Illegal Aliens Covered by the U.S. Constitution?

[Moonglow]

14th Amendment

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.

Every visitor or immigrant from another country would have to submit themselves to the laws of that nation they happen to reside in, it does not matter if that nation is the United States, France, Italy, Mexico, or Iran. That sediment is what’s reflected surrounding our 14th Amendmend with how it’s been written and interpreted for this country. There is a clear difference, however, between a foreigner subjecting themselves under a nation’s laws, and the full rights and benefits allowed of a legal citizen of that country.

No there is no difference...

There absolutely is, and I’d ask you to provide clear evidence to the contrary. Nowhere in the 14 Amendment does it entitle the foreigner or illegal with having the right to vote, paid education by means of government assistance, social security, benefits that only a legal citizen would have. The 14th clearly states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction of legal protection. This clearly speaks of the issue of legal representation under a court of law and against illegal seizure or unlawful imprisionment without legal protection (which according to our laws is legal representation). All foreigners must be still be subjective to our laws, which includes issues of immigration.

Voting is not a standing right in the sense that it would need protection daily, don't be silly...sure it includes all laws yet the detained have to right to be covered by the Constitution even during criminal negligence...

 

[danielpalos]

I continually hear Leftists make this claim. And it makes me shake my head. All one has to do is read the preamble to the constitution to see the clear original meaning of the rights contained therein.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It doesn't say "We the people of North America." Or "We the people of the world." It specifies Americans. Citizens of the United States.

That being the case, by what constitutional power do non-citizens or people who are criminally in this country without proper documentation have those rights?

Will one of the Leftist/Progressive posters on here calmly and logically explain this to me?

so much for the allegation, of natural and individual rights, gun lovers always allege, when it is specifically about guns.

Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

That would not have been written, nor carry any legal meaning, if it were not for the Founders’ intent of establishing a clear boundary and difference between (1) citizen and (2) the foreigner or an illegal immigrant who hasn’t lawfully obtained citizenship

Until the militia acts. 10usc246.

 

[harmonica]

14th Amendment

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.

I see nothing about the vote, property ownership, education welfare, medical care. They are not here legally they are not here under the cover of law.

No the 14th Amendment is about due process. You can’t be stopped and have your personal property seized, or be thrown in jail, without the right of representation in a trial. It has absolutely nothing to do with voting rights, education, social security benefits, even employment (without having obtained a work visa). That is not what the 14th Amendment says at all.

what about suspected terrorists?

 

[harmonica]

..we all agree that there should be common sense/etc--obviously
..considering we live in a MUCH different age with weapons of mass destruction/instant communication/air transportation/etc, it is only common sense to greatly restrict rights of illegals as they could be terrorists--any one of them--men-women-children
..remember 9-11 when almost 3000 Americans were murdered in one day by foreigners

 

[danielpalos]

is it Serious or Not, right wingers.

should we enroll the militia or is the right wing, merely a bunch of whiners?

 

[Weatherman2020]

I continually hear Leftists make this claim. And it makes me shake my head. All one has to do is read the preamble to the constitution to see the clear original meaning of the rights contained therein.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It doesn't say "We the people of North America." Or "We the people of the world." It specifies Americans. Citizens of the United States.

That being the case, by what constitutional power do non-citizens or people who are criminally in this country without proper documentation have those rights?

Will one of the Leftist/Progressive posters on here calmly and logically explain this to me?

To a point they do. You can’t take them out back and shoot them, but you can decide to deport them. Unless they’re in California and they’ll be given free welfare, education, healthcare, and a nice apartment.

 

[Syriusly]

I continually hear Leftists make this claim. And it makes me shake my head. All one has to do is read the preamble to the constitution to see the clear original meaning of the rights contained therein.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It doesn't say "We the people of North America." Or "We the people of the world." It specifies Americans. Citizens of the United States.

That being the case, by what constitutional power do non-citizens or people who are criminally in this country without proper documentation have those rights?

Will one of the Leftist/Progressive posters on here calmly and logically explain this to me?

Shame you Conservatives can't read past the Preamble of the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Should we give our Statue of Liberty back to the French, and Blame the Right Wing?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I continually hear Leftists make this claim. And it makes me shake my head. All one has to do is read the preamble to the constitution to see the clear original meaning of the rights contained therein.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It doesn't say "We the people of North America." Or "We the people of the world." It specifies Americans. Citizens of the United States.

That being the case, by what constitutional power do non-citizens or people who are criminally in this country without proper documentation have those rights?

Will one of the Leftist/Progressive posters on here calmly and logically explain this to me?

So, you skipped 8th grade Civics class?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I continually hear Leftists make this claim. And it makes me shake my head. All one has to do is read the preamble to the constitution to see the clear original meaning of the rights contained therein.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It doesn't say "We the people of North America." Or "We the people of the world." It specifies Americans. Citizens of the United States.

That being the case, by what constitutional power do non-citizens or people who are criminally in this country without proper documentation have those rights?

The Founding Fodder Gave Us Oats, Not Votes

"We, the people" is a self-reference to the lawyers for the 1% who scribbled that anti-democratic manifesto. They also declared themselves to be the supreme law of the land, pretending to speak for us, the real American people.

Only sissy Buttboys for the Bosses listen to the political bullies who push that enemy of self-determination. The lying traitors who call democracy "mob rule" are pathetic brownnoses with a desperate need to feel superior to the majority of Americans. They hate their Daddies for not getting rich and spoiling them. They never grew up.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I thought the same thing till I was referred to court rulings on the matter. Apparently globalists are deciding that if you are illegal, you are a person, and therefore protected. Even some of the founders felt the same.

Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights
Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

"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.


"The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

Give Us Direct Democracy and the Illegal Aliens Will Be Running for Their Lives

SCROTUS married COITUS and they put their children up for adoption.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

14th Amendment

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.

Every visitor or immigrant from another country would have to submit themselves to the laws of that nation they happen to reside in, it does not matter if that nation is the United States, France, Italy, Mexico, or Iran. That sediment is what’s reflected surrounding our 14th Amendmend with how it’s been written and interpreted for this country. There is a clear difference, however, between a foreigner subjecting themselves under a nation’s laws, and the full rights and benefits allowed of a legal citizen of that country.

No there is no difference...

There absolutely is, and I’d ask you to provide clear evidence to the contrary. Nowhere in the 14 Amendment does it entitle the foreigner or illegal with having the right to vote, paid education by means of government assistance, social security, benefits that only a legal citizen would have. The 14th clearly states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction of legal protection. This clearly speaks of the issue of legal representation under a court of law and against illegal seizure or unlawful imprisionment without legal protection (which according to our laws is legal representation). All foreigners must be still be subjective to our laws, which includes issues of immigration.

Voting is not a standing right in the sense that it would need protection daily, don't be silly...sure it includes all laws yet the detained have to right to be covered by the Constitution even during criminal negligence...

I believe that’s what I exactly and initially said, that the 14th Amendment specifically protects any person from having personal possessions seized and being incarcerated without legal representation which is “due process”. Thank you for finally coming around to my initial point two replies ago.

 

[Moonglow]

14th Amendment

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.

Every visitor or immigrant from another country would have to submit themselves to the laws of that nation they happen to reside in, it does not matter if that nation is the United States, France, Italy, Mexico, or Iran. That sediment is what’s reflected surrounding our 14th Amendmend with how it’s been written and interpreted for this country. There is a clear difference, however, between a foreigner subjecting themselves under a nation’s laws, and the full rights and benefits allowed of a legal citizen of that country.

No there is no difference...

There absolutely is, and I’d ask you to provide clear evidence to the contrary. Nowhere in the 14 Amendment does it entitle the foreigner or illegal with having the right to vote, paid education by means of government assistance, social security, benefits that only a legal citizen would have. The 14th clearly states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction of legal protection. This clearly speaks of the issue of legal representation under a court of law and against illegal seizure or unlawful imprisionment without legal protection (which according to our laws is legal representation). All foreigners must be still be subjective to our laws, which includes issues of immigration.

Voting is not a standing right in the sense that it would need protection daily, don't be silly...sure it includes all laws yet the detained have to right to be covered by the Constitution even during criminal negligence...

I believe that’s what I exactly and initially said, that the 14th Amendment specifically protects any prison from having personal possessions seized as well as protection from being incarcerated without legal representation which is “due process”. Thank you for finally coming around to my initial point two replies ago.

yet the fed and govts down to the town marshall do not recognized that due process before the property is taken away..

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Every visitor or immigrant from another country would have to submit themselves to the laws of that nation they happen to reside in, it does not matter if that nation is the United States, France, Italy, Mexico, or Iran. That sediment is what’s reflected surrounding our 14th Amendmend with how it’s been written and interpreted for this country. There is a clear difference, however, between a foreigner subjecting themselves under a nation’s laws, and the full rights and benefits allowed of a legal citizen of that country.

No there is no difference...

There absolutely is, and I’d ask you to provide clear evidence to the contrary. Nowhere in the 14 Amendment does it entitle the foreigner or illegal with having the right to vote, paid education by means of government assistance, social security, benefits that only a legal citizen would have. The 14th clearly states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction of legal protection. This clearly speaks of the issue of legal representation under a court of law and against illegal seizure or unlawful imprisionment without legal protection (which according to our laws is legal representation). All foreigners must be still be subjective to our laws, which includes issues of immigration.

Voting is not a standing right in the sense that it would need protection daily, don't be silly...sure it includes all laws yet the detained have to right to be covered by the Constitution even during criminal negligence...

I believe that’s what I exactly and initially said, that the 14th Amendment specifically protects any prison from having personal possessions seized as well as protection from being incarcerated without legal representation which is “due process”. Thank you for finally coming around to my initial point two replies ago.

yet the fed and govts down to the town marshall do not recognized that due process before the property is taken away..

I believe you are referring to the seizure of property through the use of the term “imminent domain” ?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

14th Amendment

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.

I see nothing about the vote, property ownership, education welfare, medical care. They are not here legally they are not here under the cover of law.

Reality and what you want are two different shades of color..

The Progressive bunch are counting on the education of these imports to be brainwashed by the school systems. The progressives have in the past taken into the party as workers to spread the "word" and show and train them in the undermining of the Law of this Nation. This is assisted by org, like the ACLU and Geo Soros's funds. Listed are some of the examples:


The leading recipient of Soros money is the ACLU, which is so extreme that it favors the legalization of all drugs, even heroin and crack cocaine, and opposes virtually all measures taken to curtail drug use. In another example of its extremist approach, the group has rejected funds from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, and participation in the Combined Federal Campaign, because acceptance of the money would require adopting measures to make sure it does not employ terrorists or support terrorist activity.

 

[Taz]

Sure illegals are covered by the Constitution, that part that says gives us your hungry, your tired, your wetbacks...

 

[danielpalos]

Dred Scott should have resorted to our Commerce Clause and "The Merchant of Venice clause".