US illegal foreign nationals: rights and privileges. Do they have the right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Verisimilitude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, I can’t spell bare correctly:blush: in the second option. Passion is clearly evident in the current threads about this topic to include my own. I don’t meant to shift the debate here with the poll, I’m curious what others think beyond those that engaged in the open debate as a %.
 
I think you may have over looked something all government services in the United States of America are based on the US Constitution. So even arresting a non citizen and deporting them can only be done legally in the US if it is done with constitutional compliance. In the US either Constitution Law applies or no legal authority exists. That is why George Bush place the Iraqis in Cuba; he did not want the court to address this issue. If you believe this issue outside the constitution then you appear to be supporting rogue actions by police, not good, not good at all. We could defer to International Law - However I strongly advise against it! The proper method is to uphold the current ruling that the constitution requires reasonable proof the suspect in not a US Citizen, which then allows incarceration and or deportation.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
If you believe this issue outside the constitution then you appear to be supporting rogue actions by police, not good, not good at all.
Click to expand...
I do not support unconstitutional rogue actions by the police or illegal foreign nationals. US Law always applies to US citizens in or out of country, especially to those entrusted to uphold it such as the US Military and all government officals acting on behalf of the people of the United States. The US Military installation in Cuba is US soil. The court has addressed the issue. The suspension of habeas with respect to those prisoners is a topic for a different thread.

Applying the restrictions of our law to ourselves in effect extends certain protections of our law to all we come in contact with; from the poor Mexican immigrant looking for a better life to plotting foreign terrorists, so being a citizen or not is significant.

I’m not sure what you mean by services in context of the poll, and as far as missing something the poll was intended to be specific to certain US Constitutional rights and privileges some posters proclaim as extending to unlawfull foreign nationals in the US such as the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th & 14th.

I was curious if others shared that view.
 
If it involves the government it involves the constitution, the government has no other source of authority. How can the government process anybody (foreign or not) without the constitution if the only authority base is the constitution. Your mixing some things below this (1) military authority which the courts have ruled exists under the constitution and (2) what is the minimum requirement under the constitution for processing a non US citizen inside the US. Your current post mostly speaks of #1. however your question is really #2 Our current Presidential staff is out of control and will eventually be reeled in by the courts. The process is idiotic because it will weaken the future Presidents and US Military leaders. The court is trying to allow the military powers to stay in place however Bush continues to abuse the actual power pushing for a fight he can not win. The courts have ruled the military can both peace and war time procedures for soldiers and captives. These are not unlimited powers, they are powers deemed necessary to efficiently defend the US. So taking a suspected person is allowed, indefinite detention with out charge is not allowed. Thus the foolishness of today, the court allowed extended time to process the detainees but the president appears to be waiting out the court by refusing to process these people. It is a matter of time until the court intervenes. That intervention may affect Mexicans mowing yards in Phoenix. Or it may not. As mentioned earlier the current standard is reasonable proof the person is not a legal US citizen. At that time they can be jailed or deported not beaten, murdered, tortured, executed, etc, etc.

so to review your specific
1st amendment - Do you expect a religion requirement, or should they be jailed based on their personal opinions?

4th amendment - if you start illegal searching what do you do when no illegal is found? Do you think it okay for the government to breakdown your door ripe your house apart stop your car when ever they feel like it , then say well we were looking for non US citizens?

5th amendment - about the same as number 4 if you are ripped from your bed at night and deported as an illegal alien is that okay as long as the paper work says you were believed to be illegally in the US? No court, no lawyer, no trial is that acceptable to you? See only if you have a fair trail could you explain you are US citizen but if you want to prevent this constitutional amendment from being activated during immigration round ups well then you have to suffer.

6th amendment - more of the same, do you need a trial or not? are you willing to be deported because the police did not have to follow these amendments because they thought you were illegal.

#10 - you already spoke against this idea of rogue police actions being allowed.

#14 - your citizenship was granted by birth as was mine, so if you want to change that what should be the new method to determine if the next baby will or will not be granted citizenship?
 
Texas_Roofer said:
If …granted citizenship?
Click to expand...
So if I understand you, since you did not mark the poll appropriately, you do think the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th Amendments apply to illegal foreign nationals.

The 1st Amendment question was specific to assembly and protest/petition the government; not religion, speech or press freedoms. You could have checked yes to this quesion, or “extending one extends all…” option instead of the attempted deflection about GITMO.

The 4th Amendment is talking about an illegal search by the government, not searching for illegals.

The 5th & 6th; how do they differ from UDHR rights? You also make wild, unsubstantiated and unlikely suppositions.

The 10th & 14th were not part of the OP poll. Rogue police ripping people out of bed, deporting illegals without trial is not affected by the 10th Amendment so your answer is irrelevent. In answer to your 14th question- the baby should be the nationality and citizen of the parents if neither are lrgal US citizens/residents-orphans excluded.
 
The are here ILLEGALLY, and as such have only the rights that we as civilized people grant them. That is to treat them in a humane way, and to deport them.

If the are charged with a crime, they cannot be compelled to speak, nor can they be tortured. They have a right to a speedy, public trial. if convicted, they need to go to jail.

ابو كمون
 
I had to be very careful as a teacher …my teen students watched to see if I was fair,honest and true…since I always preached that to them! Benedict Arnold was a patriot as long as he fought on the side of the colonists…once he changed over he became a traitor to the cause of freedom. Illegal means just that…you have invaded other peoples homes. Little Elian was not for his mom died trying to save his soul by escaping from Cuba . Of course,the same 'tolerant 'ones screamed to send that little boy back to a pagan country! The same US Constitution has a clause that refers to the states being invaded and that the central government has a duty to protect those same states…Nino
 
I think people in this country illegally should be treated EXACTLY the same as the government of Mexico treats the people that are in their country illegally. And I also think Cardinal Mahoney of LA needs to shut his mouth and stop advocating for the Church to break the law. He is an absolute joke. The cardinal needs to go back to basics and read the CCC and re-discover the teachings of the Church.
Anyone in this country legally is fine. Otherwise, get out.
 
There are somewhere around 1/2 million aliens who have had court trials and been ordered deported AND WHO CANNOT BE FOUND. They can’t be deported because they are evading the the law enforcement officials.

What kind of system do we have here, when we cannot even enforce a legal, legitimate, uncontroversial court order.

I suggest that folks read the DETAILS of the proposed immigration “reform” law. All 400 or so pages. All 800 or so sections. Where gang members get legal protection. Where people with false identifications (sleeper terrorists ??) or people who steal the identities of others get protection.

THEN, I suggest that folks who are interested in the immigration issue look up the Simpson-Mazzoli Act … The Immigration Reform and Control Act PL #99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 of November 6, 1986.

Since we are not implementing Simpson-Mazzoli, why should be pass yet another immigration law. Let’s enforce the provisions of Simpson-Mazzoli first and then work on its limitations.

Visit www.heritage.org for some outstanding discussion points.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top