Because by some of what I constantly read here the prevelance is "the illegal has no rights". Which is completely untrue. Should we ignore the constitution and remove the rights of illegals? What does that lead to?
bring on the hate mail.
2007-11-28 03:02:57 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
And please if you aren't familiar with the constitution ck it out and its definitions before spouting.
2007-11-28 03:09:18 · update #1
The Bill of Rights which is a part of the Constitution, says only the word persons and has long been recognized by the Supreme Court as meaning any person on the soil of the United States. Never has any Supreme Court ruled that the Bill or Rights only applied to US Citizens. In fact they have quite often ruled exactly the opposite and is the number one reason they had to pass the Patriot Act.
2007-11-28 03:49:01 · update #2
Actually 29 Character person: You should look again. Editing generally means I am responding to something somebody said. I am not afraid to make mistakes and quite often do, nor am I afraid to admit them. Similarly, look at the answer below yours. That addresses the question. He and I may not agree but he definitely makes sense. People like you would rather polarize and blame shift than to actually say something of merit. I am quite familiar with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
2007-11-28 04:59:55 · update #3
I do appreciate you edit Mr. 29 and I agree it is hard to get a thought out response rather than a mouthpiece for the left or the right by the ignorant. I prefer anybody to post what they believe regardless of what I will like. What I don't like is when people want to polarize or just remain willfully ignorant, which is not directed at you by the way. Intelligent debate is the only way to resolve any issue.
2007-11-28 05:51:56 · update #4
Well if we want the Constitution there protecting us and all our rights guaranteed thru it, We better say the Constitution.
He is correct also we entered into a World agreement as follows:
In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly declared in article three, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
Meaning people we can't treat illegals as if they don't have BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. Like protection from harm. Laws are laws correct?
2007-11-28 03:17:04 · answer #1 · answered by Dog Tricks 4 · 2⤊ 8⤋
They have human rights, which all humans have upon birth. The constitution specifically says "The People" meaning that nations citizens, not anyone who happens to sneak in. Illegal aliens do not have protection under the United States Bill of Rights.
And where in the world did you ever get the idea that the patriot act was largely passed to protect illegals, I would be really interested to hear that one!
2007-11-28 16:29:49 · answer #2 · answered by thelogicalferret 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Constitution is more important than illegals, which is one reason they have to go. You can't have a Constitution without basic rule of law (you can't have just rule of law without formal limitations on the power of the government), and illegal aliens undermine that with thier very presence.
Of course all immigration laws, and the enforcement thereof must be in accord with the Constitution. And, of course, the constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, and can be amended...
2007-11-28 12:40:37 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Their children, especially those born on US soil, have the right to use our school systems while they are here. That being said, their parent's presence on American soil is a criminal act which means that they can be deported with or without their children; the choice is up the illegal immigrant.
There is also the issue of driving; held up to be a privalige, not a right; check out the Breathalyzer laws and that little agreement you have to sign in order to get a driver's license and when you're done check out related court cases. The right to vote is not granted to non-citizens it is exclusively preserved for citizens only, as is the right to hold public office and keep and bear firearms. They can peaceably assemble, but must do so at their own risk since they are here illegal and can be arrested and deported at any time.
As long as police or immigration officials have probable cause, they can raid establishments that employ illegals, and can do the same to their homes. Probable cause is vague, and it is that vagueness that is what is used to do what appears to be illegal raids and the like, but since the officials have probable cause, a hot tip, or documentational evidence they can raid areas and make mass arrests.
(Found it again.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{Edit}
I pointed it out with the hope that you would change it so that we could have a better debate here. I wasn't trying to do anything like that. I just get sick of people taking advantage of such a mistake and not answering the question. You'll notice I pointed it out and suggested you fix the problem and did try to answer the question.
Just read my answer, I tried to answer you without thumping you on the head with it since we both know what the topic is. For that reason I tried to present a constitutional backing for the actions you seem to be alluding to. I rarely give a head bopping answer, and instead try to avoid restating what we already know to be the topic since that's redundant. In case you want my point, which I admittedly got lost due to rushing, I was trying to argue that neither position is entirely correct since deporting illegal immigrants is constitutional.
I also responded to two other posters in the hopes that they'll elaborate a little more on their answers since they seem pretty flawed and difficult to defend. I deleted them since you seem to dislike that.
2007-11-28 12:34:55 · answer #4 · answered by 29 characters to work with...... 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Of course it is true that they have certain constitutional rights because they are in this country (whether illegally or legally it doesn't matter).
However they do not have the right of citizenship.
They do not have the right of jobs.
They do not have the rights of free medical, food stamps, housing, etc.
They do not have the right to be given citizenship over those who have waited legally and patiently - the right way!
the constitution does not grant them these rights and our courts have already upheld the constitutionality of our ability to deny them these things. The only problem we have now is that the FEDERAL government has to be the one to take away these privileges - if the states try it then there are some legal issues revolving around their ability to tackle immigration issues (which are a federal responsibility).
Our courts have stated that we cannot "not" give their children an education if they are here", but that does not take away our ability to deport them at the same time that we are giving them OVER $10,000 from the taxpayers per year for their little bundles of joy to be educated.
2007-11-28 11:32:47 · answer #5 · answered by youarewrongbobisright 5 · 11⤊ 1⤋
Both are equally important!
What part of the constitution do you think we are ignoring???
Where does it say that illegals have rights????
If you are so sure that's in the constitution, then why don't you prove us all wrong and show it to us?????????
2007-11-28 11:15:18 · answer #6 · answered by mikea_va 6 · 10⤊ 1⤋
Illegal aliens have the right to be deported humanely.
2007-11-28 11:33:51 · answer #7 · answered by ProUSA2 6 · 7⤊ 0⤋
The US employers should have to face prison time for hiring illegal aliens. No fines, no misdemeanors, only felony convictions and hard time in state prisons.
Then your deportation problem will solve itself.
2007-11-28 11:36:27 · answer #8 · answered by Victor S 5 · 7⤊ 1⤋
The constitution doesn't apply to illegals.
2007-11-28 11:38:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
They are both equally important and we should obey the law of the land and deport the illegals.
2007-11-28 11:06:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 11⤊ 1⤋