Outdated 2nd Amendment

[SigLady]

But, then someone else's natural rights are being taken away (over a non-violent felony). Should other natural rights like freedom of religion and privacy (unreasonable search and seizure) be denied to illegal aliens as well?

That gets dicey. You have the humanitarian point of view that says "no." Then there's the legal (and sometimes Machiavellian) perspective that illegal immigrants shouldn't be here to begin with and they should get no protection under the law since their very presence in this country is operating outside of the legal system.

 

[GOPerfect]

But, then someone else's natural rights are being taken away (over a non-violent felony). Should other natural rights like freedom of religion and privacy (unreasonable search and seizure) be denied to illegal aliens as well?

I am pretty pig headed. I am self serving and have little feelings to others. Some of my good friends and co-workers tell me that I feel so little because I am dead inside.

In saying that, yes, if a person is here in an illegal fashion, they should have no protections under my Constitution. None. No due process, no Rights except the basic needs of life. If they are known to be illegal, they have (or should not have) any protections that Legal citizens and residents do!

 

[Deplorable Me]

Can we pass a law and ban tyranny?

 

[NirvanaFan]

That gets dicey. You have the humanitarian point of view that says "no." Then there's the legal (and sometimes Machiavellian) perspective that illegal immigrants shouldn't be here to begin with and they should get no protection under the law since their very presence in this country is operating outside of the legal system.

I can see both sides. I'm just trying to stimulate ideas and discussion

In saying that, yes, if a person is here in an illegal fashion, they should have no protections under my Constitution. None. No due process, no Rights except the basic needs of life. If they are known to be illegal, they have (or should not have) any protections that Legal citizens and residents do!

So, if a person is here illegally, we should be able to throw them in prison for the rest of their lives?



James Madison said, "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

The 14th Amendment would give them the same rights we have, no? "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." We know that this gives illegal alien children the right to attend public school (Plyler v Doe).

In Almeida-Sanchez v. United States SCOTUS ruled that warrantless searches, even on illegal aliens, aren't acceptable.

In Wong Win v. United States SCOTUS ruled that illegal immigrants have the right to due process.

 

[SigLady]

...our government is designed to preserve our rights...

Hmm... and how's that working out for us?

 

[SigLady]

I've always thought that safe storage laws shouldn't be mandated but encouraged by being tax deductible as well. You're not going to force someone who doesn't want to to use one. You can help someone who wants to though. Carrot, not stick.

That's like seat belt laws in Germany... you're not legal required to wear one, but if you get into an accident not wearing one and get hurt your health insurance won't cover any of the medical costs. it sort of puts the onus on the person again... and this is in Germany. Socialist Germany is freer than the US of A?

 

[Celt]

Hmm... and how's that working out for us?

Thats why i said designed.

 

[SigLady]

I am pretty pig headed. I am self serving and have little feelings to others. Some of my good friends and co-workers tell me that I feel so little because I am dead inside.

In saying that, yes, if a person is here in an illegal fashion, they should have no protections under my Constitution. None. No due process, no Rights except the basic needs of life. If they are known to be illegal, they have (or should not have) any protections that Legal citizens and residents do!

I tend to agree with you... and I am a compassionate person... so that has little to do with any of it.

 

[SigLady]

In Almeida-Sanchez v. United States SCOTUS ruled that warrantless searches, even on illegal aliens, aren't acceptable.

In Wong Win v. United States SCOTUS ruled that illegal immigrants have the right to due process.

was illegal immigration even an issue back when the constitution was written? does anyone know? I imagine the concept of border control didn't even dawn on them in the late 1700s.

Be that as it may, I guess this is just another example of everyone having to eat a little crow. The libs hate the 2A, we love it. conservatives have issues with the amendments which (in effect) afford illegal aliens equal protection under the law, libs love it. no one gets everything they want, but if we start tweaking the constitution to favor our views ("there was no illegal immigration in the 1770s! The constitution is mute on that point!"), that opens it up to an onslaught from BOTH sides, and we all know what the first thing to be cut would be- 2A, then the 1st.

 

[Snappo]

was illegal immigration even an issue back when the constitution was written? does anyone know?

Nope - not an issue back then. Anyone was invited cart blanche, and if you wanted to become a US Citizen you had to be here a certain amount of time, have local residents willing to swear for you, and a Judge that asked questions of you and eventually said yea or nay. That was in the US Constitution and resulted in the Naturalization Act. I think it happened before Washington took office (back when they had those Presidents of Congress), but don't hold me to that. So like the late 1780s to maybe 1790?

The concept of immigration laws came from racism. We didn't want Asian looking people so we made laws restricting that. That was the true start of immigration laws in America that we talk about in present day America. They called it the National Origin Act, and it was also called the Asian Exclusion Act. I believe it was fallout from the Red Scare, after the Bolshevik revolution. But I am not a big Historian so I'm just running off memory. Maybe some folks on this board are US History professors or something.

Of course back 225 years ago we didn't have to worry much about ISIS and Taliban, and after Thomas Jefferson bought all that land off Napoleon we suddenly had 3.1 million square miles and something tiny like 20 million people. So we needed more people desperately.

 

[Robin]

There is nothing wrong with this amendment as it stands. The problem is simple and that is, those that willfully violate it.
Robin

 

[NirvanaFan]

was illegal immigration even an issue back when the constitution was written? does anyone know? I imagine the concept of border control didn't even dawn on them in the late 1700s.

Nope, they didn't really have "illegal immigration" per say. They did have the concept of citizenship and understood who was a citizen and who wasn't though.

 

[4excal]

Can we pass a law and ban tyranny?

I always assumed that was called a "Revolution"..

 

[4excal]

After reading all these post(headache and all) all were very well written and thought out, making a very interesting and informative thread..kudos to all ya all!




Unfortunately we live in the 21st Century Union and it all makes for good banter but zero action applied
Maybe juuuuust maybe if Preet Bharara should become president one day...that guy kick azzzzz