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.
White gangs for the longest have been the actual government, the police, KKK... should I go on? Funny part is.. on the subject of "gangs", the two largest black gangs in this country only came about when the government took it upon itself to "disband" the black panthers. Most of the "white gangs" wear business suits but do just as much damage in the "real world" as the black and hispanic ones do. But those of us in the "real world" already know this.
Please continue telling us how whitey is the only non-violent race and only white countries can prosper.
Do confirm you agree with brownhornet statement above that "most of the white gangs wear business suits"? Including the GOVT and the POLICE?
No one has ever said there arent any white criminals, or even white gangs. But brownhornet apparently believes the average white dude is, by default, also a thug-like "gangsta".
Asians have prosperous countries. But no race EXCEEDS the white race in number of prosperous nations. Even you cant argue with that.
Do confirm you agree with brownhornet statement above that "most of the white gangs wear business suits"? Including the GOVT and the POLICE?
No one has ever said there arent any white criminals, or even white gangs. But brownhornet apparently believes the average white dude is, by default, also a thug-like "gangsta".
Asians have prosperous countries. But no race EXCEEDS the white race in number of prosperous nations. Even you cant argue with that.
Please explain why.
This isn't Stormfront. If you want to know why the no one can compare to the mighty white race just go there and the rest of us can discuss immigration laws.
Which parts of the constitution apply to non-citizens?
Due process rights certainly do. That's why Gitmo is used as a detention base, among many other examples. If a suspected terrorist arrived on US soil, they would be given full rights to due process of law. The whole point of the detention center is preventing that.
Also, it's quite difficult to know whose rights you can violate without violating the rights of people whose rights you can't violate, even if illegals didn't have any rights. Kapeesh?
Due process rights certainly do. That's why Gitmo is used as a detention base, among many other examples. If a suspected terrorist arrived on US soil, they would be given full rights to due process of law. The whole point of the detention center is preventing that.
Also, it's quite difficult to know whose rights you can violate without violating the rights of people whose rights you can't violate, even if illegals didn't have any rights. Kapeesh?
The 14th amendment, as referenced in a prior post, extended the personal freedoms and liberties (Testa's post uses due process and right to trial as an example) to all people, citizens or immigrants (legal and illegal alike). Of course, the Constitution expressly states what rights are reserved to citizens (i.e., right to vote, right to run for office, and the like). Our laws, for the most part, are designed to protect those within our borders, citizen and non-citizen alike. For instance (and this is extreme, I know), it is still illegal to assault an illegal immigrant, illegal immigrants have the right to trial by a jury of peers, and on and on.
I don't think anyone can argue that illegal immigration is a problem. I think what is important is how we go about reducing the occurence of illegal immigration. There are ways to do this without trampling the rights of citizens.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 14,999,411 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcsteiner
Which parts of the constitution apply to non-citizens?
If you are a legal resident of the United States you are afforded the same rights that citizens have, you just wouldn't have the same luxuries a citizen would have like voting, serving on a jury, and becoming an elected official.
Where things get prickly, and why we still have the Supreme Court deciding these things, are the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. While you are in any official state or territory of the Unted States whether you are Citizen, Resident, or alien everyone is afforded due process and equal protection (to the extent of contracts at least) in legal matters as past precedence in high court cases has set forth that in order for a law to be fair it has apply equally to all persons legal or not. Essentially a law becomes unconstitutional when the act of that law, no matter who is the target, could possibly abridge the freedom of Citizens enshrined in the Constitution for fair treat and protection against governmental intrusion.
In other words, and specific to this thread, this law is basically a Catch-22. The reason being is that say a citizen was suspected of being illegal and could not readily prove their legality due to not having access to documentation that could do such, then they could be detained and/or deported under this law as "Just take my word for it" is not a valid legal defense against proving one's citizenship. That of course would be illegal.
It sounds convoluted (it is), but in order for the Constitution to be valid, laws such as these have to be created in a way in which a legal citizen or resident of the United States could never be subject to them. Since such a thing is impossible since even citizens may be subject to this law due to the way this law was structured, it thus becomes invalid. Period.
It is this way because the Constitution was written and amended over the centuries to avoid a tyrannical government that made one set of rules for one set of people and another set of rules for another set of people. Our freedom as citizens hinges on illegal residents of the United States being afforded due process to be fairly charged with a crime.
Furthermore, no one on this thread in favor of repealing this law has advocated the idea that illegal immigrants are not in violation of the law and should be deported when found guilt of such a crime. These "what if" redherrings of "if you don't pass this law you are approving of illegal immigration" is nonsense pure and simple. I am against this law because it runs counter to everything the Constitution stands for.
If you think this is correct, then answer me this question: Why did the Bush administration (and by proxy the Obama administration) detain terrorists at army installations instead of in a Federal jail on us soil? It's not because of safety concerns (as if terrorists have super human powers and could not be detained at a regular prisons. lol), but because the Bush administration realized that if they jailed a terrorist in a civilian jail, then that terrorist would be allowed due process in either a International court or in their home country due to treaties we have signed (all treaties signed by the United States government with foreign nations/organizations are treated as United States law according to the Constitution) allowing that. That clause however does not pertain to United States military bases on foreign soil that is neither United States territory or the territory of the country they are in like say Cuba. If those terrorists were afforded due process in a court, the Bush administration knew that they would probably lose about 95% of their cases. That would have not lined up with their foreign policy.
Last edited by waronxmas; 05-18-2011 at 03:01 PM..
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 14,999,411 times
Reputation: 7333
I see others confirmed what I posted independently, i can not rep those individuals now, so thanks!
Also, I am surprised that there are so many basic questions about how the Constitution works and how it is applied to laws. I know Civics and Political Science classes can be boring, but didn't y'all pay attention just a little bit?
Oh my, I did not consider that. However, a current visa is a valid document for non-resident aliens to continue living in the United States. On the other hand, if a visa holder runs afoul of the law they can be turned over to ICE at any time for deportation. Unless you are an ambassador, consul, or part of the official foreign consul corp. Then you can do anything you want!
What about citizens of visa-exempt countries such as Canada? When I was on L-1, my only proof of legal status was my I-94 card (which for most I-94 holders would NOT be an adequate proof at all - but for a Canadian with L-1 status, it's the necessary and sufficient proof, and USCIS doesn't give you any other document). Visa-exempt doesn't mean visa-optional; it means that since you aren't required to have a visa, you can't get one.
The problem with "show me your papers" is that there's a long list of papers that people might have, depending on their status in the country. We're going to require the police to be roadside immigration experts now? Not to mention, what about vacationing tourists? How are they supposed to prove they're just (legally) visiting?
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 14,999,411 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainyRainyDay
What about citizens of visa-exempt countries such as Canada? When I was on L-1, my only proof of legal status was my I-94 card (which for most I-94 holders would NOT be an adequate proof at all - but for a Canadian with L-1 status, it's the necessary and sufficient proof, and USCIS doesn't give you any other document). Visa-exempt doesn't mean visa-optional; it means that since you aren't required to have a visa, you can't get one.
The problem with "show me your papers" is that there's a long list of papers that people might have, depending on their status in the country. We're going to require the police to be roadside immigration experts now? Not to mention, what about vacationing tourists? How are they supposed to prove they're just (legally) visiting?
Ah, that's where the problem gets even more convoluted. With the visa waiver program, a citizen of one of those countries can legal enter and stay in the United States for 30 days (I believe) with out a visa and move freely about the country. Under this law, they would be exempt from arrest or detention if they present their passport showing the entry stamp with the date on it showing they are under the 30 day maximum without a visa. If they exceed that 30 day maximum, then they are subject to immediate deportation.
This is another quirky rule that people on the more extreme side of the immigration debate rarely mention, even though it is one of the more common ways people become illegal residents. To them, their only vision of illegal immigration are people running across the border in the middle of the night or being stuffed into containers. They never think that many people come here legally (like Canadians, Europeans, and a few Asian countries like Japan) and just decide to stay. Those people who "just decided to stay" are just as illegal as those who run across the border in the middle of the night.
Of course, far be it to mention that as it would ruin the swarthy bogeyman they've conjured up to whip less enlightened people in to a frenzy in support of their draconian laws.
I see others confirmed what I posted independently, i can not rep those individuals now, so thanks!
Also, I am surprised that there are so many basic questions about how the Constitution works and how it is applied to laws. I know Civics and Political Science classes can be boring, but didn't y'all pay attention just a little bit?
I have two years of law school under my belt. Trust me, you do not know as much as you think you do. There are absolutes when it comes to the constitution, but extending due process to illegal aliens and non-citizens/residents is not one of them.
Ah, that's where the problem gets even more convoluted. With the visa waiver program, a citizen of one of those countries can legal enter and stay in the United States for 30 days (I believe) with out a visa and move freely about the country. Under this law, they would be exempt from arrest or detention if they present their passport showing the entry stamp with the date on it showing they are under the 30 day maximum without a visa. If they exceed that 30 day maximum, then they are subject to immediate deportation.
This is another quirky rule that people on the more extreme side of the immigration debate rarely mention, even though it is one of the more common ways people become illegal residents. To them, their only vision of illegal immigration are people running across the border in the middle of the night or being stuffed into containers. They never think that many people come here legally (like Canadians, Europeans, and a few Asian countries like Japan) and just decide to stay. Those people who "just decided to stay" are just as illegal as those who run across the border in the middle of the night.
Of course, far be it to mention that as it would ruin the swarthy bogeyman they've conjured up to whip less enlightened people in to a frenzy in support of their draconian laws.
To my understanding, these people are also incorrectly called criminals. Overstaying a visa or being within the country illegally is not a criminal offense but a civil offense.
Illegal immigrants are not necessarily criminals. Speeders and jaywalkers, on the other hand, are criminals.
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.
