  |
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Toxic wrote: | | I'm finished. It's clear that you have no intention other than diverting from my points. |
In case it's not clear, turk believes that non-citizens have no protection under the law. In his mind, shooting a foreigner is perfectly acceptable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Turk
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| exton wrote: | | Toxic wrote: | | I'm finished. It's clear that you have no intention other than diverting from my points. |
In case it's not clear, turk believes that non-citizens have no protection under the law. In his mind, shooting a foreigner is perfectly acceptable. |
Sure the agents were justified in shooting that drug mule that was toting a weapon and faced the agents when fleeing, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1568
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Turk wrote: | | exton wrote: | | Toxic wrote: | | I'm finished. It's clear that you have no intention other than diverting from my points. |
In case it's not clear, turk believes that non-citizens have no protection under the law. In his mind, shooting a foreigner is perfectly acceptable. |
Sure the agents were justified in shooting that drug mule that was toting a weapon and faced the agents when fleeing, |
Alright Judge Turk, you're absolutely correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnnyLee5
Newbie
Joined: 06 Jan 2007
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
It seems that those such as Turk represent a view that is convoluted and to extreme in the assumption that illegal aliens are conferred absolutely no rights when subject to liability from U.S. law. It is equally disturbing to see that many such as Toxic seem to believe that it is inferred or should be inferred that our constitutional privileges and immunities such as the Bill of Rights are completely provided to illegal aliens.- Both accounts are flawed.
I will explain how I arrive at my point of view. Sorry about the length, but this actually is the short version.
As far as my opinions being my interpretations,
Interpretation of the written word is paramount to this whole discussion. This written word being the U.S. Constitution. It is so paramount that we have empowered a body to do just that - it's called the judiciary, specifically the Supreme court, whose only function is to interpret the Constitution.
Our "legal system" and judiciary has been known to follow numerous paths that are completely unconstitutional and have assumed powers not delegated to them by implementing policy and legislation.
In response to Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution, giving Congress the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, 19th century associate justice of the Supreme Court and constitutional scholar, Joseph Story put it well when he stated –
“The power of naturalization is, with great propriety, confided to Congress, since if left to the states, they might naturalize foreigners upon very different and even upon opposite systems; and as the citizens of all states have common privileges in all, it would thus be in the power of any one state to defeat the wholesome policy of all the others in regard to this most important subject. Congress alone can have power to pass uniform laws, obligatory on all the states; and thus to adopt a system, which shall secure them against any dangerous results from the indiscriminate admission of foreigners to the right of citizenship upon their first landing on our shores. And, accordingly, this power is exclusive to Congress. “
To reiterate, the Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to determine how many immigrants may enter the country, how many can become citizens, and whether those immigrants should be able to avail themselves of the benefits of U.S. citizenship. The court has chosen to ignore this on many occasions. Although, prior to the socialization of America and the birth of the entitlement mentality, the courts, free from agenda driven policy implementation, ruled thru Constitutional intent.
In Heim v. McCall (1915), involving the rights of non-citizens to obtain state employment, Supreme Court justice Joseph McKenna wrote –
“The basic principle of the decision of the Court of Appeals was that the state is a recognized unit and those who are not citizens of it are not members of it. Thus recognized it is a body corporate and, like any other body corporate, it may enter into contracts and hold the dispose of property. In doing this, it acts thru agencies of government. These agencies, when contracting for the state, or expending the state’s money, are trustees for the people of the state…. And it has hence decided that in the control of such agencies and the expenditure of such moneys it could prefer it’s own citizens to aliens without incurring the condemnation of the national or the state constitution.“
The Heim decision specifically rejected the argument that the 14th amendment trumped the state’s right to discriminate against non-citizens in relation to the distribution of public benefits. STATE GOVERNMENTS SHOULD DETERMINE HOW PUBLIC FUNDS SHOULD BE DISPERSED – AS THE FRAMERS INTENDED.
In Ohio ex rel. v. Clarke Deckebauch Auditor (1927) involving a non-citizens right to receive a license to operate a business, Justice Harlan Stone stated in a unanimous decision that –
“Some latitude must be allowed for the legislative appraisement of local conditions… and for the legislative choice of methods for controlling an apprehended evil. It was competent for the city to make such a choice, not shown to be irrational, by excluding from the conduct of business an entire class rather than it’s objectionable members selected by more empirical methods.”
This decision reinforced Heim and rejected the “equal protection” argument advanced under the 14th amendment
AND THESE WERE BOTH DECISIONS IN CASES INVOLVING LEGAL ALIENS.
BOTH CASES SHOW THAT THERE IS NO INFERRED PROTECTION BY THE 14TH IN REGARDS TO NON-CITIZENS. MUCH LESS ILLEGAL NON-CITIZENS.
So Toxic, instead of repeating the same sentence 3 times, give me an example from this "legal system" that you speak of that proves illegals are guaranteed the same privileges and immunities as American citizens.
The case of Compean and Ramos does not support your belief. U.S. authorities sought out Aldrete-Davila in Mexico and asked him to testify against the border agents. In return he was GRANTED immunity from prosecution. Aldrete-Davila was not GUARANTEED this immunity by our Constitution. As a matter of fact many prosecutors would have chose not to implement this. It was a discretionary call by Sutton which was, in my opinion, a terrible decision. What this decision did was prevent the border patrol or U.S. authorities from interrogating Davila in regards to his actions the day of the shooting. If anything the due process rights of Compean and Ramos may have been violated by this.
My point is that any rights conferred to illegal aliens are only equatable with the fact that U.S. law enforcement is required by the Constitution to follow laws and protocol. Without, and apart from that requirement, illegals do not share or should they share any of the privileges and immunities of American citizens. So yes, there is a degree of protection that we must provide to all, in any law enforcement matter, simply to uphold the Constitution ourselves. But it is limited. The following decisions show just that.
United States v. Causey, (5thCir.1987) - States that law enforcement “must . . . be performed with due regard to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which affords citizen and alien alike protection against illegal stops, searches ,and arrests”
United States v. Michelena - Orovio, (5thCir. 1983) - Observed that “once we subject . . . aliens to criminal prosecution, they are entitled to the equal protection of all our laws, including the Fourth Amendment.”
Lynch v. Cannatella, (5thCir. 1987)
“We reasoned in Lynch that the sovereign should enjoy particularly broad discretion in the immigration context, because the power to decide which, and how many, outsiders may join our society is critical to national self-determination. There are, however, no identifiable national interests that justify the wanton infliction of pain.
We concluded that “whatever due process rights excludable aliens may be denied by virtue of their status, they are entitled under the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to be free of gross physical abuse at the hands of state or federal officials.”
Verdugo-Urquidez V. United States (Feb. 1990) – Although Verdugo was a criminal illegal alien ( committed further crimes than just illegal entry I should say) the decision shines light on exactly who should be afforded rights in the U.S.
In support of this decision, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Byron White, argued that Verdugo was not protected by the Fourth Amendment because he was not one of THE PEOPLE… "The term the people in the Fourth Amendment points to an original, underlying social contract which has as its proper beneficiaries a limited class of members…"" On this view, the people does not comprise all persons who live in the country but only some persons. It is a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection to this country to be considered part of that community…" "The fourth amendment phrase the people seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words person and accused used in Articles of the fifth and sixth amendments regulating criminal procedures."
Rehnquist then points to the First Amendment, which grants "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"; the Second Amendment, which protects "'the right of the people' to keep and bear Arms"; and amendments nine and ten, which refer to "powers . . . retained by and reserved to the people.
“According to this reading, only "the people," authors and parties to the social contract, are protected by the first, second, and fourth amendments, and it is only "the people" to whom rights and powers are reserved in the ninth and tenth amendments. No one else has these constitutional protections.”
As far as the “sufficient connection” Rehnquist spoke of, we can assert from the United States v. Tehrani (1993) what this means. It’s decision stated –
Defendants voluntarily gaining admission to the United States with visas for temporary visits as tourists qualified as “substantial connections”
We can also reinforce Rehnquist’s opinion of the definition of “the people” thru the United States vs. Emerson (2001) the decision stated-
"We find that the history of the Second Amendment
reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects
individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms…”
So by applying that logic to the whole Constitution, we can ascertain exactly which people are enumerated with the rights contained within it.
This is the point at which I agree – Limited rights inferred upon illegals activated only when liability to prosecution is levied against them. This seems to be where the court is justified.
In regards to the actual act of entering the U.S. illegally, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act already gives immigration officers the authority to SUMMARILY deport an alien if he or she determines that the alien has engaged in fraud or misrepresentation, or that the alien does not possess valid documents. So, this summary deportation actually satisfies the required due process.
Thru the IIRIRA Congress delegated the power to naturalize individuals to the Attorney General – not the Supreme court.
If this is where you fall in opinion, then we would agree. But I do not feel (and have shown) that non-citizen illegal aliens are not entitled to any privileges and immunities beyond the scope of law enforcement, thus the 14th amendment cannot logically cover them. Their limited protection evolves from the 5th and possibly the 6th amendments requirements for criminal procedures of the accused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fellfire
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Well put, Johnny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Nice length, imagine if you got paid by the word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Turk
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| JohnnyLee5 wrote: | It seems that those such as Turk represent a view that is convoluted and to extreme in the assumption that illegal aliens are conferred absolutely no rights when subject to liability from U.S. law. It is equally disturbing to see that many such as Toxic seem to believe that it is inferred or should be inferred that our constitutional privileges and immunities such as the Bill of Rights are completely provided to illegal aliens.- Both accounts are flawed.
I will explain how I arrive at my point of view. Sorry about the length, but this actually is the short version.
As far as my opinions being my interpretations,
Interpretation of the written word is paramount to this whole discussion. This written word being the U.S. Constitution. It is so paramount that we have empowered a body to do just that - it's called the judiciary, specifically the Supreme court, whose only function is to interpret the Constitution.
Our "legal system" and judiciary has been known to follow numerous paths that are completely unconstitutional and have assumed powers not delegated to them by implementing policy and legislation.
In response to Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution, giving Congress the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, 19th century associate justice of the Supreme Court and constitutional scholar, Joseph Story put it well when he stated –
“The power of naturalization is, with great propriety, confided to Congress, since if left to the states, they might naturalize foreigners upon very different and even upon opposite systems; and as the citizens of all states have common privileges in all, it would thus be in the power of any one state to defeat the wholesome policy of all the others in regard to this most important subject. Congress alone can have power to pass uniform laws, obligatory on all the states; and thus to adopt a system, which shall secure them against any dangerous results from the indiscriminate admission of foreigners to the right of citizenship upon their first landing on our shores. And, accordingly, this power is exclusive to Congress. “
To reiterate, the Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to determine how many immigrants may enter the country, how many can become citizens, and whether those immigrants should be able to avail themselves of the benefits of U.S. citizenship. The court has chosen to ignore this on many occasions. Although, prior to the socialization of America and the birth of the entitlement mentality, the courts, free from agenda driven policy implementation, ruled thru Constitutional intent.
In Heim v. McCall (1915), involving the rights of non-citizens to obtain state employment, Supreme Court justice Joseph McKenna wrote –
“The basic principle of the decision of the Court of Appeals was that the state is a recognized unit and those who are not citizens of it are not members of it. Thus recognized it is a body corporate and, like any other body corporate, it may enter into contracts and hold the dispose of property. In doing this, it acts thru agencies of government. These agencies, when contracting for the state, or expending the state’s money, are trustees for the people of the state…. And it has hence decided that in the control of such agencies and the expenditure of such moneys it could prefer it’s own citizens to aliens without incurring the condemnation of the national or the state constitution.“
The Heim decision specifically rejected the argument that the 14th amendment trumped the state’s right to discriminate against non-citizens in relation to the distribution of public benefits. STATE GOVERNMENTS SHOULD DETERMINE HOW PUBLIC FUNDS SHOULD BE DISPERSED – AS THE FRAMERS INTENDED.
In Ohio ex rel. v. Clarke Deckebauch Auditor (1927) involving a non-citizens right to receive a license to operate a business, Justice Harlan Stone stated in a unanimous decision that –
“Some latitude must be allowed for the legislative appraisement of local conditions… and for the legislative choice of methods for controlling an apprehended evil. It was competent for the city to make such a choice, not shown to be irrational, by excluding from the conduct of business an entire class rather than it’s objectionable members selected by more empirical methods.”
This decision reinforced Heim and rejected the “equal protection” argument advanced under the 14th amendment
AND THESE WERE BOTH DECISIONS IN CASES INVOLVING LEGAL ALIENS.
BOTH CASES SHOW THAT THERE IS NO INFERRED PROTECTION BY THE 14TH IN REGARDS TO NON-CITIZENS. MUCH LESS ILLEGAL NON-CITIZENS.
So Toxic, instead of repeating the same sentence 3 times, give me an example from this "legal system" that you speak of that proves illegals are guaranteed the same privileges and immunities as American citizens.
The case of Compean and Ramos does not support your belief. U.S. authorities sought out Aldrete-Davila in Mexico and asked him to testify against the border agents. In return he was GRANTED immunity from prosecution. Aldrete-Davila was not GUARANTEED this immunity by our Constitution. As a matter of fact many prosecutors would have chose not to implement this. It was a discretionary call by Sutton which was, in my opinion, a terrible decision. What this decision did was prevent the border patrol or U.S. authorities from interrogating Davila in regards to his actions the day of the shooting. If anything the due process rights of Compean and Ramos may have been violated by this.
My point is that any rights conferred to illegal aliens are only equatable with the fact that U.S. law enforcement is required by the Constitution to follow laws and protocol. Without, and apart from that requirement, illegals do not share or should they share any of the privileges and immunities of American citizens. So yes, there is a degree of protection that we must provide to all, in any law enforcement matter, simply to uphold the Constitution ourselves. But it is limited. The following decisions show just that.
United States v. Causey, (5thCir.1987) - States that law enforcement “must . . . be performed with due regard to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which affords citizen and alien alike protection against illegal stops, searches ,and arrests”
United States v. Michelena - Orovio, (5thCir. 1983) - Observed that “once we subject . . . aliens to criminal prosecution, they are entitled to the equal protection of all our laws, including the Fourth Amendment.”
Lynch v. Cannatella, (5thCir. 1987)
“We reasoned in Lynch that the sovereign should enjoy particularly broad discretion in the immigration context, because the power to decide which, and how many, outsiders may join our society is critical to national self-determination. There are, however, no identifiable national interests that justify the wanton infliction of pain.
We concluded that “whatever due process rights excludable aliens may be denied by virtue of their status, they are entitled under the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to be free of gross physical abuse at the hands of state or federal officials.”
Verdugo-Urquidez V. United States (Feb. 1990) – Although Verdugo was a criminal illegal alien ( committed further crimes than just illegal entry I should say) the decision shines light on exactly who should be afforded rights in the U.S.
In support of this decision, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Byron White, argued that Verdugo was not protected by the Fourth Amendment because he was not one of THE PEOPLE… "The term the people in the Fourth Amendment points to an original, underlying social contract which has as its proper beneficiaries a limited class of members…"" On this view, the people does not comprise all persons who live in the country but only some persons. It is a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection to this country to be considered part of that community…" "The fourth amendment phrase the people seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words person and accused used in Articles of the fifth and sixth amendments regulating criminal procedures."
Rehnquist then points to the First Amendment, which grants "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"; the Second Amendment, which protects "'the right of the people' to keep and bear Arms"; and amendments nine and ten, which refer to "powers . . . retained by and reserved to the people.
“According to this reading, only "the people," authors and parties to the social contract, are protected by the first, second, and fourth amendments, and it is only "the people" to whom rights and powers are reserved in the ninth and tenth amendments. No one else has these constitutional protections.”
As far as the “sufficient connection” Rehnquist spoke of, we can assert from the United States v. Tehrani (1993) what this means. It’s decision stated –
Defendants voluntarily gaining admission to the United States with visas for temporary visits as tourists qualified as “substantial connections”
We can also reinforce Rehnquist’s opinion of the definition of “the people” thru the United States vs. Emerson (2001) the decision stated-
"We find that the history of the Second Amendment
reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects
individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms…”
So by applying that logic to the whole Constitution, we can ascertain exactly which people are enumerated with the rights contained within it.
This is the point at which I agree – Limited rights inferred upon illegals activated only when liability to prosecution is levied against them. This seems to be where the court is justified.
In regards to the actual act of entering the U.S. illegally, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act already gives immigration officers the authority to SUMMARILY deport an alien if he or she determines that the alien has engaged in fraud or misrepresentation, or that the alien does not possess valid documents. So, this summary deportation actually satisfies the required due process.
Thru the IIRIRA Congress delegated the power to naturalize individuals to the Attorney General – not the Supreme court.
If this is where you fall in opinion, then we would agree. But I do not feel (and have shown) that non-citizen illegal aliens are not entitled to any privileges and immunities beyond the scope of law enforcement, thus the 14th amendment cannot logically cover them. Their limited protection evolves from the 5th and possibly the 6th amendments requirements for criminal procedures of the accused. |
Can you write down a source for this ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
|
