Look, you were wrong. You injected yourself into a discussion you hadn’t even been in, made a comment that was already disproven, and were shown that. Just let it go.
Look, you were wrong. You injected yourself into a discussion you hadn’t even been in, made a comment that was already disproven, and were shown that. Just let it go.
Your Supreme Court doesn't take it to mean that. If your Founders declared inalienable rights for all persons, then wrote a Consitution that only applied to those blessed with being born on your soil then they'd be schizophrenic. People means people, it doesn't mean citizens. By definition; it's in the words. Your Supreme Court has upheld this. Some other rights, like voting, are for citizens only, but those are well defined and established. More broadly, your Constitution generally only deals with the universal rights you consider inviolable by the state.
You're wrong. That you have no other recourse than to keep repeating the same shit should make that pretty damn evident. Wrong.
"The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges any distinction [344 U.S. 590, 597] between citizens and resident aliens. They extend their inalienable privileges to all `persons' and guard against any encroachment on those rights by federal or state authority."opinion)."
In the same way that Congress taking “freedom of speech” to mean “freedom of the speech we want” doesn’t make it legal or true, anything the Supreme Court says that isn’t in the Constitution is not legal or true.
If your Founders declared inalienable rights for all persons, then wrote a Consitution that only applied to those blessed with being born on your soil then they'd be schizophrenic.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. That’s the extent of “everyone”.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The power to define marriage, for example is not delegated to the federal government, thus it is reserved to the states. There is no discussion to be had. Same goes for right to enter the country. Same goes for literally any other right of any individual anywhere. The sentence is as simple as it can get. I can diagram it for you, since English doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.
In before “HURR HE SAID IT AGAIN”
Your Supreme Court has upheld this.
They can “uphold” something that isn’t law all they like. That doesn’t make it law.
You're wrong.
Already proven otherwise. And from your link:
the Constitution restricts the actions of the Government with respect to both American citizens and foreigners.
Guess what the government is allowed to do. That’s right! Bar anyone from entering the country at any time for any reason. Wow! How about that.
you’re furious that your worldview is objectively wrong.
Honey, my worldview doesn't given a toss about the ins and outs of US law. I find US law interesting, because the Constitution is an interesting document, and the relationship between the federal government and the states is interesting, but whether its right or wrong is really neither here nor there to me.
I think you'll find you're projecting onto me. I don't mind being wrong at all. As I proved a few posts up with some case evidence that indicated that neither of us are 100% on the money.
Already proven otherwise. And from your link: Guess what the government is allowed to do. That’s right! Bar anyone from entering the country at any time for any reason. Wow! How about that.
Not disputing that. But your claim was broader than that. And the link sets out plainly that it is jurisdiction that matters, not nationality. If you're a person, and you're on US soil, then you are afforded much the same protections as any US citizen, which some exceptions for particular rights, such as voting.
I'd love to see someone stand before the Supreme Court and try that line. See how far you get.
That’s not really an argument, since I’ve already outlined what the Constitution says on the matter.
crowley said: the Constitution is an interesting document, and the relationship between the federal government and the states is interesting
It’s TOTALLY banjaxed right now; you’re not wrong about that. We have to restore constitutional rule and destroy the illegal power of all three branches of the federal government.
As I proved a few posts up with some case evidence that indicated that neither of us are 100% on the money.
I understand fully that physical enforcement of non-law is operationally indistinguishable from law. I just don’t care, is all. Non-law is non-law. Can’t stop fighting it. People say that the British are stubborn; if they are, they learned it from Americans.
Oh! The initial comment to which you replied (and to which I replied) referred to barring non-citizens entry into the country at all. That they’re not here, want to come here, and we say, “Fuck off; we’re full.” There’s no right to enter the nation.
...then you are afforded much the same protections as any US citizen...
If people want to consider that the case, there’s no reason for it to be. My taxes aren’t going to pay for trials for illegals caught being illegals if I have anything to say about it. No trials. Put them on a plane and take them to Mexico City. I will pay for that. I’ll even pay a little more to make sure the plane lands, not just gets there.
We are witnessing the biggest budget reality tv show ever produced. Nothing Trumps says really means anything, it is open for interpretation of the listener. I as many other believe Trump's goal is not be elected President but to show how many bigots this country really has hiding in the shadows. He's asking them to come out in force by pretending to be one of them. This might be the biggest con ever played out for the world to witness.
Trump has promised to make Windows 95 great again......when asked by a 9 year old boy..."where do you live"....he replied: "in the past"
Comments
Also, I didn't dig anything up, someone else bumped it.
You are wrong, yet again.
You're wrong. That you have no other recourse than to keep repeating the same shit should make that pretty damn evident. Wrong.
http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/it-is-indisputablethat-the-constitution-protects-both-citizens-and-foreigners
Implies that it is jurisdiction that matters, not citizenry. Interesting.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. That’s the extent of “everyone”.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The power to define marriage, for example is not delegated to the federal government, thus it is reserved to the states. There is no discussion to be had. Same goes for right to enter the country. Same goes for literally any other right of any individual anywhere. The sentence is as simple as it can get. I can diagram it for you, since English doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.
In before “HURR HE SAID IT AGAIN”
They can “uphold” something that isn’t law all they like. That doesn’t make it law.
Already proven otherwise. And from your link:
Guess what the government is allowed to do. That’s right! Bar anyone from entering the country at any time for any reason. Wow! How about that.
I think you'll find you're projecting onto me. I don't mind being wrong at all. As I proved a few posts up with some case evidence that indicated that neither of us are 100% on the money.
It’s TOTALLY banjaxed right now; you’re not wrong about that. We have to restore constitutional rule and destroy the illegal power of all three branches of the federal government.
I understand fully that physical enforcement of non-law is operationally indistinguishable from law. I just don’t care, is all. Non-law is non-law. Can’t stop fighting it. People say that the British are stubborn; if they are, they learned it from Americans.
crowley said:
Oh! The initial comment to which you replied (and to which I replied) referred to barring non-citizens entry into the country at all. That they’re not here, want to come here, and we say, “Fuck off; we’re full.” There’s no right to enter the nation.
If people want to consider that the case, there’s no reason for it to be. My taxes aren’t going to pay for trials for illegals caught being illegals if I have anything to say about it. No trials. Put them on a plane and take them to Mexico City. I will pay for that. I’ll even pay a little more to make sure the plane lands, not just gets there.