Appeals process started for border patrol agents

Home :: Search :: Memberlist :: Privacy Policy :: Donate!

Appeals process started for border patrol agents

Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Should Border Patrol Agents be freed?

	Yes
	No

View Results

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1560

Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject:

I am not lynx. Don't throw out accusations to distract from your inability to follow-up on your own argument. Did you find the text you wanted me to read?

JohnnyLee5
Newbie

Joined: 06 Jan 2007
Posts: 35

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:59 am Post subject:

Toxic wrote:

Where does it say that the rights are only for Americans? I have it on my screen and I don't see anything of the sort.

You're on a computer. Load up a copy of the Constitution, then copy and paste the part you're referring to.

Again, you have displayed your ineptitude regarding the Constitution and it’s intent. Try reading the 14th amendment.

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the JURISDICTION thereof, are CITIZENS of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION the equal protection of the laws.” (emphasis added)

The 14th Amendment protects the “privileges and immunities of citizens,” defined as those who are “born or naturalized in the United States.
Also, the term, “a person within it’s jurisdiction”, applies only to citizens. This jurisdiction meaning - not owing allegiance to any one else.
One cannot place jurisdiction upon themselves.

To understand that the U.S. Constitution is a contract between the people, the states, and the federal government, one can see that WE THE PEOPLE established and agreed to these provisions set forth in the founding document, and subsequently ratified amendments, for the purpose of creating our republic. – WE THE PEOPLE BEING WE THE CITIZENS.

So, in the constitutional view, there are privileges and immunities such as the Bill of Rights, but neither the U.S executive, legislature, or judiciary has jurisdiction to protect these for any but American citizens.

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1560

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:10 am Post subject:

Quote:

for any but American citizens.

What you just quoted literally said nothing of the sort. I don't see how you could even interpret it that way. It's not a vague passage. It defines citizenship and applies jurisdiction to those citizens, not restrictions on who are protected by rights or a specific definition of jurisdiction.

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION the equal protection of the laws."

Of specific importance is that part. You emphasized "WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION" with the implication that it only applies to citizens who were previously defined as being under the jurisdiction of the United States. The 14th amendment does not denote jurisdiction to citizens only (at least I should hope not; prosecuting criminal non-citizens would be difficult if jurisdiction could only constitutionally apply to citizens).

JohnnyLee5
Newbie

Joined: 06 Jan 2007
Posts: 35

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:56 am Post subject:

Toxic wrote:

Quote:

for any but American citizens.

WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!
OF COURSE IT APPLIES RESTRICTION. Those without citizenship are "restricted" from protection of privileges and immunities since they do not meet the criteria of being within the jurisdiction of the state or federal governments.. Citizenship only being for those born or naturalized in the U.S.

My “implication” was exactly as stated. No state may deny to any person WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION the equal protection of the laws." An illegal is not under the protection or jurisdiction of the U.S.

WITH THAT IN MIND -

The duty of any state is to prosecute criminals thus providing equal protection of law to it's citizens. THE PROTECTION IS FOR THE CITIZENS NOT THE ILLEGALS. The statement still applies only to citizens and THEIR privileges and immunities. We don’t prosecute an illegal alien because it is THEIR right to be prosecuted – We prosecute an illegal alien because it is OUR right (privilege, immunity) to have OUR laws enforced.

Jurisdiction in the amendment’s context is directed at the state or federal ability to provide the privileges and immunities already mentioned. AN ILLEGAL, for instance, has no ability to vote, pay taxes, collect returns, drive, own a gun, etc. A legal non-citizen also has limited privileges and immunities.

Obviously, law enforcement has a separate jurisdiction to prosecute crimes no matter who commits them - citizen or illegal. This jurisdiction originates from the fact that failure to do so would be a violation of the Constitution's ability to provide safety and security to American citizens. Law enforcement cannot, however, prosecute an illegal for a crime such as treason because jurisdiction is NOT present (there is no oath of citizenship or inferred allegiance to the U.S.).

Basically, the only privilege or immunity conferred to an illegal would be that of due process – it can be stated that the process "due" in the case of an illegal alien is prosecution and /or deportation. This simply because DUE PROCESS only infers any process DUE that coincides with the "law of the land" – It is illegal for one to enter the U.S. without authorization.

One should also remember that the 14th Amendment was ratified during Reconstruction and it’s main purpose was to include blacks, freed slaves, and their children as citizens. Although some, ignorant of history refuse to look at it thru a novel approach called “context”.

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1560

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:29 am Post subject:

Quote:

OF COURSE IT APPLIES RESTRICTION. Those without citizenship are "restricted" from protection of privileges and immunities since they do not meet the criteria of being within the jurisdiction of the state or federal governments.

It says nothing of the sort in terms of restriction. You are trying to convince me that it is implying this, and I see nothing of the sort in any part of the text you selected from our Constitution. Neither do our courts, thank goodness.

Turk
Forum Elder

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:08 am Post subject:

So you feel pity for this drug smuggling criminal?
I know that he was just peddling drugs and people across the border
but how would you feel if he was a terrorist smuggling in explosives or other stuff like that
would you still feel bad for the way that he was treated?

I think that the border patrol agents should be let go immediatly

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1560

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:43 pm Post subject:

I don't feel pity for nor do I support him. He's a criminal in his own right. What I also don't support is what you just did. You said he's a criminal, he smuggled drugs, you pulled a FOX and threw out terrorists as an argument, and then your conclusion is that the border patrol agents should be let go. Absolutely not. We have a criminal justice system for a reason. If they feel they aren't guilty, they can appeal (as they are) and the courts will either order them released or keep the ruling. No use of emotional "but the other guy was bad too!" arguments will get them out of court.

Turk
Forum Elder

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject:

Our border patrol was only doing their job that they are charged with

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1560

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:18 pm Post subject:

They didn't seem to think so, otherwise they wouldn't have felt the need to clean up the scene and not report what happened.

JohnnyLee5
Newbie

Joined: 06 Jan 2007
Posts: 35

Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:44 am Post subject:

Toxic wrote:

Quote:

CAN YOU READ ?

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States"

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE THAT PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES WILL NOT BE ABRIDGED. WITHOUT THAT GUARANTEE- THEY ARE NOT RIGHTS.
These GUARANTEED privileges and immunities BY DEFINITION, are in part, the BILL OF RIGHTS. THE RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS. The 14th amendment expanded the Bill of Rights to include the states as well as the federal government.

Furthermore, the 11th Amendment to the Constitution states -

"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

HOW CAN ONE RETAIN RIGHTS IF THEY HAVE NO POWER TO ARGUE THEIR VIOLATION THRU THE U.S. COURT SYSTEM ?

When has an illegal alien successfully petitioned the U.S. courts pertaining a deprivation of their right to vote, right to bear arms, freedom of religious worship, etc.

The Constitution begins- WE THE PEOPLE- everything that follows pertains to exactly them. Including the process necessary to be considered a part of WE THE PEOPLE. It’s a social contract.

What has the courts stated that change this ?
The case of these border agents has no relevance to the issue. They agents in question committed a crime and were punished. This doesn't mean that illegals share the privileges and immunities of American citizens.

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1560

Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:53 am Post subject:

You keep asking me if I can read as if the words you quote state simply and plainly what you are claiming they state. You are interpreting what those words say in a very different way from how I and many other people, including our legal system, are.

JohnnyLee5
Newbie

Joined: 06 Jan 2007
Posts: 35

Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:43 am Post subject:

Toxic wrote:

THIS IS YOUR REPLY ???

The word "citizen" appearing in the sentence should be a dead give away to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills.

In the 3 or 4 post that I have provided in this thread, you have not rebutted with one shread of evidence, fact or example to support your claims.

I have asked numerous questions with no reply.

All I have gotten is the old "because I said so" defense. If I say the sky is blue, you say it's red. That explains nothing.

Please let me know what your enterpretations of these amendments are.
Please let me know what court cases you are referring to.
I find it amazing that now you choose to use the court as your defense when a few pages back you stated -

"Why does anyone need to cite a Supreme Court case just to tell you that the rights guaranteed in the constitution are guaranteed to everyone. To put it another why, why don't you cite the part of the Constitution that states that rights are only guaranteed to American citizens?"

Well I've done that ! You are expecting the Constitution to confirm a negative.

Furthermore, judging by your responses on other constitutionally related threads, you have no understanding of the Constitution's intent or meaning.

Maybe you and Turk can co-author a book together. Although, at least Turk is interesting since he fabricates evidence when he needs to.

exton
Forum Elder

Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:22 am Post subject:

JohnnyLee5 wrote:

Toxic wrote:

Quote:

CAN YOU READ ?

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States"

You forgot to read the rest of that sentence.

Here's the full context:

" No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note the emphasized portions.