Sort of like the latest Demoncratic comments or those of the former head of ACORN?

Oh, you must mean Pelosi, Reid, and the Demoncrats currently in charge of Congress... I get it. Carry on. :)

Redux, I know you hate Merc. I don't care.

I dont hate Merc...I think he and the double standards of some here are a joke.

If you want to accuse Shawnee of "hating away" and ignore Merc's hateful posts, that is your choice, just as it is mine to point out the double standard.

About this whole stopping people in the street, I personally can see both sides of the coin, but what it would come down to for me is that if you're in the country legally, you've got nothing to worry about.

I wouldn't have a problem with that happening over here, and it's not that I'm against immigration or refugees. It's simply because if people are here, they should be registered for healthcare and taxation etc so that they can contribute to our society.

People worry about too many refugees coming into Australia from or through Asia to the north lately, but I feel in all honesty that our nation - being pretty wealthy in comparison to most - that we could afford to help more. I am definitely against illegal immigration though. Not only for the reasons stated above, but also because of diseases both to our people but also our native flora and fauna which is precious.

Should we laugh now?

I can't agree more.

But first we need to snap the borders shut.

Then we deal with those who are already here.

You can say the same thing about wiretapping...:if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

Except for the Constitution.

Knock yourself out, really, I don't care. I'll write my posts, thx.

The Constitution deals with American Citizens. Not people from Poland, not people from Russia, not people from Mexico.

You're welcome. :)

Since when?

My views on wiretapping are basically the same. Unless you're plotting something they're going to have a pretty boring old time listening to most people's private conversations.

Our constitution is a bit different to yours, and most people here don't have the same sort of views about it as people in the US. In fact, most people just want to live their life and do their thing and not worry about too much at all. People mostly don't even bother getting involved unless it affects them directly.

Just what the fuck is your problem?

Since the Fourteenth Amendment in July 9, 1868.

Double standards.....you're pissed that I pointed it out?

Is that strike two?

uh, NO.

holy moley Cloud. Now look what you've done! lol

Well, yea. States rights.

Show me anywhere that the US Constitution, Preamble, or Bill of Rights extends Rights to any person outside of the borders of the US that is not a US Citizen... Have at it. Legal scholars have been debating this for over 100 years. No one has proven it to be a fact to date. A Russian from Russian does not have the same rights to our Constitution as a US citizen.

The Supreme Court ruled as recently as 2008 that detainees in Gitmo have the enshrined right to habeas corpus......just the latest example of rights guaranteed to non-citizens.

Detainees in Gitmo are not illegal aliens, who entered this country illegally, against our current laws. Fail.

Right...the detainees were charged with a crime against the US that were far worse than unlawful entry into the US.

Non-citizens have protected rights...it is not a states rights issue.

Enemy Combatants. Apples and Oranges. You really are a political idiot.

Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code had nothing to do with the Enemy Combantant of Gitmo.

Wait.... wait for it....

Obama Promised to close Gitmo... Why the fuck has your President not closed it yet? As he promised? He fails as well. Again.

Non-citizens have no rights and should have none. They should be deported to their country of origin. All of them. Including those at Gitmo. Immediately. Close Gitmo NOW. And send them all back to their country of origin immediately. You agree right?

Right of Non-citizens is to abide by our laws or go home.

The Bill of Rights applies to "all persons"....the same for subsequent amendments unless specifically limited.

Period...end of story.

Ya, I agree with that.

It's not for the state to decide who it will extend constitutional rights to.

Fail again.

Not we the people of every swinging dick country in the world; not we the people of the US and Russia; not we the people of the US and Mexico; no, we the people of the United States...

Yick Wo v Hopkins, 1886
....Even though the Chinese laundry owners were usually not American citizens, the court ruled they were still entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

“The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China… . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘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.’ These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws… . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.”

The rights of non-citizens have been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions since then....when the rights are limited to citizens (ie right to vote or hold office), the Constitution makes a clear distinction between citizens and "the people".

Sorry, 1886 is a total fail.

See recent laws in AZ. :lol2:

Not "Citizens of Russia"; Not "Citizens of Mexico"; Not "Citizens of Albania"; Not " Citizens of Canada"...

Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Right...the US Congress has the sole power....not the states.

Thanks for pointing that out. :)

This, along with the Supremacy Clause and the 4th and 14th amendment issues all come into play on the constitutionality of the AZ law.

It seems to me that in discussions with opposing points of view about the US constitution, there must be a great deal of ambiguity. If there were not, then why would the US constitution continually cause people to interpret it in different ways?

eta: by people I mean ordinary people who post on forums online. Scholars who study the constitution, and even judges who award rulings different to those in the past even though they may be referencing the same section of the constitution.

There are some issues that are not that ambiguous based on overwhelming Supreme Court precedents, including guaranteed rights to non-citizens.

But, ultimately, the Court will decide.

If the Gobberment wants to afford some Rights to individuals who are here illegally it does not make them citizens. No way, no how. Even if it gets the Demoncrats more illegal voters.:)

None of your cites makes any swinging dick who falls across the border a "CITIZEN OF the United States of America". Go back to High School and learn some Gobbernment 101. :lol:

And even they disagree.

Please point out where I stated that they would have the rights of citizens or it makes them citizens?

I said the Constitution distinguishes between the rights of "the people" including non-citizens, as the Court has affirmed on numerous occasions over the last 200 years, and rights of citizens.

Yes that seems to be the case.

The thing I find difficult to get my head around is the fact that so many people tout the constitution and violations of it, and yet it really doesn't seem that much of it is really guaranteed because it might depend on how an individual judge feels about an individual case.

Even such things as guaranteed rights aren't always awarded. See gitmo as an example. Many of those prisoners were taken from other countries, deposited in a US jail and have never been given the right to a 'speedy trial' in order to prove their innocence if possible. I understand that people will argue that some of them are prisoners of war etc, but from an outsiders point of view, it still seems a very hypocritical situation.

eta: of course, the onus really is on the court to prove guilt rather than the prisoner needing to prove their innocence, but that doesn't seem to be the case in gitmo either.

The Constitution is for the citizens of the United States, not for the Citizens of Canada, not for the Citizens of Poland, not for the Citzens of Mexico.

People here Illegally are not Citizens, therefore our Constitution does not apply. Period.

The Supreme Court relies heavily on precedent which limits the interpretation of any one justice.

It took the Supreme Court awhile, but it did affirm the prisoners at Gitmo do have constitutional rights, albeit limited because of their status as prisoners of war.

Yes I understand that.

It doesn't stop the average joe from trying to make an unmakable point though does it?

Nor does it make Enemy Combatants in Gitmo "Citzens" who have all the Rights afforded under our Constitution. That is not what the Supreme Court said. Nice try....

Nope...it sure doesnt.

The fact remains that the US, like the constitutions in nearly every democratic country in the world treat "the people" as meaning more than just citizens.

That is probably the case in Australia; if not, it would be the exception.

But yet it does not make them "Citizens" now does it? Nor does our Constitution provide for such.

Again, I never said that prisoners in Gitmo have the same rights as citizens.

I said the Court affirmed that they have some basic rights of "the people", including habeus corpus.

Why has Obama failed to close Gitmo as he promised?

They have "limited" Rights, nothing more nothing less. I would agree they should just close Gitmo. But Obama has failed to follow through on this promise.

You keep raising a point that I never made.

I never said anything about making them citizens or suggested that the Constitution provides the same rights as citizens.

I guess you are just unwilling to accept the basic Constitutional rights of "the people" as opposed to the specified rights of citizens.

And you raised the parallel between Enemy Combatants in Gitmo and illegal aliens. Apples and Oranges. There is no comparison.

Constitutional scholars have not supported your notions.

In fact, 200 years of precedent support my notions regarding the application of the Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments, unless otherwise specified) to non-citizens.

I did. Our Constitution only provides Rights to Citizens.

"The People" has been established to pertain to "Citizens"... :lol:

Ok, show me where in the words of the Constitution does it state that it pertains to let's say, Citizens of Turkey.

Go!

As I cited earlier, The Supreme Court, starting with Vick Wo v Hopkins says otherwise.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

And there have been numerous affirmations since then.

Please cite ONE case where the Supreme Court said that the term "the people" as expressed in the Constitution only applies to citizens.

None of those state that the US Constitution applies to non-citizens. Sorry.

So if I come to the US and allegedly commit a crime, do I not have the right to innocence until proven guilt?

It sure does.

Read the words directly from the Court's decision:

“The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China… . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘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.’ These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws… . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.”

Sure you do, and you have the Right to go to jail, and then be deported. Limited Rights.

You have a right to free speech, a right to be protected from search and seizure, the right to habeus corpus, the right to equal protection under the law, etc.

Well, provided I was proven guilty of course.

Yes but only if there's no evidence to suggest I've committed a crime, otherwise the police have the right to search as much as they like, just like a US citizen.

the sexual tension between merc and redux is alarming.

when they finally have sex, there will be earthquakes a plenty.

The right to search and seizure is limited in the same manner for non-citizens and citizens.....probable cause.

Yep, that's pretty much what I said. They need evidence to suggest I've committed the crime in order to collect more evidence. :)