Do Illegal Aliens have 2A Rights, SCOTUS to decide

fencer said:
To my mind, citizenship and the possession of a firearm are two entirely separate issues.
I am generally of the opinion that a man, any man, has a right, bestowed upon him by God, to defend himself and his kin against violence, regardless of where he was born or where he lays his head at night. And in fact, most men would do so with any means available.

I agree, that illegal immigration is an issue. But it is a separate issue and unfortunately, a Federal issue. It's the responsibility of the Federal government to secure our borders and control immigration, but they have clearly not been willing or able to do that. It's not right, but it is a fact.
So, if you will grant me that it is a fact, I suggest the question becomes, how will we treat these illegal immigrants now that they are here, and in great numbers.
Each of you is entitled to your opinion, and in this matter I would pass no judgement, but were it up to me, I'd say we should treat them like human beings. And all men should have some god given rights, the right to self defense being one of them.
You see, I don't blame them for wanting to come here. What decent parent wouldn't want the best possible opportunities for their children?
Just like each and every one of our ancestors did when they landed on our shores. And not all of them came through Ellis Island.
And surely, when your great grandfather came here, if his life or family were in peril, you would expect him to be able to defend himself and his family?
But, that was different right? Because, you know, they were white.
Click to expand...

Well, since your post ended on the subject of race.........................

Ever since we took advantage of the indians lack of an immigration policy and stole their country from them through armed encroachment, this has been a white nation. A white, eurocentric nation. Our forefathers all came from basically the same whitish regions of europe and shared similar folkways, mores, and taboos. For as long as it has been a predominately white nation it has been a stable and prosperous nation, hasn't it?

Slavery and the internment of Japanese Americans were very wrong things to do. We hopefully have learned not to take those kind of measures again.

But now we are admitting all of the world's riff and garbage in numbers too great to assimilate. This is national suicide fomented by some truly short sighted people. People who are too stupid to realize what life will be like for their children and grand children when they are no longer in the majority of the country's population.

I do blame "them" for coming here ILLEGALLY. Every dollar wasted on them and their children is a dollar that can't be spent on my children or aged parents, or veterans, or disabled Americans, or underprivileged Americans, or heck even the puppies at the local MSPCA.

My grandfather came here from Ireland LEGALLY. The government didn't fly him to Nevada and give him an EBT card, a housing subsidy, and free healthcare. If he had TB, it was back to Dublin, Mick! Sorry Harp, we don't give the driver's license exam in gaelic, better learn english. Illegal scum with covid, no problem there, here's your payment voucher.

And yes, my grandfather was white
 
I’ll go back and read the thread later, but I’ll ask this.

If it’s okay to restrict people from possessing guns while, for example, on bond after being arrested, but before any conviction, in other words, someone excused if a crime, is it really any different for illegals to be restricted from possessing guns?

To be clear, I’m not saying it is or isn’t okay, I’m just saying I think there is a significant parallel between the two situations.
 
>spend generations whittling down a plainly stated Constitutional right
>encourage the country to be flooded by illegal immigrants for decades
>Supreme Court avoids 2A cases like the plague.
>illegal population approaches critical mass
>Supreme Court "WTF I LOVE 2A CASES NOW !!1!"

mike head shake.gif

F*ck California, DC/NoVA needs to slide into the Atlantic never to be seen again. It would kick off 1000 years of peace and prosperity the likes of which the world has never seen.
 
The constitution grants nothing. The constitution guarantees protection from the government against infringement upon certain inalienable rights. In theory these rights are the core beliefs our founding fathers held for everyone however we only afford legal protection of those rights within our borders where we control our own domain. I think people here for whatever reason should be privy to our rights as defined in the constitution. If someone is here lawfully they should be afforded the same rights as everyone else and this in my opinion would extend to excon's who have served their sentences. An example would be a visitor from england who comes to texas on a travel visa buying a handgun and open carrying around a constitutional carry state. Mind you they would be subject to local laws but there should be nothing at the federal level that precludes them from it.
 
Broccoli Iglesias said:
So, SCOTUS could say illegals have the right, but then States like MA will not let them exercise that right because they dont have the required paperwork for the application.

This could be a great thing, maybe illegals could sue the State.
Click to expand...
I'm stuck on the fence of "Massachusetts would never prohibit an illegal alien from having anything" and "Massachusetts would absolutely withhold a gun license for lack of paperwork"
 
Drix said:
I'm stuck on the fence of "Massachusetts would never prohibit an illegal alien from having anything" and "Massachusetts would absolutely withhold a gun license for lack of paperwork"
Click to expand...
Guns in MA are a different subject. Liberals here hate guns.
 
G Port said:
I do blame "them" for coming here ILLEGALLY. Every dollar wasted on them and their children is a dollar that can't be spent on my children or aged parents, or veterans, or disabled Americans, or underprivileged Americans, or heck even the puppies at the local MSPCA
Click to expand...
My earliest American forefathers came here in the 1600's. I even have an ancestor that was accused of witchcraft during the Salem witch trials. He was a Captain in the militia and was accused the same week that they accused the Governors wife, and the Governor put and end to the whole thing.
When my ancestors arrived, there was no "Legally". You just showed up. There were no immigration laws or process to speak of until 1880 or so.
You are laboring under the illusion that your grandfather came here legally. No. He didn't. He didn't apply, he didn't take a citizenship test. He hoped off a boat. And he probably didn't pay taxes as most were forced to work low paying, cash jobs, because "Irish Need Not Apply" and payroll deductions didn't exist until 1943.
www.uscis.gov

Early American Immigration Policies | USCIS

www.uscis.gov
However, history tells us that Americans were none to happy about the Irish immigrants. They were depicted as ape like people and even worse, they were Catholics. They were often victims of violence and bigotry. They were despised and denied many rights, including the right to vote and in many cases the right to bare arms
www.history.com

When America Despised the Irish: The 19th Century’s Refugee Crisis | HISTORY

Forced from their homeland because of famine and political upheaval, the Irish endured vehement discrimination before making their way into the American mainstream.
www.history.com www.history.com

The "Know Nothing" party, claimed that if the Irish were not stopped, they would gain political power, and the country would suffer, changing America and ruining it for our children. Exactly what you are saying now. In 1880, Ireland was one of those "shit hole countries"

It should also be noted that most of the people in this country on welfare are white, followed by blacks and hispanics. Most estimate that illegals account for about 8% of welfare expenditures.

But just like the Irish, they are here to stay, and under current laws, their children are citizens. And the question remains. How are they to be treated? What rights should they have?
 
Broccoli Iglesias said:
So, SCOTUS could say illegals have the right, but then States like MA will not let them exercise that right because they dont have the required paperwork for the application.

This could be a great thing, maybe illegals could sue the State.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

“To my mind, citizenship and the possession of a firearm are two entirely separate issues.”

Yes
fencer said:
To my mind, citizenship and the possession of a firearm are two entirely separate issues.
I am generally of the opinion that a man, any man, has a right, bestowed upon him by God, to defend himself and his kin against violence, regardless of where he was born or where he lays his head at night. And in fact, most men would do so with any means available.

I agree, that illegal immigration is an issue. But it is a separate issue and unfortunately, a Federal issue. It's the responsibility of the Federal government to secure our borders and control immigration, but they have clearly not been willing or able to do that. It's not right, but it is a fact.
So, if you will grant me that it is a fact, I suggest the question becomes, how will we treat these illegal immigrants now that they are here, and in great numbers.
Each of you is entitled to your opinion, and in this matter I would pass no judgement, but were it up to me, I'd say we should treat them like human beings. And all men should have some god given rights, the right to self defense being one of them.
You see, I don't blame them for wanting to come here. What decent parent wouldn't want the best possible opportunities for their children?
Just like each and every one of our ancestors did when they landed on our shores. And not all of them came through Ellis Island.
And surely, when your great grandfather came here, if his life or family were in peril, you would expect him to be able to defend himself and his family?
But, that was different right? Because, you know, they were white.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with everything here. You are right; they are separate issues. Possession of firearms is a right. Citizenship is a privilege. The government has many responsibilities, like upholding the constitution, defending the sovereignty of our borders and balancing the budget. The government may also suspend privileges, but they also have a responsibility to acknowledge “all men and women (ALL, not just some, not just legal citizens) are created equal in the eyes of God.”
 
fencer said:
My earliest American forefathers came here in the 1600's. I even have an ancestor that was accused of witchcraft during the Salem witch trials. He was a Captain in the militia and was accused the same week that they accused the Governors wife, and the Governor put and end to the whole thing.
When my ancestors arrived, there was no "Legally". You just showed up. There were no immigration laws or process to speak of until 1880 or so.
You are laboring under the illusion that your grandfather came here legally. No. He didn't. He didn't apply, he didn't take a citizenship test. He hoped off a boat. And he probably didn't pay taxes as most were forced to work low paying, cash jobs, because "Irish Need Not Apply" and payroll deductions didn't exist until 1943.
www.uscis.gov

Early American Immigration Policies | USCIS

www.uscis.gov
However, history tells us that Americans were none to happy about the Irish immigrants. They were depicted as ape like people and even worse, they were Catholics. They were often victims of violence and bigotry. They were despised and denied many rights, including the right to vote and in many cases the right to bare arms
www.history.com

When America Despised the Irish: The 19th Century’s Refugee Crisis | HISTORY

Forced from their homeland because of famine and political upheaval, the Irish endured vehement discrimination before making their way into the American mainstream.
www.history.com www.history.com

The "Know Nothing" party, claimed that if the Irish were not stopped, they would gain political power, and the country would suffer, changing America and ruining it for our children. Exactly what you are saying now. In 1880, Ireland was one of those "shit hole countries"

It should also be noted that most of the people in this country on welfare are white, followed by blacks and hispanics. Most estimate that illegals account for about 8% of welfare expenditures.

But just like the Irish, they are here to stay, and under current laws, their children are citizens. And the question remains. How are they to be treated? What rights should they have?
Click to expand...

I love how you conflate four completely different situations as all being the same.[laugh2][rofl]
 
Path-Finder said:
This is a great thread to show you how fractured conservatism is.
Click to expand...
I think it is also a thread where racism is thinly veiled as patriotism.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

The founding fathers didn't say all naturally born citizens, or legal immigrants, they said all men. Period.
 
Drix said:
I'm stuck on the fence of "Massachusetts would never prohibit an illegal alien from having anything" and "Massachusetts would absolutely withhold a gun license for lack of paperwork"
Click to expand...
You can do ANYTHING in MA as long as you’ve submitted the right paperwork. Hell, you can even drive drunk and kill a woman. You just need to be a senator first. Again, just paperwork, baby!
 
drgrant said:
It's trivially easy to argue 2A extends to free people of all kinds, regardless of some kind of badge or citizenship status.
Click to expand...

I agree. My belief has always been that the 2nd Amendment is not a permission slip, but a recognition. it's just recognizing the right and stating the Gov't shouldn't infringe on it. As much as I agree with not extending certain benefits of citizenship to illegal aliens, that's a tough one to rationalize in this case.
 
fencer said:
I think it is also a thread where racism is thinly veiled as patriotism.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

The founding fathers didn't say all naturally born citizens, or legal immigrants, they said all men. Period.
Click to expand...
Your "racism" comment is complete bullshit.

The founding fathers were in the midst of a rebellion against a long standing religious monarchy that had long ago set up a caste system. Their statement of being created equal was a religious derivation not a reference to who or who is not going to be subject to the laws governing the new nation.
 
yanici said:
As 'illegals" they are clearly criminals in possession of a firearm. Are they "felons" in possession?
Click to expand...
Depends on how you code it. Straight up 8 USC1325, is one of those misdafelonies or however you say it.

8 USC1326 is a straight up felony. So a second timer would be a PP. There are games that can be played with various continuations of the statute.
 
Uzi2 said:
The founding fathers were in the midst of a rebellion against a long standing religious monarchy that had long ago set up a cast system. Their statement of being created equal was a religious derivation not a reference to who or who is not going to be subject to the laws governing the new nation.
Click to expand...
And the founding fathers were very religious and acknowledged that all men are equal in the eyes of God, regardless of religious beliefs. They also believed that the Constitution shouldn’t be selectively applied based on race, creed, and citizenship. Back then, there was no naturalization process. There was no Ellis Island. And again, the founding fathers drafted the Bill of Rights as a contract between the US government and people of the states acknowledging inalienable human rights, not granted by government, but granted by God and protected by government.
 
Path-Finder said:
So if Sweden was to the South of us and they were sneaking over the border conservatives would be ok with it?
Click to expand...
Has anyone proposed a wall at the Canadian border? They wouldn't even have to sneak. Have you ever been across the border? They ask "What's the purpose of your visit?" Canadians answer, "Going to do some shopping at LLBean".... enjoy your visit. All they need is a passport.
 
ryandarr1979 said:
And the founding fathers were very religious and acknowledged that all men are equal in the eyes of God, regardless of religious beliefs. They also believed that the Constitution shouldn’t be selectively applied based on race, creed, and citizenship. Back then, there was no naturalization process. There was no Ellis Island. And again, the founding fathers drafted the Bill of Rights as a contract between the US government and people of the states acknowledging inalienable human rights, not granted by government, but granted by God and protected by government.
Click to expand...

And your point is????

The founders broke away from, fought and were victorious against a system of government that had ruled almost the entire world. They were not perfect and amended things as time progressed.

The ultimate issue here is whether we are going to live under "the rule of law" or complete anarchy. Because when no laws are followed by anyone, the country is going to go to complete shit overnight.
If the country is going to disintegrate and spiral into complete anarchy, I would rather that it happen in a very slow process.
 

Similar threads

Gun Rights Group scams
Replies
5
Views
306
Acujeff
Acujeff
  • Poll
Help me decide
2 3
Replies
73
Views
1K
Supermoto
Supermoto
Maine gets close to implementing 3 Day Wait Period and makes it illegal to do Paramilitary Training in the State
4 5 6
Replies
165
Views
5K
Uzi2
U
NEW 2A group comes out SWINGING
Replies
0
Views
249
Gidge
Gidge
Does anyone have
2
Replies
30
Views
993
appraiser
appraiser
Back
Top Bottom