Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clearly, illegal aliens are NOT afforded "equal" protection. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, simply entitles illegals to receive the same “legal” protections, as in “due process” for criminal cases.
Note the red bolded section. If illegals were entitled to equal protection, it would be a violation of the Constitution to deny them the “right” to work, receive a SSN, or even drive in this country, would it not?
SSN, Driver's licences and work...Athought its called "right to work" are not rights. SSN, DLs and Work are privileges. The Constitution is clear on rights reseved to "citizens" and those reserved by "the people" and those afforeded to "all persons".
There is no consitutional guarantee to work, but there are constitutional protections in hiring and treatment at work.
Driver's licences are a priviledge, afforded by the states to thier residents; there is no consitutional right to have a DL or drive.
The USSC Justices are the arbitors of the Constitution...
Thomas Jefferson would probably disagree with you. Here is a letter by Thomas Jefferson to William Jarvis, written in 1820, addressing the issue of judicial tyranny:
You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is "boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem, '' and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and co-sovereign within themselves. If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him. They can issue their mandamus or distringas to no executive or legislative officer to enforce the fulfilment of their official duties, any more than the President or legislature may issue orders to the judges or their officers.
Betrayed by English example, and unaware, as it should seem, of the control of our Constitution in this particular, they have at times overstepped their limit by undertaking to command executive officers in the discharge of their executive duties; but the Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs. The judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because the laws of meum and tuum and of criminal action, forming the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department.
When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.
Pardon me, Sir, for this difference of opinion. My personal interest in such questions is entirely extinct, but not my wishes for the longest possible continuance of our government on its pure principles; if the three powers maintain their mutual independence on each other it may last long, but not so if either can assume the authorities of the other. I ask your candid re-consideration of this subject, and am sufficiently sure you will form a candid conclusion.
SSN, Driver's licences and work...Athought its called "right to work" are not rights. SSN, DLs and Work are privileges. The Constitution is clear on rights reseved to "citizens" and those reserved by "the people" and those afforeded to "all persons".
There is no consitutional guarantee to work, but there are constitutional protections in hiring and treatment at work.
Driver's licences are a priviledge, afforded by the states to thier residents; there is no consitutional right to have a DL or drive.
No, there is no “right” to work or drive a car. However, the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a state’s denial of “activities.” In other words, a group or individual must be accorded the same “right” as others to enjoy the privileges. Clearly, illegals are not included.
BTW, I think you are confusing the Constitution with the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and the Civil Rights Act, among others. They dictate our employment laws and procedures.
Please re-read the following quote.
Quote:
Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right.
The Native Americans know a LOT about "illegal immigrants."
Yeah and look what happened to them. Shouldn't we learn by the mistakes of others? They failed to control immigration and so they ended up on reservations.
Why would anyone think we should do the same to ourselves?
For the last year, the debate over birthright citizenship has raged across the country, with some political leaders calling for an end to the 14th Amendment, which gives automatic citizenship to any baby born in the United States. Much of the debate has focused on immigrants entering illegally from poor countries in Latin America. But in this case the women were not only relatively wealthy, but also here legally on tourist visas. Most of them, officials say, have already returned to China with their American babies.
Immigration experts say it is impossible to know precisely how widespread “maternity tourism” is. Businesses in China, Mexico and South Korea advertise packages that arrange for doctors, insurance and postpartum care. And the Marmara, a Turkish-owned hotel on the Upper East Side in New York City, has advertised monthlong “baby stays” that come with a stroller.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
