Judge says search rules also protect illegal immigrants

[longeyes]

The Bill of Rights definitely has a case of the glub-glubs. So does the nation's sovereignty.

 

[ArmedBear]

The Bill of Rights definitely has a case of the glub-glubs. So does the nation's sovereignty.

Search warrants don't undermine national sovereignty.

I live a hop, skip and a jump from the border. I have a pretty damn good idea of the joke that it's become, believe me.

But that's nothing that throwing away our own individual rights will cure. Take away the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments, and the border would look exactly the same.

Deport the guy. But let him have due process, etc., when he's tried for other crimes. Any other course of action endangers us all.

 

[Tory]

And your point?

"How come we just can't classify him as a spy, turn him over to a military tribunal, give him a fair trial and shoot him?"

<Non-THR comment removed by Art>

 

[LawDog]

Are you asserting that the U.S. Government, knowing he was an illegal, issued him a Social Security Number so he can work and pay SS and Medicare taxes as well as file a Federal income tax return?

If he doesn't have an SSN, or used a false one or obtained a real one under false pretenses, it would seem that he didn't really become a "party to the contract" after all.

And if the Feds issued an SSN to someone known to be an illegal alien . . . we have some serious problems here.

As I read this thread I'm sitting here drinking a cup of something from the local coffeeshop that seems to be half coffee and half chocolate. Not bad, actually. The Sweet Young Thing who brought it to me tells me that a large cup of whatever at this place costs 99 cents. She, however, paid $1.08.

I doubt if she gave the guy behind the counter her SSN before he added the 8.25% tax to my cup of whatever.

Yesterday, I was idly reading the stickers on the gas pump as I filled the tank on my pickup. According to one of the stickers, out of the $1.99 per gallon I wound up paying, about half of it was Federal, State and local taxes of one kind or another. Road tax, and all that. I didn't put my SS card on top of the cash I handed the cashier, though.

You know, seems like about 90% of the things I buy have some kind of tax -- usually about 8.25%.

I'm willing to bet that it was the same for the subject of this story.

Now, unless the various gov't agencies that spend that money have avoided spending this guys money, or if someone is willing to give him a refund, he's done faithfully paid a good amount of his taxes.

Just my opinion, though.

LawDog

 

[insidious_calm]

I realize it's hard to see the forrest behind the trees, but I'd have thought more would understand this given the apparent intelligence of some who've posted otherwise. Nonetheless...


Originally posted by C Yeager:

OK, why dont you show me what part of the constitution gives the government the authority to strip civil rights from non-citizens. Show me where it says that the 4th amendment applies only to citizens, and dont say that its an oversight because the authors had no problem making that disctinction regarding the right to vote. They knew the difference between a citizen and a non-citizen and chose NOT to make that distinction a prerequisite for 4th amendment protection.

I doesn't give them the authority to strip anyones rights. The underlying premise of your argument is invalid. What the constitution does do is give power to the parties of the contract. It doesn't give rights, it gives recourses. Because illegals are not a party to it they have no authority to call it's protections into action.

Or is the constitution an out-dated anachronism? Should it be a "living document" that should be molded to fit our new circumstance?

It would seem that you and others are the ones who wish the document to be 'living' in order to apply to your new class of citizen would it not?


Some of you are claiming that the constitution differentiates between citizen and non-citizen rights in such a way as to claim that certain amendments apply to illegals, i.e. the fourth, whereas others do not, i.e. the second. This is a complete contradiction it seems. If that were true, then illegal aliens would be able to bring suit in U.S. courts for violation of their second amendment rights. You can't have it both ways. To carry on in such a manner is no less nefarious than the ways of those who seek to remove your rights altogether.

All human beings are born and instituted with certain inalienable rights. Those would clearly include the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments to our constitution. The constitution does not grant these rights, and I have not made that argument. To imply so is disingenuous. What it does do is provide a method by which those who fall under it's scope may seek to bring the full weight and authority of the U.S government into action on their behalf for breaches and infractions of those rights.

Governments are instituted among men, and only those who are a party to the institution may have access to it's faculties. That is why I say that it is a contract. It was drafted and signed by the affected parties, who are bound by it's terms. To take the approach some of you are suggesting is to see how we got to where we are with the second amendment. The constitution is written in black and white, there is no grey.

I.C.

 

[c_yeager]

What the constitution does do is give power to the parties of the contract.

What is this "contract" nonsense? The constitution isnt a contract, its a leash. It constrains the government from trampling the rights of the people. The people need do not have some end to keep up in order to keep their rights.

 

[insidious_calm]

On the contrary Mr. Yeager, you most certainly DO have obligations under this contract. You have the obligation to not be treasonous. You have the obligation to pay taxes so levied by the congress.

I.C.

 

[longeyes]

Now, unless the various gov't agencies that spend that money have avoided spending this guys money, or if someone is willing to give him a refund, he's done faithfully paid a good amount of his taxes.

Has he now. Well, I hope that pittance pays full pop for the kids he's getting educated at $10K a head out of local property taxes he's probably avoiding.

 

[Sindawe]

On the contrary Mr. Yeager, you most certainly DO have obligations under this contract. You have the obligation to not be treasonous. You have the obligation to pay taxes so levied by the congress.

That brings to mind a line from an old movie. Perhaps some of you have seen it?

paraphrasing here...

"I swore no allegiance to Longshanks."

"But still, he IS your King."

And what pray tell, shall we do when those who HAVE taken an oath to uphold and defend our national charter chose to ignore that oath?

On the topic at hand, I've been thinking about this all day and chatting with my buds online about the topic. IMHO the judge is correct. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are innate to all individuals, as well as those NOT listed in that document. Mr. Illegal Alien has those same rights, and is entitled to the same protection of and from the Law as any of us native born or naturalized.

Now that Mr. Illegal Alien HAS been apprehended, follow due process of law and if he's convicted, chip his sorry kiester, deport it and let him know that if he's caught again on our land with out following our immigration laws we'll gladly give him a decent burial per the customs of his chosen faith.

 

[NCP24]

On the topic at hand, I've been thinking about this all day and chatting with my buds online about the topic. IMHO the judge is correct. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are innate to all individuals, as well as those NOT listed in that document. Mr. Illegal Alien has those same rights, and is entitled to the same protection of and from the Law as any of us native born or naturalized.

I have often struggled with this very question and the best answer I can come up with is fair sportsmanship.

I view the Constitution as a social contract between the government and the people. At the same time I regonize the pros and cons of a “living document” per se - case law.

I do believe fair sportsmanship of the 14th Amendment should extend to all under the umbrella of the Constitution for purposes of persecution. However, that’s not to say all right’s contained threin should extend to non-citizens.

 

[longeyes]

The issue, for me, with illegal aliens is the difference between protections, basic to all people in this nation under the Constitution, and benefits, specifically at the discretion of our citizenry through our elected representatives.

This line has clearly gotten blurred in many instances.

 

[Ellie]

If allowing anyone in this country to enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights is necessary to assure that I do, then I say, let them . . . "We were looking for illegal aliens, and we found this bag of weed" would be far too easy where I live, because I'm close to the border.

Too true. Though we need not worry right now, as we only have 3 officers of the law in the whole city - we're going bankrupt, remember?

Of course, if we stopped trying to use force to stop adults from voluntarily doing certain unhealthy things (e.g. take recreational drugs or hire prostitutes), then a lot of these cases wouldn't exist.

Agreed. However, if we stopped bankrolling every little pet project that liberals think up and make government do it's very limited job using naturally market-limited tarrifs and excise taxes instead of absurdly high income taxes, maybe we wouldn't have to worry about illegals.

Just a thought.

 

[Igloodude]

Some people would argue that, by virtue of physically being in the country, the guy is subject to all US laws (including those regarding drugs and firearms), but the police are not subject to all US laws when dealing with him? It would seem to me that it would be one or the other. If he didn't sign the Constitutional contract (or it is invalid) he shouldn't be prosecuted for violating his side of it, if the police are released from the restrictions on their side.

If he's an illegal alien, deport him, otherwise hand him a green card, charge him with whatever is justified by legally-obtained evidence, and try him.

 

[c_yeager]

On the contrary Mr. Yeager, you most certainly DO have obligations under this contract. You have the obligation to not be treasonous. You have the obligation to pay taxes so levied by the congress.

You are punished for treason and for failing to pay taxes. Yet nowhere is it indicated that one gives up their status as a member of "the people" for such infractions.

 

[DRZinn]

However, if we stopped bankrolling every little pet project that liberals think up and make government do it's very limited job using naturally market-limited tarrifs and excise taxes instead of absurdly high income taxes

I like you people more every day! Don't run away, stay here and help change things!

Wish me luck on finals...