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.