SkyDekker 1,465
Recommended Posts
cgriff 0
SkyDekkerNo, owning guns is much more important than caring for the poor, downtrodden, sick and malnourished.
Glad to see you're getting it, Sky... One is a right, and the other a responsibility. Although, I would point out that most if not all rights, also carry with them reciprocal responsibilities, and THAT is what many of my countrymen fail to grasp .
SkyDekker 1,465
Those stupid french call it Noblesse Oblige.
jgoose71 0
lawrocket[Reply]One is an undefined (poorly defined) concept, while the other is a strictly defined concept.
Quade is spot on in his analysis. Human Rights - like Natural Law - are so subjective as to be useless as any guiding principle.
The next natural question would be What rights do you think people that are here illegally qualify for?
The right to vote? Bear arms? Attorney? Protest? Health care?
Do you think they qualify to go to a public school to get an education? Even if that means the degradation of your own child's education?
How about a free ticket to anywhere in the country after they turn themselves in to border patrol?
Would you consider these rights (legal, moral, ethical) or which would you take them away? if so which and why?
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything
Life, the Universe, and Everything
kallend 2,150
jgoose71***[Reply]One is an undefined (poorly defined) concept, while the other is a strictly defined concept.
Quade is spot on in his analysis. Human Rights - like Natural Law - are so subjective as to be useless as any guiding principle.
The next natural question would be What rights do you think people that are here illegally qualify for?
Any right that applies to "all persons".
See 14th Amendment.
The USA has also signed and ratified a number of (but not all) protocols of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, according to the Constitution makes them "supreme law of the land".
IMO it's a disgrace that the US has not signed all of the protocols, such as the ones relating to human trafficking and the ones relating to the rights of women.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jgoose71 0
kallend
Any right that applies to "all persons".
See 14th Amendment.
Section 1 of the 14th amendment:
Quote
Section 1. 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.
"All Persons" refers to U.S. citizens as I read it. Kind of the reason I created this thread/poll.
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything
Life, the Universe, and Everything
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>"All Persons" refers to U.S. citizens as I read it.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
Worded differently than
"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."
Why? Because citizens are persons, but not all persons are citizens:
"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"
Worded differently than
"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."
Why? Because citizens are persons, but not all persons are citizens:
"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."
jgoose71 0
billvon>"All Persons" refers to U.S. citizens as I read it.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
Worded differently than
"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."
Why? Because citizens are persons, but not all persons are citizens:
"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."
Which goes back to the original question of "What rights do non-citizens/ Illegal aliens get?"
From Kallend's post I think he wants to give MS 13 members a gun as soon as they cross...
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything
Life, the Universe, and Everything
billvon 3,120
>Which goes back to the original question of "What rights do non-citizens/ Illegal
>aliens get?"
Spelled out pretty clearly in the Constitution, I think. There are certain things non-citizens cannot do (run for president) but most other rights apply. Examples:
Fourth amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." People, so everyone gets that right.
Fifth amendment, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." Person, so everyone gets that right.
Sixth amendment, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." So if you accuse _anyone_ of a crime and prosecute them, that holds.
>aliens get?"
Spelled out pretty clearly in the Constitution, I think. There are certain things non-citizens cannot do (run for president) but most other rights apply. Examples:
Fourth amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." People, so everyone gets that right.
Fifth amendment, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." Person, so everyone gets that right.
Sixth amendment, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." So if you accuse _anyone_ of a crime and prosecute them, that holds.
jgoose71 0
billvon
Spelled out pretty clearly in the Constitution, I think. There are certain things non-citizens cannot do (run for president) but most other rights apply. Examples:
Fourth amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." People, so everyone gets that right.
Fifth amendment, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." Person, so everyone gets that right.
Sixth amendment, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." So if you accuse _anyone_ of a crime and prosecute them, that holds.
So you also think they have the right to assemble? Bear arms? Vote?
The 14th amendment spells out protections for citizens. The first, second, fifteenth, and nineteenth, just like the 4th, 5th, and 6th does not specifically deny these rights to non-citizens.
So since they do not specifically deny these rights, do they still get them? Along with a government paid for lawyer?
And what about and educations. Do you think it's right that an U.S. born child waits for his education while the teacher tries to get an illegal non-english speaking child caught up?
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything
Life, the Universe, and Everything
billvon 3,120
>So you also think they have the right to assemble? Bear arms? Vote?
Assemble - yes. That applies to all people, not just citizens.
Bear arms - yes. That covers "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms."
Vote - no. That right is relegated to the states, and per the Constitution, the individual states can make their own laws on who can vote.
>So since they do not specifically deny these rights, do they still get them?
Yes. Everyone does.
>Along with a government paid for lawyer?
Well, not until Gideon. In that case, the Supreme Court determined that it was a violation of the Fifth Amendment to expect all citizens to defend themselves against a trained prosecutor without legal aid. However, nowadays that is the law.
>And what about and educations. Do you think it's right that an U.S. born child
>waits for his education while the teacher tries to get an illegal non-english
>speaking child caught up?
No. Nor do I think it's right that a US born child gets his education while a non-US born child is denied one. We are better off as a society if both are educated.
However, in terms of RIGHTS, that's up to each state. The Constitution does not grant anyone a right to a free education.
Assemble - yes. That applies to all people, not just citizens.
Bear arms - yes. That covers "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms."
Vote - no. That right is relegated to the states, and per the Constitution, the individual states can make their own laws on who can vote.
>So since they do not specifically deny these rights, do they still get them?
Yes. Everyone does.
>Along with a government paid for lawyer?
Well, not until Gideon. In that case, the Supreme Court determined that it was a violation of the Fifth Amendment to expect all citizens to defend themselves against a trained prosecutor without legal aid. However, nowadays that is the law.
>And what about and educations. Do you think it's right that an U.S. born child
>waits for his education while the teacher tries to get an illegal non-english
>speaking child caught up?
No. Nor do I think it's right that a US born child gets his education while a non-US born child is denied one. We are better off as a society if both are educated.
However, in terms of RIGHTS, that's up to each state. The Constitution does not grant anyone a right to a free education.
jgoose71 0
Now you seem to be hinting at human rights are the same as constitutional rights. Kind of the opposite of what you said in post 8.
As for an education, what makes you think that said illegal could get a better education in an American class room instead of a Brazilian class room if Portuguese is the only language he speaks? Why are you making him stay here for 2-5 years to wait for his court date?
As for an education, what makes you think that said illegal could get a better education in an American class room instead of a Brazilian class room if Portuguese is the only language he speaks? Why are you making him stay here for 2-5 years to wait for his court date?
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything
Life, the Universe, and Everything
billvon 3,120
>Now you seem to be hinting at human rights are the same as constitutional rights.
No. As I said, laws can only take rights away. The Constitution (mainly the Bill of Rights actually) is there primarily to tell the government what rights you CANNOT take away through law. And they make a distinction between citizens and people.
Again, take the example of skydiving. There is no law that legalizes it, nothing in the Constitution that grants that right. But it's still legal - because the default is that you have that right. There are now regulations that limit what you can do to skydive, of course.
>As for an education, what makes you think that said illegal could get a better >education in an American class room instead of a Brazilian class room if
>Portuguese is the only language he speaks?
?? I don't think that. I think if he is in the US it makes more sense to teach him English than Portuguese.
>Why are you making him stay here for 2-5 years to wait for his court date?
I'm not. Try him tomorrow and send him away if that's the verdict. Don't want to? Then you might have to pay for his education for a while (and perhaps even other expenses.) Or you could just let him stay here, get a job and pay taxes like anyone else, and thus support the US. Your decision.
No. As I said, laws can only take rights away. The Constitution (mainly the Bill of Rights actually) is there primarily to tell the government what rights you CANNOT take away through law. And they make a distinction between citizens and people.
Again, take the example of skydiving. There is no law that legalizes it, nothing in the Constitution that grants that right. But it's still legal - because the default is that you have that right. There are now regulations that limit what you can do to skydive, of course.
>As for an education, what makes you think that said illegal could get a better >education in an American class room instead of a Brazilian class room if
>Portuguese is the only language he speaks?
?? I don't think that. I think if he is in the US it makes more sense to teach him English than Portuguese.
>Why are you making him stay here for 2-5 years to wait for his court date?
I'm not. Try him tomorrow and send him away if that's the verdict. Don't want to? Then you might have to pay for his education for a while (and perhaps even other expenses.) Or you could just let him stay here, get a job and pay taxes like anyone else, and thus support the US. Your decision.
kallend 2,150
jgoose71***
Any right that applies to "all persons".
See 14th Amendment.
Section 1 of the 14th amendment:
Quote
Section 1. 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.
"All Persons" refers to U.S. citizens as I read it. Kind of the reason I created this thread/poll.
You read it incorrectly.
There's also the 5th:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
No, owning guns is much more important than caring for the poor, downtrodden, sick and malnourished.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites