Judge says search rules also protect illegal immigrants

[Old Dog]

Did I just read where Standing Wolf, the staunch defender of all peoples' civil rights, likened illegal immigrants to ... cockroaches?

You want constitutional protections?

Become an American citizen.

Wrong. You want Constitutional protections? Become a human being.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Wrong. You want Constitutional protections? Become a human being.

And I fully understand, even agree with the 'natural rights' argument. However, Constitutional guarantees are a matter of law and the application thereof. The subject of this case was here illegaly and that should have been the focus of law enforcement, not some drug violation.

 

[TallPine]

Another case of the cart before the horse ....

As frustrated as I am with illegal immigration, all residents of the USA are entitled to 4th amendment protections.

Why...?

Well, suppose the cops don't know someone is an illegal immigrant before the search...?

The search is either legal or illegal on it's own merits, not based on what might be found in the search or the citizenship (or tax-paying ) status of the searchee.

Otherwise, we are all at risk.

 

[Sindawe]

Any link to the Judges decision? I'm curious as to why he threw out the evidence found in the Mustang

 

[One of Many]

For those of you advocating different protections depending on citizenship - how can you tell who is a citizen just by looking at them? Peoples of all races and ethnic groups are born into citizenship or naturalized as citizens of the US. Without everyone being required to wear proof of citizenship in a visible location, or placarding your houses and vehicles, how do you propose that the police determine who is protected under the Constitution, and who is not protected?

This man had several children who have US citizenship by birth. Do those children have human rights that are denied to their father, just because he has not completed the process of becoming a citizen (and will not be allowed to with a felony conviction)? Do we deport this man and his entire family? What about the rights of the children to have a relationship with their father? If he is deported and they are not, how do they maintain family contact? If he is convicted and jailed, there is still a chance that the children could visit him.

There is a difference between Human rights and Citizenship rights, and too many people confuse them. God given rights, as identified and expressed in a portion of our Constitution, are not protected on the basis of citizenship; those rights existed for the Founders of this nation before the nation was established, and it was the violation of those rights by the King of England that predicated the creation of this nation. If we refuse those same God given human rights to people within our national boundaries, on the basis of citizenship, we are no better than the King of England and the government against which our Founders rebelled.

If anyone breaks the law, the punishment should be applied the same for citizen or non-citizen; the exception being laws that exist solely on the basis of citizenship or authorized entry. Illegal entry or overstaying a visa are laws that do not apply to citizens, and which result in deportation; knowingly hiring or harboring non-citizens with invalid entry documents can affect citizens, as an illegal action with criminal consequences, but not result in deportation.

We strip convicted felons of certain rights of citizenship (voting and possession of firearms), even though they are natural citizens, but we don't strip them of the human rights enumerated in our Constitution. We should not strip non-citizens of those human rights enumerated in our Constitution.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Negative Rights vs. Positive Rights: which side are you on?

Anyone we deal with as a nation should be extended basic human rights. Food, medical treatment if urgent, don't let them go naked. But our constitution should apply to Americans. If you want the benefits of our country, take on some of the burden and become a citizen. Otherwise, VAMANOS!

Choice One:

United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Choice Two:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

-MV

 

[1911 guy]

Too much semantics going on.

Instead of playing word games to make it seem like myself and others who think like me are heartless SOB's and kill puppies and kittens in our spare time, try to look at the intent of what I and others are saying and think about the eventual outcome of where the "everybody has Constitutional rights" line of thought will take you. It goes to a very dark place called communism because if you and I are required to provide for those who will not do what is best for themselves and their progeny, they get what you have worked for and you no longer have a say in the matter.

As for him not being able to become a citizen due to a felony conviiction, why was he not deported when this was discovered? The choice to take his children with him or leave them and their mother here lies within that family. Heartless? No, I'm not the one who wrote the law. This country has a strong tradition of imigration because many generations of people from all over the wolrd came here to be a part of something better than what they left. This is no longer the case, many come here because it's a free ride. After all, they got rights, right.

 

[Alex45ACP]

The funniest part is that he did nothing wrong.

Possessing firearms: Nothing wrong with that, and it's specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Possessing drugs: Nothing wrong with that, and everyone has the right to put whatever they want in their own bodies.

Possessing large amounts of cash: Nothing wrong with that, and if someone wants to have large amounts of cash it's their business. He probably couldn't open a bank account because of his illegal status.

 

[fourays2]

The funniest part is that he did nothing wrong.

Possessing firearms: Nothing wrong with that, and it's specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Possessing drugs: Nothing wrong with that, and everyone has the right to put whatever they want in their own bodies.

Possessing large amounts of cash: Nothing wrong with that, and if someone wants to have large amounts of cash it's their business. He probably couldn't open a bank account because of his illegal status.

nothing wrong except for being here illegally.

 

[bg]

Wrong! It's our land. He's an invader. He hasn't "adopted" America—unless, of course, cockroaches "adopt" houses.

Two thumbs up !!

 

[ArmedBear]

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.

Law Enforcement officers can get a search warrant, or show probable cause, if they're going to conduct a search, no matter who's being searched. Otherwise, we open the door for anyone to be searched without restriction.

"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.

Constitutional rights do not preclude arrest or conviction. People are arrested and convicted every day, by officers playing by the rules.

It's a small price to pay, for a huge benefit to all of us.

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.

And of course, someone here illegally should be deported.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

1911 guy:

Instead of playing word games ... try to look at the intent of what I and others are saying and think about the eventual outcome of where the "everybody has Constitutional rights" line of thought will take you. It goes to a very dark place called communism because if you and I are required to provide for those...

1911 guy:

Anyone we deal with as a nation should be extended basic human rights. Food, medical treatment if urgent, don't let them go naked.

How is recognizing (not giving) a fundamental human right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness equivalent to communism? How does anything involved in those require giving the means of production to the workers, or the abolition of personal property?

I'd say that people who promise food, clothes, and medical treatment are far, far further down the path towards "a very dark place called communism."

Guaranteeing everybody food, clothes, and medical treatment would mean taking my money out of my pocket and giving it to just anybody who happens to need it. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

So, if one intends to call other people communists, one would be well advised to refrain from making statements that fundamentally agree with Karl Marx and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

All the more so when the people that one is arguing against are quoting directly from the Declaration of Independence.

-MV

 

[ArmedBear]

True.

Actual Constitutional Rights are merely protections from totalitarian rule, murder by government, etc.

Giving someone due process, freedom of religion, restrictions on search and seizure, etc. is not giving them any form of payment (which I naturally oppose).

 

[Alex45ACP]

nothing wrong except for being here illegally.

Government doesn't seem to care about that though. Hundreds of people sneak across the borders every day and they refuse to acknowledge the problem.

But people putting plants in their bodies? *GASP!* We can't have that!

 

[ArmedBear]

Government doesn't seem to care about that though. Hundreds of people sneak across the borders every day and they refuse to acknowledge the problem.

But people putting plants in their bodies? *GASP!* We can't have that!

Like I said, get rid of laws that try to "save us from ourselves" by punishing "crimes" that involve only consenting adults, and you no longer have 99.9% of these cases involving improper search and seizure.

 

[HankB]

When he paid his taxes to the State of Utah and the United States, he became a party to the contract

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.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

I don't get it. Why do any of you want to limit the bill of rights to just citizens? Talk about opening up a way for the government to abuse its citizens. What would stop the government revoking your citizenship and abusing the crap out of you?

 

[Tory]

Silly rabbit........

"What would stop the government revoking your citizenship and abusing the crap out of you?"

Absolutely nothing, of course, but that's not the point (although you clearly have grasped it).

Far better to go off on a jingoistic rant, albeit about a grave problem, than address the fundamental facts recognized by the FFs and enshrined in the Constitution some here claim to respect, but clearly cannot fathom.

It's simple: If you are in this country, you are protected by its laws. One of the most fundamental of those laws is the protection against warrantless search and seizure by agents of the state.

It's called the Fourth Amendment - some may have heard of it........

 

[R.H. Lee]

The point is, if you are here illegally, law enforcement has no business prosecuting you for anything except being here illegally, which should mean a simple, quick trip to the border. Adios. I don't want LE 'investigating' crimes you've committed...of course you've committed crimes-you're a criminal!
I don't want LE affording you Constitutional protections and court appointed attorneys at my expense. And I don't want you incarcerated with full educational and healthcare benefits at my expense while your family comes here to visit you. **** and don't come back. End of story.

 

[longeyes]

This thread is a perfect example of why this country's in dire trouble. Sure, people inside our borders are entitled to basic Constitutional protections and should not be gratuitously abused. They are emphatically NOT entitled to social benefits and the fact that they've been working here, illegally, using illegally obtained documents, while residing here illegally, does not entitle them to any of the privileges of citizenship. Citizenship is about a lot more than having a job and paying taxes, though that distinction is getting progressively blurrier thanks to both the hard Left and the money-is-all "conservatives."

The only entitlement this guy has is a one-way ticket out of here.

 

[Jeff Timm]

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?

Geoff
Who notes this country is being invaded, and noone seems to care.

 

[longeyes]

A lot of us care. The question is do we care enough to take the risk to really do something about it. The same question loomed in the 1770s. It's always there, burning in front of us.

 

[ArmedBear]

This thread is a perfect example of why this country's in dire trouble.

Why?

Because some people can stay on-topic, and some people understand that Constitutional Rights and entitlement programs are completely different issues?

 

[longeyes]

No, because who plays the better poker game while the Titanic's going under somehow misses the point.

 

[ArmedBear]

No, because who plays the better poker game while the Titanic's going under somehow misses the point.

You're right in saying that. If there's a metaphorical Titanic, however, it is the Bill of Rights.