Drug Wars tooooo close to home!

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Since the Fourteenth Amendment in July 9, 1868.

uh, NO.

[Aliantha]

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

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

uh, NO.

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

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.

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; 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;
has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

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

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.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Non-citizens have no rights and should have none. They should be deported to their country of origin//.

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

Period...end of story.

[jinx]

Ya, I agree with that.

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

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The Bill of Rights applies to "all persons" unless specifically specified otherwise.

Period...end of story.

Fail again.

The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation).

We the People of the United States..

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".

[TheMercenary]

Sorry, 1886 is a total fail.

See recent laws in AZ.

[TheMercenary]

The popular nature of the Constitution
The Constitution claims to be an act of "We the People." However, because it represents a general social compact, there are limits on the ability of individual citizens to pursue legal claims allegedly arising out of the Constitution.

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. The Immigration and Naturalization Act sets forth the legal requirements for the acquisition of, and divestiture from, citizenship of the United States. The requirements have become more explicit since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, with the most recent changes to statutory law having been made by the United States Congress in 2001.

Adult citizens of the United States who are residents of one of the 50 states have the right to participate in the political system of the United States, as well as their state and local governments (with most states having restrictions on voting by persons convicted of felonies, and a federal constitutional prohibition on naturalized persons running for President and Vice President of the United States), to be represented and protected abroad by the United States (through U.S. embassies and consulates), and to reside in the United States and certain territories without any immigration requirements.

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.