If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   9th Circuit to decide if Arizona's law passed by ballot initiative which forbids granting bail to any illegal immigrant arrested in the state on other charges runs afoul of a minor legal technicality called the 8th Amendment   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 139
    More: Obvious, 9th Circuit, legal technicality, amendments, illegal immigrants, Russell Pearce, Arizona Legislature, United States courts of appeals  
•       •       •

2892 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2014 at 1:18 PM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



139 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-19 10:10:00 AM
The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.
 
2014-03-19 10:15:52 AM

dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-19 10:32:42 AM

dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


The 8th Amendment doesn't mention anything about citizenship. Furthermore, the 14th states:

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.

See how it outlines what applies to "citizens" and what applies to "any person", indicating a clear distinction between the two?
 
2014-03-19 10:36:41 AM
Why don't you try a ballot initiative for secession?

/please?
 
2014-03-19 10:48:45 AM
Constitution, Shmonstitution.
 
2014-03-19 11:01:02 AM

dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel. The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


You people just love the Constitution until you don't.
 
2014-03-19 11:24:54 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Why don't you try a ballot initiative for secession?

/please?


I'm only 15 miles from New Mexico, just inside Arizona. It would be a pain in the ass to have to move now. :(
 
2014-03-19 11:32:36 AM

dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.



You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...in fact I KNOW it doesn't.

You need to understand the distinction between civil and criminal law.    IF I am the town of East Bumfarkistan and I put up a stop light at the edge of town  without doing a traffic study to ensure that the Stoplights meet federal DOT requirements for where such traffic control devices can be placed, that is an ILLEGAL stoplight, and subject to removal via court order if someone files suit and complains, but no one is going to jail for having put the stoplight up.

Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.
 
2014-03-19 12:05:47 PM

dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


Well, now. Aren't you a special one.
 
2014-03-19 01:08:13 PM

dkendr: The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


How can someone be in a country illegally? Is there a law saying "if you do not comply with immigration procedures, your presence on American territory is, in and of itself, a crime?"
 
2014-03-19 01:19:55 PM
9th circuit is the most overturned circuit. Why do we even bother with that stop.
 
2014-03-19 01:22:05 PM
How about imprisoning those AZ-holes and letting bubba educate them on how to treat newcomers?
 
2014-03-19 01:24:25 PM
More to the point. It is legal to deny bail to flight risks. Generally bail terms will also include the revocation of passports until trial end. If my recall is correct, illegal immigrants do miss trial dates more often than citizens, and the revocation of passports doesnt work on that class. There are many articles on illegal immigrants going back to their home countries to avoid US trial. Based on this, the enhanced flight risk issue, I don't see how it is an issue.
 
2014-03-19 01:25:03 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Why don't you try a ballot initiative for secession?

/please?


the federal government paid for the war against Mexico to take that territory. Then it paid to "pacify" the Indians. And it has probably been subsidizing one thing or another in that state for some time. I'm all for Arizonans seceding... but they can't take with them the valuable real estate since it represents an investment by the federal government.
 
2014-03-19 01:26:43 PM

Magorn: dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...in fact I KNOW it doesn't.

You need to understand the distinction between civil and criminal law.    IF I am the town of East Bumfarkistan and I put up a stop light at the edge of town  without doing a traffic study to ensure that the Stoplights meet federal DOT requirements for where such traffic control devices can be placed, that is an ILLEGAL stoplight, and subject to removal via court order if someone files suit and complains, but no one is going to jail for having put the stoplight up.

Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.


Well if that's the case, why aren't these people immediately deported?

If it's against any rules to keep them without bail, fine.  Let them go.  Back to their country of origin.

I don't think I will ever completely understand how and why people are willing to bend over backwards to accomidate people that are not in this country legally to begin with.  Is it because of the cheap produce and affordable landscaping?
 
2014-03-19 01:28:49 PM
The lawyers defending the law say its intent was to improve public safety, not punish people

Uh-huh...I totally believe that
 
2014-03-19 01:29:37 PM
 
2014-03-19 01:30:29 PM
Next white person complaining about somebody else being in this country illegally is going to get beat to death with a large peace pipe, covered in a disease ridden blanket, and turned into soylent green.
 
2014-03-19 01:32:32 PM
How about we just give Maricopa county back to Mexico and call it even.
 
2014-03-19 01:32:48 PM
Subby, didn't you NRTFA?:

"A three-member panel of the 9th Circuit previously rejected a challenge to the no-bail law, finding that it didn't run afoul of the Constitution. But the challengers succeeded in getting an 11-member panel of the court to consider the case."

The rights afforded us by the constitution are meant only for American citizens and foreign nationals who are admitted into the country by competent authority (The US State Department). While the US is bound by international treaties to treat illegal aliens with dignity and to honor their human rights, it is not bound to afford full constitutional protections to them. Legally, the ICE can detain an illegal immigrant without bail until his deportation proceedings are complete. It is understandable that even a racist state like Arizona would not want to release an illegal alien on bail after having arrested him on a felony charge.

If the opponents of this law cannot get a favorable ruling by the 9th Circuit, they have no chance of even being heard by the SCOTUS.
 
2014-03-19 01:34:15 PM
Are judges paying attention to the 8th amendment again? I hadn't noticed...

I mean all those multi-million bonds for unemployed idiots are obviously to secure their appearances, right Justin Carter?
 
2014-03-19 01:35:36 PM

JackieRabbit: The rights afforded us by the constitution are meant only for American citizens and foreign nationals who are admitted into the country by competent authority (The US State Department). While the US is bound by international treaties to treat illegal aliens with dignity and to honor their human rights, it is not bound to afford full constitutional protections to them. Legally, the ICE can detain an illegal immigrant without bail until his deportation proceedings are complete. It is understandable that even a racist state like Arizona would not want to release an illegal alien on bail after having arrested him on a felony charge.


[citation needed]
 
2014-03-19 01:35:58 PM

dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


foodforthethinkers.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-19 01:36:09 PM

kbronsito: the federal government paid for the war against Mexico to take that territory. Then it paid to "pacify" the Indians. And it has probably been subsidizing one thing or another in that state for some time. I'm all for Arizonans seceding... but they can't take with them the valuable real estate since it represents an investment by the federal government.


I'd be in favor of a tax increase to cover the loss if that's all it would take

/it'd be nice to get Kansas to go with them, too
//seems like it would be a bargain to me
 
2014-03-19 01:36:56 PM
Until you actually live in an area that is overrun with ILLEGAL immigrants who tax the already tight economy, run afoul of the law, make demands of actual citizens as though they have the same rights, you shouldn't be so quick to criticize.
Or, you could just try to do the same as an ILLEGAL immigrant in Mexico or South America and see where that gets you.
 
2014-03-19 01:37:18 PM
Damn Yankees said: How can someone be in a country illegally? Is there a law saying "if you do not comply with immigration procedures, your presence on American territory is, in and of itself, a crime?"


Uh...yeah....

INA: ACT 266 - PENALTIES


Sec. 266. [8 U.S.C. 1306]

(a) Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(b) Any alien or any parent or legal guardian in the United States of any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265 of this title, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $200 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. Irrespective of whether an alien is convicted and punished as herein provided, any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section , shall be taken into custody and removed in the manner provided by chapter 4 of this title, unless such alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful.


(c) Any alien or any parent or legal guardian of any alien, who files an application for registration containing statements known by him to be false, or who procures or attempts to procure registration of himself or another person through fraud, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000, or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both; and any alien so convicted shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and be removed in the manner provided in chapter 4 of this title.


(d) Any person who with unlawful intent photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes, or executes, any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card or any colorable imitation thereof, except when and as authorized under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Attorney General, shall upon conviction be fined not to exceed $5,000 or be imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
 
2014-03-19 01:37:32 PM

Magorn: dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...in fact I KNOW it doesn't.

You need to understand the distinction between civil and criminal law.    IF I am the town of East Bumfarkistan and I put up a stop light at the edge of town  without doing a traffic study to ensure that the Stoplights meet federal DOT requirements for where such traffic control devices can be placed, that is an ILLEGAL stoplight, and subject to removal via court order if someone files suit and complains, but no one is going to jail for having put the stoplight up.

Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.

BULLSHIAT
 
2014-03-19 01:39:15 PM

AgentPothead: Next white person complaining about somebody else being in this country illegally is going to get beat to death with a large peace pipe, covered in a disease ridden blanket, and turned into soylent green.


Nice troll, but bring it on...
 
2014-03-19 01:41:48 PM
I can see both sides of this argument.

I also know that our Federal Appeals Courts are becoming as wildly partisan as the rest of the country.

Isn't justice supposed to be blind?

/i am not picking sides, I think there is bias on both sides
 
2014-03-19 01:42:02 PM

vartian: dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel. The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.

You people just love the Constitution until you don't.


Woah, hey now... that's my line. For gun threads.
 
2014-03-19 01:42:25 PM

Magorn: dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...in fact I KNOW it doesn't.

You need to understand the distinction between civil and criminal law.    IF I am the town of East Bumfarkistan and I put up a stop light at the edge of town  without doing a traffic study to ensure that the Stoplights meet federal DOT requirements for where such traffic control devices can be placed, that is an ILLEGAL stoplight, and subject to removal via court order if someone files suit and complains, but no one is going to jail for having put the stoplight up.

Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_State s

Except, according to the above, it IS a crime...
Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any immigrant who:[47]
        enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
        eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
        attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.
The maximum prison term is 6 months for the first offense and 2 years for any subsequent offense. In addition to the above criminal fines and penalties, civil fines may also be imposed.
 
2014-03-19 01:42:33 PM

DamnYankees: dkendr: The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.

How can someone be in a country illegally? Is there a law saying "if you do not comply with immigration procedures, your presence on American territory is, in and of itself, a crime?"


No, but there should be.
 
2014-03-19 01:43:38 PM
Courts are ultimately cutting their own throats. The more they piss on the will of the people, the more people will support reducing judicial power using constitutional changes...
 
2014-03-19 01:44:31 PM

MyRandomName: More to the point. It is legal to deny bail to flight risks. Generally bail terms will also include the revocation of passports until trial end. If my recall is correct, illegal immigrants do miss trial dates more often than citizens, and the revocation of passports doesnt work on that class. There are many articles on illegal immigrants going back to their home countries to avoid US trial. Based on this, the enhanced flight risk issue, I don't see how it is an issue.


Because there needs to be discretion. You can't make a law saying "all people who commit crime X are definitionally flight risks". It's prejudicial and might be unconstitutional.
 
2014-03-19 01:45:24 PM
Just out of curiosity, how many times has an en banc hearing overruled the 3-judge panel? If it is often then I can see how the defense might benefit. If rarely, then why not just appeal to the Supreme Court? Or is this review required as part of the path to the SC?
 
2014-03-19 01:45:24 PM

JackieRabbit: The rights afforded us by the constitution are meant only for American citizens and foreign nationals who are admitted into the country by competent authority (The US State Department).


This is not true. I don't know where you're getting this from.
 
2014-03-19 01:46:00 PM
If they're trespassing, can't we shoot them instead?

//lude
 
2014-03-19 01:46:03 PM

dpzum1: Until you actually live in an area that is overrun with ILLEGAL immigrants who tax the already tight economy, run afoul of the law, make demands of actual citizens as though they have the same rights, you shouldn't be so quick to criticize.
Or, you could just try to do the same as an ILLEGAL immigrant in Mexico or South America and see where that gets you.


Yeah, it's pretty rough up there in Connecticut, ain't it?
thumbs1.ebaystatic.com
 
2014-03-19 01:46:05 PM

JackieRabbit: Subby, didn't you NRTFA?:

"A three-member panel of the 9th Circuit previously rejected a challenge to the no-bail law, finding that it didn't run afoul of the Constitution. But the challengers succeeded in getting an 11-member panel of the court to consider the case."

The rights afforded us by the constitution are meant only for American citizens and foreign nationals who are admitted into the country by competent authority (The US State Department). While the US is bound by international treaties to treat illegal aliens with dignity and to honor their human rights, it is not bound to afford full constitutional protections to them. Legally, the ICE can detain an illegal immigrant without bail until his deportation proceedings are complete. It is understandable that even a racist state like Arizona would not want to release an illegal alien on bail after having arrested him on a felony charge.

If the opponents of this law cannot get a favorable ruling by the 9th Circuit, they have no chance of even being heard by the SCOTUS.


imgs.xkcd.com


Casue you are about as wrong as wrong could be, BTW but I'mma gonna let you figure that out as you desperately Google for a source to back up your erroneous assumption.
 
2014-03-19 01:48:25 PM

durbnpoisn: Magorn: dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...in fact I KNOW it doesn't.

You need to understand the distinction between civil and criminal law.    IF I am the town of East Bumfarkistan and I put up a stop light at the edge of town  without doing a traffic study to ensure that the Stoplights meet federal DOT requirements for where such traffic control devices can be placed, that is an ILLEGAL stoplight, and subject to removal via court order if someone files suit and complains, but no one is going to jail for having put the stoplight up.

Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.

Well if that's the case, why aren't these people immediately deported?

If it's against any rules to keep them without bail, fine.  Let them go.  Back to their country of origin.

I don't think I will ever completely understand how and why people are willing to bend over backwards to accomidate people that are not in this country legally to begin with.  Is it because of the cheap produce and affordable landscaping?


Because being born on the wrong side of an imaginary line and wanting a better life for your family doesn't make you less of a person?
 
2014-03-19 01:48:35 PM
Sounds like an EP question rather than a CUP issue.
 
2014-03-19 01:48:57 PM

mark12A: Courts are ultimately cutting their own throats. The more they piss on the will of the people, the more people will support reducing judicial power using constitutional changes...


The last time an amendment was passed that limited the power of the courts was in 1793.
 
2014-03-19 01:48:57 PM
Hopefully Mexico will invade to protect its citizens like Putin did Crimea.  We can get rid of TX, AZ, NM, and the bottom half of CA.
 
2014-03-19 01:54:37 PM

MyRandomName: More to the point. It is legal to deny bail to flight risks.


This.
 
2014-03-19 01:55:04 PM

Kit Fister: Magorn: dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...in fact I KNOW it doesn't.

You need to understand the distinction between civil and criminal law.    IF I am the town of East Bumfarkistan and I put up a stop light at the edge of town  without doing a traffic study to ensure that the Stoplights meet federal DOT requirements for where such traffic control devices can be placed, that is an ILLEGAL stoplight, and subject to removal via court order if someone files suit and complains, but no one is going to jail for having put the stoplight up.

Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_State s

Except, according to the above, it IS a crime...
Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any immigrant who:[47]
        enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
        eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
        attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.
The maximum prison term is 6 months for the first offense and 2 years for any subsequent offense. In addition to the above criminal fines and penalties, civil fines may also be imposed.


The ENTRY may be, the PRESENCE is not.  And unless you are able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, all elements of the illegal entry (which would include being able to prove the precise time, place, and manner of entry, AND that they had criminal capacity (were old enough to know they were committing a crime) AND Mens Rea.  Absent that, all you know is that they ARE here which, again, is not a crime
 
2014-03-19 01:55:12 PM

Slappajo: Hopefully Mexico will invade to protect its citizens like Putin did Crimea.  We can get rid of TX, AZ, NM, and the bottom half of CA.


Hold on a second! San Antonio, Austin and Dallas-Ft. Worth are blue, dammit!!!

/Houston is shifty
//can't trust'em
 
2014-03-19 01:55:55 PM

durbnpoisn: Magorn: Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.

durbnpoisn: Well if that's the case, why aren't these people immediately deported?


Because immigration is a federal matter, not a state matter, so the state authorities don't have the authority to deport someone. All they can do is call ICE.

And, since every person must be given due process under law, they have a right to argue their case before deportation, which means a court case. It's worthwhile for someone who has been convicted of a violent crime, but not every person who is arrested is guilty.

durbnpoisn: If it's against any rules to keep them without bail, fine.  Let them go.  Back to their country of origin.

So you may be shocked to hear this, but people generally don't want to be deported. You can't just tell them "okay, you go back to your country now" and expect them buy a plane ticket or hop on next bus out of the US. You have to hold the person in a cell and then compel them to get on the plane.

In other words, you have to hold them without bail. So explain again how holding someone without bail for deportation is an answer when you can't hold someone without bail?

durbnposn: I don't think I will ever completely understand how and why people are willing to bend over backwards toaccommodate people that are not in this country legally to begin with.  Is it because of the cheap produce and affordable landscaping?

I personally wouldn't call following the laws and the Constitution "bending over backwards". I think of it more as "due process". It's all well and good to make these sort of "deport 'em all" arguments in the abstract; but the reality is quite different. These are real people you are talking about, many of them good honest people who desperately wanted to escape poverty and lack of opportunity in their own country. They work hard, pay taxes, don't cause trouble, and have kids who are American. In some cases they are people who were brought here as little children, and don't know any other country than America. Approximately half of undocumented aliens in this country came here legally on some kind of visa. Sometimes they just temporarily undocumented because of bureaucratic snafus. Other times they deliberately overstay a visa but then get married or do something else to legally change status.

So, let me ask you this. Why should I care less about them than I should about some random guy who happened to be born within the US? Why does one deserve every opportunity our country has to offer, while the other doesn't? Why wouldn't we just let people who want to come here and join us do so? Is there a reason America has to be an exclusive club?
 
2014-03-19 01:56:05 PM

DamnYankees: dkendr: The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.

How can someone be in a country illegally? Is there a law saying "if you do not comply with immigration procedures, your presence on American territory is, in and of itself, a crime?"


Isn't that what passports and visas are for?  To legally prove where you're from, and why you're are in another country at all?
There is not a country on this planet that will let you simply walk across the borders without some sort of proof as to who you are and why you're there.

Considering this to be the case, it is not uncommon for people to be here WITH all that paperwork in order, only to be thrown out once that paperwork expires.  And if you refuse to leave, you WILL be arrested and detained.  Possibly jailed for a while.  Then forcibly deported.

I'm not exactly sure where "crime" enters into this situation.  But if you are here with no legality, it's against the law.  So "crime" should be in there somewhere.
 
2014-03-19 01:56:13 PM

JackieRabbit: The rights afforded us by the constitution are meant only for American citizens and foreign nationals who are admitted into the country by competent authority (The US State Department)


(1) The Constituion does not give you rights.  You have those rights by virtue of being alive.  All it does is spell out some rights because 17th and 18th century governments had a nasty habit of ignoring those (and most are specific to problems in the Colonies pre-Revolution.

(2) "foreign nationals who are admitted into the country by competent authority " would have confused the ever-living fark out of the writers of the Constiution.  Our idea of rigid, binary alien status didn't develop until the 1800s (and mostly in the late 1800s).  The idea that the writers of a document in 1787 was meant to be applied via a structure that wouldn't even exist for 50 - 100 years later is absurd.

(3) Even if said framework was completely developed and in place in 1787, the Enlightenment says that you have rights by the very nature of being human.  Unless you are saying every person who enters the borders of the US without the State Department's blessing is physically not human, and/or any person who is human physically becomes non-human the second their visa expires*, they have those rights, by the basic beliefs held by the writers of the Constitution (slaves need not apply, of course).

* BTW, if you hold to that level of transubstantiation, event he Opus Dei jack-offs will think you are looney
 
2014-03-19 01:56:21 PM
Well, considering that bail can be denied to American citizens for certain crimes if there is a risk of flight, then sure, bail can be denied to illegal aliens.  What's good for citizens is good for illegals.
 
Displayed 50 of 139 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report