-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Federal Appeals Court Rules that Illegal Aliens Don’t Have Second Amendment Rights
- Thread starter Reptile
- Start date
pastera
NES Member
Concur
Rahimi pretty much says you don't need to be law abiding to be among "the people"
And there is little question that even illegals still enjoy other enumerated rights ( free speech, self incrimination, cruel and unusual punishment, etc)
So it would seem that until actually convicted for being in the country illegally, they would still enjoy the right to keep and bear arms.
I would agree, that even with this interpritation, the status of not of the people couldn't be determined until after due process. And if we take that direction, would every illegal caught at the boarder be able to insists on a full trial before they are returned.
It almost seems better that if it's just a possesion charge, they should just establish they are illegal and send them back. Is it really worth the whole process and locking them up in the US for just a possession charge.
The situation would be different with other charges.
pastera
NES Member
Bolded part is not true since the constitution does not infer a right to enter or remain in the US to any accept citizens - while all citizens are part of "the people" not all of "the people" are citizens. Therfore only those rights enumerated to "the people" are.enjoyed by persons on the US who are not citizens.
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 2,073
- Likes
- 2,995
In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that '"the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. In a 2015 case, the 7th circuit applied that test to the 2nd amendment and concluded that a particular illegal did have sufficient connection. So there's potentially a conflict in the circuits which would have to be resolved in the Supreme Court.
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
supreme.justia.com
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 40,268
- Likes
- 35,617
Buh thuhr uhleeegul!!!!
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
I love how gun owners get all uppity about rights when it suits them, quoting the Founding Fathers and all that.
But forget that PEOPLE means PEOPLE. It isn't citizens or legals or anything. It's PEEEEE-POOOOOOEEEE!!!!!!
You eitehr subscribe to that or you're part of the problem.
pastera
NES Member
Reading the opinion opens up more questions.
The decision rests on a 1990 4th ammendment case (Verdigo-Urquidez) that finds illegal aliens are not part of "the People".
Therefore, illegals have no first, second or fourth ammendment rights. Nor do they enjoy the protection for unenumerated rights under the ninth and tenth.
So no right to:
Peaceably assemble
Petition the government
Keep or bear arms
And no need for probable cause to arrest, search or seize
Until SCOTUS takes a case specifically determining if illegals enjoy the full bill of rights, states should feels free to search and arrest any/all illegals at every opportunity.
The decision rests on a 1990 4th ammendment case (Verdigo-Urquidez) that finds illegal aliens are not part of "the People".
Therefore, illegals have no first, second or fourth ammendment rights. Nor do they enjoy the protection for unenumerated rights under the ninth and tenth.
So no right to:
Peaceably assemble
Petition the government
Keep or bear arms
And no need for probable cause to arrest, search or seize
Until SCOTUS takes a case specifically determining if illegals enjoy the full bill of rights, states should feels free to search and arrest any/all illegals at every opportunity.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,657
- Likes
- 35,915
Bad decision (the logic,not the result)
It is already established that 2A rights can be stripped from an individual for certain things like being a felon, having felony charges pending against you, etc. There are even some laws banning possession of firearms while committing a crime. A rational decision would have been that being in the US illegally is one such situation that strips one of 2A rights. This could be further bolstered by noting that legal aliens to not lose 2A rights (except of course, those legally present on visas and not Permanent Resident status in MA, but that could fall).
Saying that they are "not people" brings all other rights guaranteed to "the people" into question. Illegal alien - no search warrant required, no public defended eligibility or right to remain silent, etc. And, of course, the right to regulate religious observances by ilegal aliens.
But in reality, it just means that the 2A is a right of the second class.
It is already established that 2A rights can be stripped from an individual for certain things like being a felon, having felony charges pending against you, etc. There are even some laws banning possession of firearms while committing a crime. A rational decision would have been that being in the US illegally is one such situation that strips one of 2A rights. This could be further bolstered by noting that legal aliens to not lose 2A rights (except of course, those legally present on visas and not Permanent Resident status in MA, but that could fall).
Saying that they are "not people" brings all other rights guaranteed to "the people" into question. Illegal alien - no search warrant required, no public defended eligibility or right to remain silent, etc. And, of course, the right to regulate religious observances by ilegal aliens.
But in reality, it just means that the 2A is a right of the second class.
In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that '"the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. In a 2015 case, the 7th circuit applied that test to the 2nd amendment and concluded that a particular illegal did have sufficient connection. So there's potentially a conflict in the circuits which would have to be resolved in the Supreme Court.
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
How long do you have to be in the US, spending money, working, paying taxes (even with someone else's SSN) having children, going to church, etc. before you're "part of a national community or otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country..."?
12 hours.
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 2,073
- Likes
- 2,995
It's determined on a case-by-case basis right now. As Judge Flaum states in his concurrence in the 7th circuit case, "Who is part of our 'national community' and whether (and how) an undocumented immigrant can establish a “sufficient connection” under Verdugo-Urquidez remains unsettled."
pastera
NES Member
Yes, it does
Art I, Section 8, Clause 18
Art IV, Section 4 (invasion)
And simply through common law established at the founding that the sovereign government had absolute power over a nation's borders.
The Constitution may not explicitly state that the federal government is the arbiter of who is allowed into the country that doesn't mean that immigration is outside the federal government's purview.
pastera
NES Member
All that you have listed was done by and through illegal activity.
A thief doesn't gain property rights simply because they remain in possession of the stolen property.
Neither does an invader become a citizen through playing the part.
pastera
NES Member
The first amendment has two operative clauses.
Only the right to assemble and to petition for redress are reserved to "the people".
Therefore religion, free speech and press are open to illegals
The 5th simply calls out "No person" so it covers illegals
The 6th calls out "the accused"
The 3rd, 7th and 8th don't call out a subject
So illegals not being part of "the people" isn't a complete removal of civil rights.
Huh?
I'm assuming you're referring to "to make all laws..." which refers to clause 4, about "naturalization"
"naturalization" is not the same as simply being in the US.
LOL!
"invasion"? Really?
That's kind of weak. "invasion" isn't "crossing the boarder and exchanging labor for money or money for goods and services"
The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do, right? Do we not believe that anymore?
Your examples are kind of absurd. "theft" doesn't factor in here. That's a crime in itself
"having children" isn't illegal, nor is "buying stuff", nor is "exchanging labor for money"
Everything I listed were at worst malum prohibitum stuff done with full cooperation and consent of all the parties involved. Not theft.
If your circular argument that being here without permission from the king means you can't ever be "part of a national community or otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country.." rendering the ruling meaningless.
pastera
NES Member
Nope section 8 clause 18
Look up the definition of invade
Definition of INVADE
to enter for conquest or plunder; to encroach upon : infringe; to spread over or into as if invading : permeate… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
Yes, illegals are invaders.
I didn't say hostile or military only invaders.
True - the constitution also details out who is protected by those limits.
And illegals are offered some protections, just not the right to enter our country outside the legal methods
Being present in the country without permission is a crime.
So anything gained while here illegally is profit from illegal activity.
And knowing a person effected by the theft of his social by an illegal in order to work - yes, that crime definitely has victims and steals large amounts of time and money from those victims.
Agree - it is well within the power of "the people" to exclude those that upon their initial acts in this country show that they are unwilling to obey our laws.
And doing so permanently is perfectly fine if "the people" determine that to be the proper punishment for breaking those laws of entry.
I am all for rounding up every single illegal for expulsion and giving them 24 hours to leave or be arrested and have assets confiscated to pay for their expulsion.
And go ahead and call me any names you like - my wife who became a naturalized citizen long after our wedding feels similarly since she and her family waited a decade or more to come legally.
StevieP
NES Member
jmho. Rights are reserved for citizens, not just residents.
edit to add this should be the incentive needed to go through the process to legally become a citizen. as a citizen you're enrolled in the income and property tax system, pay into social security, etc. in return your kids get enrolled in school and you get police and fire department services. You can take driver's ed, get a license and buy insurance and yes, you can register to vote
just walking across the border, none of that happens (properly) and you shouldn't get full representation. you won't be able to work because you don't have a tax ID (SSN). so there's no incentive to come illegally.
nuf ced
edit to add this should be the incentive needed to go through the process to legally become a citizen. as a citizen you're enrolled in the income and property tax system, pay into social security, etc. in return your kids get enrolled in school and you get police and fire department services. You can take driver's ed, get a license and buy insurance and yes, you can register to vote
just walking across the border, none of that happens (properly) and you shouldn't get full representation. you won't be able to work because you don't have a tax ID (SSN). so there's no incentive to come illegally.
nuf ced
Last edited:
Right. That just says the feds have power to execute other stuff.
Look up the definition of invade
Definition of INVADE
to enter for conquest or plunder; to encroach upon : infringe; to spread over or into as if invading : permeate… See the full definition
Yes, illegals are invaders.
I didn't say hostile or military only invaders.
Oh, so I'm an invader when I drive into New Hampshire? What if I have a job in New Hampshire? Or is being an "invader" dependent on there being a law against it? If it's about there being a law, then your argument falls apart because it's entirely circular.
If that's the reasoning, any law that .gov thinks is to "promote the general welfare" or "domestic tranquility" is therefore called for in The Constitution, no matter how draconian those laws. 90% tax on wealth? The constitution calls for it because it's to promote the general welfare"
Any reasonable reading of "invasion" in that context (or really, ask-anyone-on-the-street context) would mean "foreign government attacking with armies" or similar, and not "people crossing the border to work and live and buy stuff"
OK, so what? That doesn't negate "being a part of the national community"
Is this a "they took my job!!11ELEVEN!!" argument?
I'm pretty sure everyone who benefits from fresh vegetables and fruits don't feel victimized. And the farmers who benefit from the labor to harvest those fruits and vegetables don't feel victimized. Please don't bring up "taking fruit and vegetable harvesting jobs from Americans". That's kinda bogus - there simply aren't enough Americans willing to do the work.
pastera
NES Member
Yes, other stuff like which non-citizens are allowed to enter or remain in the US
You're either trying to be purposely obtuse and argumentative or don't have the capacity to discriminate the difference between a citizen, a lawfully admitted alien, or resident alien and someone who trespassed a border illegally (or remained after permission expired, also trespass)
There is no issue with promotion of the "general welfare" when examining it from a contemporary understanding of the term (text history and tradition, where do I remember that from)
Anyone on the street? I guess my question on argumentative behavior has been answered.
If one of the people whom crossed the border to work and live and buy stuff decided to enter and remain in an unused room in your house, do you have the right to expell them?
Let's say they pay you the difference in you utility bill (tax).
By your standard they are part of the community of your household at that point.
No, they aren't part of the national community.
They are illegal trespassers invading our sovereign country.
Nope - again you show the inability to comprehend complex issues.
The person I was speaking about holds a security clearance. The illegal using his social filed a fraudulent tax return and used his credit. These actions caused him issues with his clearance.
It also caused him to spend many hours and thousands of dollars to attempt to clear his name off the fraudulent accounts and credit report.
Now the poor bastard had to file taxes with some crazy pin and hand over a legal package to get a loan.
He used to have the same position as you do (and he's a naturalized citizen).
Nice strawman - where did I ever say a word about legally admitted migrant workers?
I didn't but you have to add this crap in order to try to manufacture a reasonable position.
As far as 'taking jobs' - actually they are since the laws of supply and demand still have application in the labor market.
The surplus of illegal immigrant labor keeps wages artificially lower than what a resident would want to work for.
An illegal doesn't care about stiffing the medical system for health care bills nor do they care about things like licenses and insurance.
If there was no cheap illegal labor then legal migrant workers would need to be hired if too few Americans would work for the offered rates. But those hiring illegals don't want that since there are legal protections and requirements for migrant worker visas.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 40,268
- Likes
- 35,617
Yeah, but they're dirty crime-ridden hispanics. And we don't like those here in NES. So that's AOK.
pastera
NES Member
If it were just Hispanics coming across the border the issue wouldn't be as bad.Yeah, but they're dirty crime-ridden hispanics. And we don't like those here in NES. So that's AOK.
I also wouldn't have as much of an issue with border crossings if we dumped welfare and congress updated the law so that children born in the US would only be citizens if at least one parent is a citizen or was permanent resident at the time of birth.
A lot fewer people would take the trip if there wasn't a safety net to take advantage of.
In God We Trust
NES Member
I’m gonna say that I believe even North Korean peasants have the god given right to keep and bear arms. Their country infringes on that right.
In America, we can argue over what god given rights they have, but those rights are NOT protected by the constitution because they are not citizens and they came here illegally.
In America, we can argue over what god given rights they have, but those rights are NOT protected by the constitution because they are not citizens and they came here illegally.