <l9rnu5dugg77jus2l08hs6ms20udi7bo9h(a)4ax.com>, > bknight(a)conramp.net says... > > > > 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. > > There are exceptions. Such as? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 14 May 2010 04:39 In article <DI3Hn.7819$h57.1885(a)newsfe22.iad>, Strabo <strabo(a)flashlight.net> wrote: > Howard Brazee wrote: > > On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:47:42 -0400, Strabo <strabo(a)flashlight.net> > > wrote: > > > >> Illegal aliens are foreign nationals illegally in the US. They are > >> quite simply, outlaws. > > > > We've all broken laws. But our justice system assumes we are > > innocent until found guilty. > > > > Maybe it's about how you define "we". > > If one is within the US and is not demonstrably a citizen of the US, > and one does not have papers authorizing his presence, then one is a > foreign national. > > Does a Frenchman have 5th A. rights? Germans? Brazilians? Mexicans? Yes, yes, yes and yes. > > If one is an illegal alien the 5th A. does not apply. > > Illegal aliens do not have unalienable rights. Incorrect. I can only suggest that you invest in a dictionary. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Howard Brazee on 14 May 2010 07:52 On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:47:43 -0400, Strabo <strabo(a)flashlight.net> wrote: >> We've all broken laws. But our justice system assumes we are >> innocent until found guilty. >> > >Maybe it's about how you define "we". You and me and anybody else. >If one is within the US and is not demonstrably a citizen of the US, >and one does not have papers authorizing his presence, then one is a >foreign national. How do you demonstrate that you are a citizen of the U.S.? Do you carry a birth certificate with you? >Does a Frenchman have 5th A. rights? Germans? Brazilians? Mexicans? Yes. >If one is an illegal alien the 5th A. does not apply. If you are accused of a crime, the 5th amendment applies - even if that accusation is that you are an illegal alien. Your accent sounds vaguely Canadian to me. >Illegal aliens do not have unalienable rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Frank Ketchum on 14 May 2010 08:06 "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-A1F417.00590114052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > 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. > > Your constitution makes it very clear on the subject of rights that it > was never providing a definitive and exhaustive list of all the rights > that people possess. My point, numbnuts, is that we ignore the constitutional rights of people who are unfortunate enough to not yet be birthed. This non-trivial tidbit seems to go miles over the heads of certain people.
From: BAR on 14 May 2010 09:00
In article <alangbaker-A1F417.00590114052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > 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. > > Your constitution makes it very clear on the subject of rights that it > was never providing a definitive and exhaustive list of all the rights > that people possess. > > > > > Glad I had a chance to clear that up. > > You should try reading and understanding the document before you "clear" > anything up about it. What rights are not codified in the US constitution as the US constitution exists today? 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. |