Who has constitutional rights?

[Coyote]

Constitutional rights are reserved for American citizens and legal immigrants. Of course we want it that way

Where does it say that?

 

[dblack]

Where does it say that?

It doesn't.

 

[surada]

No
Not if illegally here. Now they have to be handled legally but right to vote and received monetary benefits of immigrants or citizens had not been codified yet although lib loons are pushing mightly

If you are on US soil the US has jurisdiction... Doesn't matter if you're on a student or tourist visa or here illegally. No other country's laws apply.

 

[Unkotare]

If you are on US soil the US has jurisdiction... Doesn't matter if you're on a student or tourist visa or here illegally. No other country's laws apply.

Lib loon weather53 has had this explained to him many times. He's not too bright.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Clueless Public At Large Brought On By Nonsense Of Liberal Versus Conservative Stupidity "

* Civics 101 Review *

"Positive liberties" aren't liberties. Nor rights. Nor are they promised by the constitution.

First , the term rights as you apply it is political science and intellectual stupidity - Applying THe Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction .

Second , a negative rite is a writ of law devised in a form that proscribes authoritarian actions of government , meaning that it directs non action ( aka negative actions ) by government , from which individuals receive negative liberties , that is negative liberties result from non actions , otherwise understood as negative actions of government .

Such is why negative liberties represent protections , independence and individualism .

Third , a positive rite is a writ of law devised in a form that prescribes authoritarian actions of government , such as protecting one individual from illegitimate aggression by another individual , such that the individual receives a negative liberty , whereas if the government provides an endowment to an individual the individual receives positive liberty of endowment .

Such is why positive liberties are endowments , dependence and individualism .

In that you do not understand the basics of political science is telling , and there is littler wonder as to why as the liberal versus conservative paradigm is intellectual and political science buffoonery .

 

[surada]

Constitutional rights are reserved for American citizens and legal immigrants. Of course we want it that way

The US has jurisdiction over anyone on US soil. Do you understand jurisdiction?

 

[surada]

Lib loon weather53 has had this explained to him many times. He's not too bright.

Sad, isn't it? The problem is America is ignorance.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Over Generalized Humanism Flew Out The Window "

* State Interests Exclusive To Subjects By Title *

Where does it say that?

There are many unwritten , yet obvious first principle deductions , as a priori political science .

A law exists only because there is an entity capable of issuing a retort for violating the legal pretexts , and prior to entering into a social civil contract , according to a constitution , individuals are subjects to moral relativism in nature .

To improve survival and quality of life , natural freedoms are exchanged for protected rites , by retort , as a subject by title , whereby us citizens are subjects of interest to us government and therefore subject to the jurisdiction thereof .

At its inception , a state is comprised of citizens who represent exclusive interests of a state , while non citizens remain subject to natural freedoms , except through diplomacy or by an alternative contract by which they become formal subjects such as by legal immigration .

A sanctimonious decree that the us is obligated to protect any and all lives does not exist .

 

[Unkotare]

There are many unwritten , yet obvious as a priori political science . ..

I think perhaps you don't understand what "a priori" means.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Not Subjects Until A Formal Onus Of Accountability Not Assumed By Contract "

* Subjects Of Jurisdiction Versus A Domain Of Authority *

The US has jurisdiction over anyone on US soil. Do you understand jurisdiction?

The us government has an unrestrained ability to implement the judgement of its authority within a domain , however that has been over generalized as the meaning of its jurisdiction in us 14th amendment , however us jurisdiction is exclusively and contractually a formal obligation to its subjects which are its citizens and legal migrants with whom a contractual obligation has been created by visa .

Just because a us citizen is traveling abroad , without being a subject by title in the legal immigration system of the foreign government , does not relieve us government of its obligation to protect the civil liberties of its subject , and likewise , illegal migrants in the us remain subjects by title to the jurisdiction from their country of origin , however they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof .

A foreign national becomes a subject of us jurisdiction , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof , through diplomatic agreement by visa .

A guarantee of equal protection is negative liberty , while endowment is a positive liberty and that includes citizenship , and children born in the us to illegal migrants whom are not subjects of the us , whom are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof , are to receive jus sangunis citizenship in the country of maternal origin of which the mother is a subject by title .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Alienable "

* Nature Versus Nurture *

I think perhaps you don't understand what "a priori" means.

When first principles are self evident from that which preexists , then the deductions are a'priori .

 

[Unkotare]

Politics by definition cannot be a priori.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Metaphor Versus Reality "

* A Priori Is Self Evident From Nature *

Politics by definition cannot be a priori.

Some conjecture inalienable rites , such as a rite to life , however a rite to life does not exist in nature , by empirical observation , as life can be alienated , and from that a priori condition one may deduce that a law exists because there is an entity capable of issuing a retort for violations of its precepts .

In an attempt to circumvent the obvious implications of moral relativism in nature , the inalienable trope invokes a fantastical facade of a final judgement , while ignoring the success criteria of nature for survival .

 

[Unkotare]

First of all, it's "rights." Second, stop playing with philosophical terms if you don't understand them.

 

[dblack]

First of all, it's "rights." Second, stop playing with philosophical terms if you don't understand them.

There's a man-sized, pedantic stick shoved up someone's ass.

 

[surada]

" Not Subjects Until A Formal Onus Of Accountability Not Assumed By Contract "

* Subjects Of Jurisdiction Versus A Domain Of Authority *

The us government has an unrestrained ability to implement the judgement of its authority within a domain , however that has been over generalized as the meaning of its jurisdiction in us 14th amendment , however us jurisdiction is exclusively and contractually a formal obligation to its subjects which are its citizens and legal migrants with whom a contractual obligation has been created by visa .

Just because a us citizen is traveling abroad , without being a subject by title in the legal immigration system of the foreign government , does not relieve us government of its obligation to protect the civil liberties of its subject , and likewise , illegal migrants in the us remain subjects by title to the jurisdiction from their country of origin , however they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof .

A foreign national becomes a subject of us jurisdiction , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof , through diplomatic agreement by visa .

A guarantee of equal protection is negative liberty , while endowment is a positive liberty and that includes citizenship , and children born in the us to illegal migrants whom are not subjects of the us , whom are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof , are to receive jus sangunis citizenship in the country of maternal origin of which the mother is a subject by title .

The US government has NO jurisdiction over US citizens abroad.. We do have extradition agreements with some countries.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Terms And Conditions Apply "

* Natural Freedoms And Exclusions From Contractual Obligation *

The US government has NO jurisdiction over US citizens abroad.. We do have extradition agreements with some countries.

What does extradition have to do with foreign embassy and an obligation of us government to protect the civil liberties of its citizen whom are subjects of its jurisdiction , whether or not a us citizen was an official subject by title in the legal immigration system of a foreign country ?

When a us citizen is a subject by title in the legal immigration system of a foreign country , a contractual agreement exists whereby the foreign country assumes an onus of accountability to issue a retort for violations of the civil liberties against the us citizen .

When a us citizen is not a subject by title in a foreign country , an onus of accountability by the foreign country to issue a retort for violations of civil liberties against the us citizen does not formally exist , and the foreign country may or may not choose to issue a retort for violations of civil liberties against the us citizens .

If the foreign government chooses not to issue a retort for violations of civil liberties against a us citizen , because us citizens are subjects of us jurisdiction , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof , the recourse and contractual obligation of us government is to seek justice through diplomacy .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Traditional Slang Contributing To A Lack Of Public Informed Consent And Institutionalized Stupidity "

* More Valid Perspective Established Simply Waiting On Precedence *

First of all, it's "rights." Second, stop playing with philosophical terms if you don't understand them.

The term " rights " is okay for the willfully ignorant and those attempting to bastardize common sense for pretentious political advantage through the buffoonery of orwellian double speak and double think , so no apologies here for not buying into it .

Applying THe Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction

* Applying The Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of A Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction * * Opening Post Subjective Objective Sew Gnomon * The term right is a faux pas of diction , as to equivocate the term right with a mathematical norm leads to a contradiction ...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Unkotare]

" Traditional Slang Contributing To A Lack Of Public Informed Consent And Institutionalized Stupidity "

* More Valid Perspective Established Simply Waiting On Precedence *

The term " rights " is okay for the willfully ignorant and those attempting to bastardize common sense for pretentious political advantage through the buffoonery of orwellian double speak and double think , so no apologies here for not buying into it .

Applying THe Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction

* Applying The Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of A Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction * * Opening Post Subjective Objective Sew Gnomon * The term right is a faux pas of diction , as to equivocate the term right with a mathematical norm leads to a contradiction ...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[surada]

" Terms And Conditions Apply "

* Natural Freedoms And Exclusions From Contractual Obligation *

What does extradition have to do with foreign embassy and an obligation of us government to protect the civil liberties of its citizen whom are subjects of its jurisdiction , whether or not a us citizen was an official subject by title in the legal immigration system of a foreign country ?

When a us citizen is a subject by title in the legal immigration system of a foreign country , a contractual agreement exists whereby the foreign country assumes an onus of accountability to issue a retort for violations of the civil liberties against the us citizen .

When a us citizen is not a subject by title in a foreign country , an onus of accountability by the foreign country to issue a retort for violations of civil liberties against the us citizen does not formally exist , and the foreign country may or may not choose to issue a retort for violations of civil liberties against the us citizens .

If the foreign government chooses not to issue a retort for violations of civil liberties against a us citizen , because us citizens are subjects of us jurisdiction , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof , the recourse and contractual obligation of us government is to seek justice through diplomacy .

Lol lots of Americans think the US embassy can protect them in a foreign country. So stupid.