Who has constitutional rights?

[Unkotare]

" Subjects To Their Country Of Origin "

* Subjects Are Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof *

The domain over which the us is able to issue its authority , unopposed , has nothing to do with whether an individual is a subject of the united states and therefore subject to its jurisdiction thereof .

A foreign national which is not a legal migrant to the us is not a subject of the united states and is therefore not subject to its jurisdiction and their children are to be given jus sanguinis to the country from the national origin in which their mother is a citizen - a subject of the government .

The us can not and would not conscript a foreign national to fight in a war to defend it , because a foreign national is not a subject of us jurisdiction - is not a subject to us jurisdiction .

Whatever mushrooms you're taking, stop taking so many of them. Your fevered fantasies will never be reflected in reality.

 

[woodwork201]

Illegals?
Nope
They have legal rights but not the benefit of enhanced constitutional rights
That is reserved for citizens.

Wrong. Where does the Government get the authority to do anything or to interact with any human being in the world? Through the Constitution. So where in the Constitution does it say that the government can search illegal aliens without a warrant or probable cause? Where does it say that they can convict an illegal alien just on the decision of a judge without a jury? Where does it say that they can publicly castrate illegal aliens, without a trial and without a lawyer, for jaywalking?

The government can't wipe their ass unless the Constitution says it is so. Samuel Adams said, and I attributed this to John Adams yesterday, making it clear that I was going from memory but i have verified that it was Samuel Adams who said, "The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

We tend to take our attention to either "peaceable citizens" or "keeping their own arms", depending on our objectives but the greatest part of this statement is, "The Constitution shall never be construed..." This highlights that the Founders believed that the Government could not do a thing, it doesn't matter what the thing is, because the Constitution cannot be construed to give them the authority.

If you cannot construe that the Constitution empowers the Government to even have an official conversation with an illegal alien outside of the restraints or authorities identified in the Constitution, then they cannot have it. And the Constitution cannot be construed to allow the Government to refuse an attorney to an illegal alien or to punish them without trial or to inflict cruel and unusual punishments upon them.

Your question does not make clear what the goal of the question was or if you have a particular constitutional protection that you're concerned about illegal aliens enjoying but where I usually see this question is about the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms that it protects.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention citizens; it mentions the people. The Founders were able to distinguish between the meanings of "the people" and "citizens" as the two were used appropriately throughout the Constitution.

So, like I said, you didn't make it clear what you're really trying to show but this question is always about something more than just a general thought about the protections of the Constitution so do enlighten us about what you're really trying to prove.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

So where in the Constitution does it say that the government can search illegal aliens without a warrant or probable cause?

There’s an oath to protect the constitution itself from enemies, foreign and domestic. An illegal alien is an invader, a foreign adversary.

 

[WEATHER53]

Constitution created by USA for USA and its citizens
It’s not an international public accommodation accord

 

[surada]

" Subjects To Their Country Of Origin "

* Subjects Are Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof *

The domain over which the us is able to issue its authority , unopposed , has nothing to do with whether an individual is a subject of the united states and therefore subject to its jurisdiction thereof .

A foreign national which is not a legal migrant to the us is not a subject of the united states and is therefore not subject to its jurisdiction and their children are to be given jus sanguinis to the country from the national origin in which their mother is a citizen - a subject of the government .

The us can not and would not conscript a foreign national to fight in a war to defend it , because a foreign national is not a subject of us jurisdiction - is not a subject to us jurisdiction .

Anyone and everyone legal or not is subject to US jurisdiction on US soil. You don't know the law and haven't read the statute.....

 

[Unkotare]

Constitution created by USA for USA and its citizens
It’s not an international public accommodation accord

The fact that you don't like the truth doesn't change the truth. The fact that you mistakenly believed something untrue doesn't change the truth. Try to find the strength to accept the truth.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Equal Protection Is Distinct From Unequal Endowment "

* Contractual Terms And Conditions *

Anyone and everyone legal or not is subject to US jurisdiction on US soil. You don't know the law and haven't read the statute.....

An illegal migrant is not a subject of the united states , and all else follows thereafter .

 

[Unkotare]

" Equal Protection Is Distinct From Unequal Endowment "

* Contractual Terms And Conditions *

An illegal migrant is not a subject of the united states , and all else follows thereafter .

How many times do you have to be told the same thing?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Not Offering Credence To Political Science Neophytes "

* Dealing With Traitors To Us Republic *

How many times do you have to be told the same thing?

An illegal migrant is not a subject of the united states , and all else follows thereafter .

 

[Unkotare]

" Not Offering Credence To Political Science Neophytes "

* Dealing With Traitors To Us Republic *

An illegal migrant is not a subject of the united states , and all else follows thereafter .

Go learn English, and stop being obtuse.

 

[Ringo]

 

[surada]

" Subjects To Their Country Of Origin "

* Subjects Are Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof *

The domain over which the us is able to issue its authority , unopposed , has nothing to do with whether an individual is a subject of the united states and therefore subject to its jurisdiction thereof .

A foreign national which is not a legal migrant to the us is not a subject of the united states and is therefore not subject to its jurisdiction and their children are to be given jus sanguinis to the country from the national origin in which their mother is a citizen - a subject of the government .

The us can not and would not conscript a foreign national to fight in a war to defend it , because a foreign national is not a subject of us jurisdiction - is not a subject to us jurisdiction .

Anyone on US soil, legal or not, is subject to US jurisdiction. The only exception is are foreign diplomats. You don't know the first thing about law.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

That is reserved for citizens

The debt star no longer cares for the Constitution

 

[PeterPilot]

Historical jurisprudence says you're incorrect. Anyone within our borders is afforded the rights of our Constitution.

Does this mean that citizenship confers no rights, no privileges?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Port Man Tea Ewe Idiomatic Foolishness Evident From Devious Red Herring "

* Failure Of Sophistry Propaganda For Over Simplified Phraseology Without The Terms There Of "

Anyone on US soil, legal or not, is subject to US jurisdiction. The only exception is are foreign diplomats. You don't know the first thing about law.

There phrase " subject to the jurisdiction " does not stand alone , and the phrase is appended with the term " thereof " .

The blend word " thereof " is composed of the terms " there " and " of " , that adds an addition article of condition for analysis .

The " jus soli " trope asserts that " subject to the jurisdiction " constitutes a summation upon which to base the entirety of meaning for the phrase " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " , while the two phrases are clearly different and distinct in meaning .

The " jus soli " trope asserts that " subject to the jurisdiction " is the only relevant set of terms from the phrase " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " , where the abbreviated phrase " subject to the jurisdiction " implies any domain within which us maintains its judicial authority , and exclusion of the term " thereof " is used to over generalize the entire phrase " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " .

The " jus sanguinis " trope proposes that exegesis or eisegesis of the phrase " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " must also include the blend word " thereof " , and meaning through the separate terms " there " and " of " , and that when " thereof " is appended to the phrase " subject to the jurisdiction " a condition is stipulated that such individuals are also " subjects of the jurisdiction " , while also not detracting from independence of the individual .

Clearly citizens and legal migrants are subjects of us jurisdiction , while clearly illegal migrants are not subjects of us jurisdiction , and though all could be subject to us jurisdiction , only those whom are subjects of the jurisdiction may receive citizenship " jus soli " for their children .

Linguistically , us 14th amendment could not have been phrased to be " and subjects of its jurisdiction " as such phraseology would necessarily contradict an assertion of independence and necessarily imply subjugation of us citizens as if to an emperor or to a king , thus the alternative idiomatic phrase " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " is correct .

 

[Unkotare]

 

[PeterPilot]

After a quick review of BOR, the term 'citizen' is not used until the 14th Amendment, FWIW

 

[Libby von H]

Historical jurisprudence says you're incorrect. Anyone within our borders is afforded the rights of our Constitution.

FALSE most certainly.

 

[surada]

Does this mean that citizenship confers no rights, no privileges?

It means US law prevails in the US. No other country's laws apply. That's "jurisdiction".

 

[surada]

Illegals?
Nope
They have legal rights but not the benefit of enhanced constitutional rights
That is reserved for citizens.

They can't vote.

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

www.law.cornell.edu