Two questions, first is a request for opinions; second is a request for US constitutional guidance.
1. Should any non-citizen have rights equal to a citizen while in the USA or its territories, whether a legal immigrant, an illegal immigrant, or a legal visitor?
2. What do the US constitution, amendments, Bill of Rights, and Supreme Court rulings have to say on this matter? Please identify your source of information.
Thank you.
Fingers crossed for good discussion.
Adventure is the only thing you buy that makes you richer
Opinions? Mine is that anyone who doesn't own property, is on welfare, or doesn't pay income tax should not get a vote. All honorably discharged Vets automatically get a vote.
Opinions? Mine is that anyone who doesn't own property, is on welfare, or doesn't pay income tax should not get a vote. All honorably discharged Vets automatically get a vote.
Thank you.
What about a legal immigrant who is a property owner?
Adventure is the only thing you buy that makes you richer
The Constitution, in The Bill of Rights, does not grant rights. It prohibits the Government from taking them away. Unalienable rights are endowed to all men by their Creator. Big difference. If Gov’t were the grantor, it could also take them away.
A:Citizenship required for voting. A1. All "working" taxpayers allowed to vote, as their money is being spent. Property ownership not required, working renters and young, legal age, working family members have a right to have a say so in how their community, State, and Country governments are being run. ( I worked too hard for too many years, including while a student at home and on my own to not have a vote)
B: Illegal immigrants have no rights in this country other than to be treated as a human being and then get shipped back to their country of origin, on their dime if they are found to have any funds on them. If they want to claim refugee status, do it before they get here. Apply for entry, have a sponsor, etc as my family did. Then find work and learn the language.
C: a visitor (I'm assuming you mean on a Visa) is entitled to do what is expressly allowed for the type of Visa held. Work, Student, or Travel. That's it. Should they run afoul of the law, they get treated as a human being and the Visa rescinded upon conviction.
D: I'm not going to delve into Constitutional law at this hour of the day.
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
Did they work for a living and pay taxes to get a retirement?
Let's take this further, after my dear mother got married, she never worked another paying job in her life. Should she have been allowed to vote?
Oh, my folks weren't property owners until in their mid-30's, so should she have been allowed to vote before them even thought she didn't serve like my dad did?
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
“The people” are not defined as being or not being citizens as far as I know. I would say at the time of the it’s adoption the founders intended constitutional rights to apply to anyone here almost without limit as far as federal law goes. But obviously the constitution and its delegated or reserved rights didn’t apply to the pre-European people in residence. re Injuns. So there is history of Constitutional rights being denied for certain groups from the inception of the Constitution.
The Constitution is silent on legal vs illegal status. There seems to have been no distinction at that time as there was no immigration law to differentiate. As far as I know. It was open doors for all. Today immigration laws are in effect having been adopted by Congress and signed by the executive branch in a constitutional manner. Immigrants are therefore welcome only at the pleasure of the citizens and the laws of our land; the legal citizens having been defined as “the people” by these same laws.
With Constitutionally passed immigration law being in effect, defining legal vs illegal status, those here illegally have no claim to Constitutional rights granted to or reserved to legal citizens.
My sources are the US Constitution and my brain
Extra credit: Presidential Office Holder Biden is therefore guilty of treason for willfully allowing the laws of our nation to be broken, allowed our borders to be breached, ordering Border Patrol to assist in these illegal acts, and using federal funds to support the persons illegally here. And that’s just a start.
Colossians 3:17 (New King James Version) "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him."
Two questions, first is a request for opinions; second is a request for US constitutional guidance.
1. Should any non-citizen have rights equal to a citizen while in the USA or its territories, whether a legal immigrant, an illegal immigrant, or a legal visitor?
2. What do the US constitution, amendments, Bill of Rights, and Supreme Court rulings have to say on this matter? Please identify your source of information.
Thank you.
Fingers crossed for good discussion.
From Heller:
“Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5
Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6
What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990) :
“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”
Jump to 6 minutes for the Lawyer Speak:
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
Part of a "national community" (i.e. not 'international community) or sufficiently connected to it seems to be the salient point?
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
I've just now briefly looked over the constitution. There isn't much mention of the word citizen until after the civil war. The bill of rights is pretty liberal in the use of the words "the people" and "persons" so one would think that at the least a person here legally would acquire those rights.
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
I've just now briefly looked over the constitution. There isn't much mention of the word citizen until after the civil war. The bill of rights is pretty liberal in the use of the words "the people" and "persons" so one would think that at the least a person here legally would acquire those rights.
Our Constitution was written during a time of open immigration and no government funded social welfare system.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
The rights you actually have are whatever the rats’ nest of past decisions and current SCOTUS combine to define. It’s fluid, as demonstrated by recent decisions on guns, abortion, Affirmative action etc. A new court can jerk them right out from under you.
I've just now briefly looked over the constitution. There isn't much mention of the word citizen until after the civil war. The bill of rights is pretty liberal in the use of the words "the people" and "persons" so one would think that at the least a person here legally would acquire those rights.
Our Constitution was written during a time of open immigration and no government funded social welfare system.
As opposed to what??? I hope you are not saying the Constitution doesn't have the same power today as when it was written.
“The people” are not defined as being or not being citizens as far as I know. I would say at the time of the it’s adoption the founders intended constitutional rights to apply to anyone here almost without limit as far as federal law goes. But obviously the constitution and its delegated or reserved rights didn’t apply to the pre-European people in residence. re Injuns. So there is history of Constitutional rights being denied for certain groups from the inception of the Constitution.
The Constitution is silent on legal vs illegal status. There seems to have been no distinction at that time as there was no immigration law to differentiate. As far as I know. It was open doors for all. Today immigration laws are in effect having been adopted by Congress and signed by the executive branch in a constitutional manner. Immigrants are therefore welcome only at the pleasure of the citizens and the laws of our land; the legal citizens having been defined as “the people” by these same laws.
With Constitutionally passed immigration law being in effect, defining legal vs illegal status, those here illegally have no claim to Constitutional rights granted to or reserved to legal citizens.
My sources are the US Constitution and my brain
Extra credit: Presidential Office Holder Biden is therefore guilty of treason for willfully allowing the laws of our nation to be broken, allowed our borders to be breached, ordering Border Patrol to assist in these illegal acts, and using federal funds to support the persons illegally here. And that’s just a start.
There have been surprisingly few court rulings on who "the people" and even with the rulings, there's a lot of gray area.
When I say equal rights, I am considering right to vote, access to government services, right to own property, due legal process, etc.
Did you not go to school in America? You don’t have a copy of our Constitution? No access to an internet search engine of local library? I fully appreciate your asking for opinions, but not for basic info.
