Wes,
I think the distinction here that should be made is the difference between LEGAL an ILLEGAL aliens. I believe all men are created equal and endowed by God with inalienable rights. Those should apply to all, but when it comes to the rights of it's citizens, the Constitution(as you stated) is clear on where these stand for citizens and LEGAL aliens. I would disagree with you on your second amendment view as everyone should have the right to protect their person and property. If those same aliens(legal or illegal) have the right to private property, they have the right to protect it. The problems we are really addressing her is with illegal aliens who should be deported! I think our forefathers believed that everyone was entitled to those rights, but realized the danger of non-citizens having a place and voice in the government. This can have a detrimental effect as you pointed out. They also had fears of this becoming a democracy which everyone likes to say we are, which we are not. Our forefathers understood the fallacy of mob rule and I believe they understood the effect non-citizens having a say-so would add to this.
Wes,
A well thought out post. Thanks!
However, I also have to disagree on the 2nd Amendment. The right to defend ones life is essential to ones right to life. Likewise for property. Whether here legally or illegally I believe those Rights are inviolate.
But again I feel it necessary to reiterate that being here illegally is just that, illegal. A system should be set in place to deal with these illegals and acted upon consistently. The best course would be to deport them to their country of origin. Failing that, perhaps a one way ticket to one of several preselected countries (Iraq perhaps? the whole 40 acres and a mule system?)
The fact that they are here illegally doesn't end their Creator endowed Rights, but does allow for a judicial remedy.
The first amendment applies totally to people here. It is not a granting of rights, it is a restriction on state power. "Congress shall pass no law" contains no immigration exception, and trying to imply it does is as slippery, intellectually, as saying that the 2nd amendment has an assault rifle exception in it.
The 2nd amendment likewise is fully available to every legal alien as it was meant to be by our founding fathers. They did not pass legislation or amendments in their times preventing the people coming here from Britain and Europe as expatriates from owning weapons. It's very clear that you are allowing your own desire to see immigrants restricted to color your view of what the constitution actually says.
Wes,
When persons are convicted of crimes in the U.S., often they are stripped of some of their Constitutional rights. For example, while incarcerated, a felon cannot own a firearm, and in many cases, cannot after his sentence is up (which case is debatable as to the Constitutionality of that deprivation.)
I have always thought that the reason for this is that the criminal has deprived someone else of their Constitutional rights by their acts; therefore, after due process, their rights are forfeited if found guilty. Thus, illegal aliens, who are by definition criminals, are not afforded the same rights and priveledges as those here legally, or legal citizens for that matter, regardless of the enumeration or article. The best thing that could happen is to call in the national guard and arrest all protestors at the next "immigration rights" rally, and weed out the illegals for deportation. They have no right to assembly.
As usual, your commentary is well reasoned and thought provoking. Keep up the good work.
Glenn, Erik, & Mike:
I agree on the 2nd Amendment. You all make valid points. Having further considered the matter, I believe you're right about legal aliens & gun ownership, so I stand corrected.
Glenn, I believe the Constitution makes a distinction between legal aliens & citizens, but there's no question that the illegal alien aspect is more troubling.
A system should be set in place to deal with these illegals and acted upon consistently.
I totally agree.
The first amendment applies totally to people here. It is not a granting of rights, it is a restriction on state power.
You're correct that it's a restriction on state power. But that's not the end of the matter. The Amendments are specific restrictions against government in a document written for the American people. As w/ all Amendments, we must consider the intentions of those who authored them, not just the text itself. So if you insist that the First Amendment applies to everyone, whether legal immigrant or not, then, by definition, you also believe that illegal aliens have a right to form assemblies, petition the government, & become members of the American press, enjoying all its attendant freedoms. Do you believe this was our Founders' intention in the drafting of this document?
"Congress shall pass no law" contains no immigration exception, and trying to imply it does is as slippery, intellectually, as saying that the 2nd amendment has an assault rifle exception in it.
I disagree. The "assault weapon" exception is a clear violation of the intention behind the Amendment. The belief that non-citizens--especially illegal ones--shouldn't be treated as if they are Americans is not.
It's very clear that you are allowing your own desire to see immigrants restricted to color your view of what the constitution actually says.
I'm going beyond what it actually says & asking myself: what was the goal/intention of the people who wrote it? How else does one come to an optimal understanding of the document? The Constitution must be interpreted in light of what the Founders wanted; just as current laws should be interpreted as those who wrote them intended.
Anonymous was me. Sorry.
Badbeans, thanks for the kind comments & observations. It's good to see you; it's been a while.
I think our founding fathers would have had far greater concern with a government that could round up immigrants for peacefully protesting. You forget, Wes, that the Congress has the constitutional power to enable the mass deportation of all illegal immigrants without mercy. It has the authority to establish uniform immigration and naturalization laws.
The Bill of Rights applies to everyone here. Illegal immigrants are criminals, and thus have to be tried under criminal law; they are not a special status. If you don't like them being able to work their way through the system, you can get Congress to pass a law blocking immigration courts from even getting to an appeals court, let alone the Supreme Court.
wes, i dont see the point of this debate. everyone in the u.s. has to be assumed to have all rights and priveleges of a citizen until the gov. can show that they are not here legally. once thats established, they have the same status as any convicted felon. wheres the confusion?
I think our founding fathers would have had far greater concern with a government that could round up immigrants for peacefully protesting.
But the question was whether or not those people have a right to protest on our soil, in the first place.
You forget, Wes, that the Congress has the constitutional power to enable the mass deportation of all illegal immigrants without mercy. It has the authority to establish uniform immigration and naturalization laws.
I haven't forgotten; I alluded to it in the post.
The Bill of Rights applies to everyone here.
Obviously I don't agree.
Illegal immigrants are criminals, and thus have to be tried under criminal law;
An extended trial would prove necessary if the person's life, future liberty, or property were at stake; otherwise, a simple hearing to determine one's legal status is all that's needed. U.S. officials even have the power to perform this function at the alien's point-of-entry into our country. If the individual is here illegally, deportation procedures can & should begin at once.
Provisions for quick removal w/out lengthy trials already exist on the books. The problem isn't the law; the problem is politicians who disregard it.
BTW, Mike, I mean no insolence toward you. I respect your opinion, & agree w/ you on most issues. I just don't agree on this one.
everyone in the u.s. has to be assumed to have all rights and priveleges of a citizen until the gov. can show that they are not here legally.
The Constitution disagrees w/ you. The document makes rare mention of non-citizens; where it does, it clearly draws a line between them & citizens. As I stated in the post, only citizens qualify as presidential or vice-presidential material, or as members of either congressional house.
once thats established, they have the same status as any convicted felon. wheres the confusion?
Their status is even less secure than that. As I said above, current laws enable government officials to deport at the border, & rid ourselves of illegal aliens w/out lengthy procedures. A wide chasm exists between what laws/the Constitution allow, & what happens in practice.
wes, Maybe it seems like a technicality,but, how do u know who is an illegal and who isnt? they do have the same rights as citizens until they are proven to be here illegally. i would think you would be demanding this of the fed gov. for your own protection. you cant have it both ways. the gov must act the same way to everyone.
Well, for example, if someone can't speak a word of English, this sends the warning bells a-ringing. It's not conclusive evidence, but it creates a legitimate reason to look into the matter. Also, if someone has no driver's license or ID of any kind, or if he has a matricula consular card--which is issued by Mexico--we have probable cause to examine their status. Remember, many illegal aliens are not living underground, in hiding; they're in the open & unafraid.
In most cases, determining if someone is illegally here isn't difficult.
Commenting by HaloScan
