Illegal Aliens Have CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?

Question

What About 2nd Amendment?
Should WE THE PEOPLE Submit
To ARMED ILLEGAL ALIENS In Our Neighborhoods??

Where Do WE THE PEOPLE Draw The Line
On The Mutilation Of The Constitution??

If The SMUGGLERs 4th Amendment Rights
Were Violated By Our Border Patrol Agents
Doesnt That IMPLY
That ILLEGAL ALIENS Have 2nd Amendment Rights??
The Right To Bear Arms?

Answer 1

Have you ever heard of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)?

The state of Texas had created a law (May 1975) requiring that all children enrolled in the public schools be either U.S. citizens or legal immigrants -- prohibiting illegals. A little more than two years later a lawsuit was filed in Tyler, TX challenging the law as a violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. All three levels of the federal courts came to the same basic conclusion -- the law is unconstitutionally discriminatory. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling was by a narrow margin, 5 to 4, with Justice Brennan writing the majority opinion, for himself and Justices Blackmun, Marshall, Powell, and Stevens. (In previous cases, Justices Blackmun and Powell had taken the view that the state may constitutionally ban legal immigrants from jobs as police officers (Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291 (1978)) and that getting an education is not a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right (San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)).) My "favorite" (note the sarcasm) part of Brennan's opinion for the Court is, "It is difficult to understand precisely what the State hopes to achieve by promoting the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime." What a swell job of understanding the motives of the Texas legislature.

Six years after the Plyler decision, Professor David P. Currie, writing a two-volume text called "The Constitution in the Supreme Court," had harsh words for this particular decision. He wrote, "With all due respect, this is carrying solicitude a little far. Public resources are scarce and those who have no business being here can have poor claim on them. I may have a right to keep a burglar out of my house, the Court appears to be saying, but once he is there I must invite him to dinner."

Answer 2

Yes. Because the majority of the Bill of Rights are not rights granted to citizens.

They are limitations on US government action. And that applies regardless of who the US government is acting against. The vast majority of protections afforded by the Constitution have nothing to do with citizenship. Try actually reading the Constitution some time.

Specifically, the 4th Amendment applies against all government searches and seizures where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. But the courts have already determined that there is no such expectation of privacy during a border search or arrest.

And the 2nd Amendment only applies to federal regulations of guns. It doesn't have any effect on state regulations. But that's beside the point because your example makes no sense. There is no direct interaction between the 2nd and 4th Amendments.

Answer 3

IIllegal Aliens and law abiding citizens BOTH have innalienable human rights.

I'm don't think the illegal aliens have the right to bear arms since even legally you must get a liscence to carry in the US - regardless of whether you are crossing the border or not.

So say a mexican soldier escorts a dignitary 2 feet across the border - that soldier is in violation of the law for not getting a US liscence for that weapon.

Answer 4

You raise a pretty good question to which, unfortunately, there is no absolute answer. The ideal for this country was that all "men" were to be free. Firstly, the term "men" didn't include blacks when the Constitution was written and ratified. Blacks were still slaves and property and considered by most people to be less than human than causcasians. The line drawn in this thinking restricted rights to a large portion of the new nation.

According to the Constitution, all people in this country, legal or illegal, have certain unassailable and inviolable rights. This may make some or all of us uncomfortable, but it has good reasoning behind it. If the rights of anyone group or segment of society are more extensive than those of any other, then conditions for social and legal dominance will develop based on the law itself. Restricting the rights of illegal aliens falls into this category. By trying to set them apart with a restriction of their rights we begin setting up a society of power levels based upon laws that discriminate in favor of certain groups or segments. It can and will only grow worse as time passes. HIstory taught our ancestors this which is why they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they did. It was not dashed off in the matter of a few hours or days. It was crafted, polished, debated, and debated, and debated until a consensus was reached accepting it with the ten original articles to the Bill of Rights. We haven't the same experiences as our ancestors did. We havn't been oppressed by a foreign king. We haven't been forced to let soldiers live in our houses and eat our food at our expense, receiving no compensation whatever for housing and feeding them. We haven't been made less than citizens of the mother country with no voice in our governance, though most of us don't take part anyway.

These and many more issues are what guided the creators of the Constitution. Many of those issues are still being struggled with today though in different forms, as with illegal aliens. It is very easy and natural to want to define hard lines of who has more rights and who has fewer. It is a very dangerous desire, one which will lead to more and more social stratification based solely on one person's legal superiority of rights as opposed to another's inferiority because of restrictions placed on his rights.

Where do we draw the lines? You have raised a very good question. But the answer is that the founders of this country have already drawn them and the Supreme Court has redefined and refined them various and multiple times. The lines have already been drawn. If we redraw them as drastically as suggested in this question, we do so at everybody's peril.

Answer 5

The Constitution details the rights of citizens of the United States *and* the rights of mankind. This is one reason (among many) that we protect rights worldwide. So yes, we must protect the rights of foreign citizens on our soil.

Don't believe for a second that because we're American that we're better than others or have guaranteed rights that they don't or don't deserve. As Americans we should be eager to share those rights with anyone who wants them. We are *not* an exclusive club.

Answer 6

definite. because of the fact the accepted public of the bill of Rights at the instant are not rights granted to electorate. they're obstacles on US government action. And that applies in spite of who the U. S. government is appearing against. almost all of protections afforded by utilising the form have not have been given something to do with citizenship. attempt unquestionably reading the form it sluggish. quite, the 4th modification applies against all government searches and seizures the place there's a lifelike expectation of privateness. however the courts have already desperate that there is not any such expectation of privateness for the time of a border seek or arrest. And the 2d modification in hassle-free terms applies to federal rules of weapons. It does not have any result on state rules. yet that's beside the element because of the fact your occasion is mindless. there is not any direct interplay between the 2d and 4th Amendments.

Answer 7

Yes, in some twisted sort of way, they do have constitutional rights. I do not agree with this! The congress of the USA has ruled on this in the past and defined specific guidelines and laws regarding illegal aliens in the USA but those laws are rarely enforced...

Answer 8

The right to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. Are you part of a well-regulated militia? Or are you some nut with a rifle? And there is no mention of citizen in the Constitution. The word used is people.

They don't give out my address on here, right?

Answer 9

I understand where you are coming from but I would like to point out that the constitution does not give us any rights, it simply protects us from the government infringing on our God given rights

Answer 10

no, you don't submit

how is it mutilated?

smugglers are breaking the law
In the commission of a crime they will get their due justice

let them bear arms and we'll shoot them down. Best to throw down arms and riase hands