I guess your interpretation of what Natural Law is will forever be a mystery.
We read things differently. The court rulings are clear to me. Illegal aliens have some but not all Constitutional rights of citizens and permanent residents and it doesn’t matter if some of their “Natural Rights”, whatever they might be, are infringed by American law as they do not have the protection of the 9th amendment.
People are sovereign, and must be treated with dignity in reflection of that. Innocent people, so long as they make good faith efforts to engage with us, should in return be treated by us in good faith.
Which means, no bureaucratic rigmarole, and no turning people away just because they’re the 200,001th person to apply for entry, or because they don’t have skills a Government bureaucrat thinks are useful.
I can’t even imagine what this is supposed to mean and you even emphasize the most meaningless phrase in the post.
Illegal aliens are not “innocent people”, they have not made a “good faith effort to engage with us” instead they violate our laws. So much for “Natural Law”. You are almost beyond belief.
Half of illegals were in the legal system as legal immigrants. You cannot overlook this.
And the 1st wrong, was Government building an immigration system that does everything I just described.
If not for that first wrong, illegal immigration would be a footnote today, compromised almost exclusively of violent criminals seeking to do wrong, not overwhelmingly of average schmucks seeking everyday economic outcomes.
Hogwash. The 9th Amendment was for protection of the people OF THE UNITED STATES.
Simply put, your position is that anyone who suffers at the hands of a flawed or incompetent bureaucracy is justified and excused from subsequent violations of the law. Good luck trying that with the Motor Vehicle Department or the IRS.
BS, AS. Illegals were NEVER “legal IMMIGRANTS.” If they were here on temporary work visa, a tourist visa or a student visa and then decided to stay beyond the limits of that visa, they immediately became ILLEGALS…period. They were NEVER “IMMIGRANTS” if they were here on one of those visas. They were TEMPORARILY permitted to visit the U.S. for a specific purpose and for a specific period of time, after which they were expected to GO HOME.
His presence here seems to always be a distraction, an intentional distraction to hinder productive discussions regarding specific matters, including punishing lawless officials in sanctuary cities who engage in harboring illegal entrants who have invaded America’s borders.
Not those who break the law and impinge upon the rights of others . . . especially trespassing upon their PROPERTY . . . something which socialists, communists, and progressive have a distain for.
The Ninth Amendment does not restrict Congress’ duty to protect our borders from invasions, and that includes the millions of aliens who have invaded American borders and now reside in sanctuary cities where state officers are breaking the law and engaging in the harboring of illegal entrants.
Nope. I just got through showing that within the Constitution, “persons” and “people” refer to aliens, freeblacks indians and denizens. Not just citizens.
You are absolutely wrong on this FC. You can look at other documents from the era using these terms, and see it for yourself if you ever want to check on it.
Heck, the study of textualism (the standpoint of those like Clarence Thomas btw) should be the norm if any person wants to claim that they know what the Constitution is, and how it operates.
You otherwise, just don’t know, what you don’t know about it.
This man was arrested because he had two too many bullets in his gun. A gun that was legal only a few months before then.
Who is truly wrong here? Him, or the Law?
Where did you show this? The Supreme court rulings are clear. “Person” is any warm body, not quite the same as “The People” who are “all members of the political community”, “part of a national community”, or have “substantial connections” to the United States. I can’t think of any group that fits this description other than Citizens and lawful Permanent Residents.
At the very least Old dog, read the conclusion of your own source. It shows how the two decisions are at odds, and even this thing about what the original ideas of the Constitution and its amendments are; that Heller steps all over on.
Want me to dig up my source for the exact list of things I described, that shows what precisely the origins and precedent of the Constitution has been these 200 years?
The origins and precedents you keep trying to pretend with me don’t exist, yet which this source of yours affirms does?
What does that have to do with lawless officials in sanctuary cities who are breaking the law and harboring millions of illegal entrants who have invaded America’s borders?
I’ve already answered this; you can’t punish officials for following the mandates of their own voters by not enforcing a law.
States, are under no obligation to enforce Federal laws. The only thing they may not do, is prevent Federal Authorities from enforcing the law themselves.
There are two Supreme Court cases on this, Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992). In both cases, Congress was trying to compel State Authorities to go along with enforcing a law, and the Supreme Court ruled against them.
Incidentally, It’s because of the precedent these decisions set, that States were able to reject large parts of Obamacare outright.
No. What you have repeatedly done is deflect and dodge the issue. Elected officials have taken an oath to abide by federal laws which includes that law which prohibits harboring illegal entrants.
Stop making stuff up and obfuscating.
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
What you have once again ignored is the court has also confirmed that State political elected hacks such as twinkle toes Mayor Rahm Emanuel and New York City’s communist mayor Bill de Blasio, are forbidden to compel city officers from the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS! And there is a very good reason for this. For these hacks to command city officers to not report to the INS they have an illegal entrant in their custody who is about to be released into our population is tantamount to a violation of Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses.
See: Judge Harry Leinenweber’s OPINION
Stop making stuff up and ignoring laws of the United States designed to protect our borders from invasions.