Should Illegal Immigrants Be allowed RKBA?

[longeyes]

Because this is a libertarian's form of daily exercise.

Men have inalienable rights by nature. Yeah, true. But what constitutes a "man?" The whole concept of inalienable and natural rights arises from Enlightenment views of what a man is. Frankly, a lot of human beings lack the reason and responsibility to qualify.

Do they deserve not to be abused and to be treated fairly? Of course. Do they deserve equal rights with those who operate by reason and respect civilized norms and basic concepts of free citizenship? No.

 

[MechAg94]

I like a comment I saw earlier. Location, Location, Location.
Sure they have the RKBA. However, they should have it in their own country. While they are visiting our country (without permission) they should follow whatever regulations we require of them. Legal immigrants are allowed the RKBA in this country. If they would tell us who they are and get permission to come over legally, by all means, allow them RKBA with no additional restrictions. If our wonderful governement would do it's job, this wouldn't be so much of an issue.

If I have to pass a background check, so should they. Our current law pretty much means illegal aliens can't.

 

[Flyboy]

I don't even need to read the thread to respond to this.

Go look at the title of Oleg's site. http://a-human-right.com.

A. Human. Right.

Any questions?

 

[Biker]

Sure. It's a human right in his own land. In mine, only if I grant it. It's *my house*. You don't have to come here if you don't want to and if you do, you'll play by my rules.
Any questions?

Biker

 

[slzy]

you would think if a foreign national was armed he must be a spy,sabateur,terrorist, etc.,and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

[crazed_ss]

you would think if a foreign national was armed he must be a spy,sabateur,terrorist, etc.,and should be dealt with accordingly.

Ridiculous logic.
Anti's could say "You would think if a citizen was armed then he must be a gang member, murderer, or thug,etc and should be dealt with accordingly"

 

[Fletchette]

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,

Note, our Declaration of Independence says "all men" does not say "U.S. citizens".

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Note that the Second Amendment states "the people" and not "U.S. citizens".

Therfore, the answer is straightforward. Yes, illegal immigrants, being people, have the right to keep and bear arms. Illegal immigrants also have the right to vote...in their own country!

This is what has been lost in this debate; the concept of sovereignty. As people, illegal immigrants do have unalienable rights, but they are not U.S. citizens. So, if an illegal immigrant is caught with a gun, a book or a Star of David, he/she should be arrested and charged with illegal immigration. The gun, the book and the Star of David are completely irrelevant.

 

[ksnecktieman]

Stupid question, yes they should be allowed to purchase a firearm,,,, handcuff them, ship them home when you identify them as illegal entrants, and they can purchase their firearm there.

 

[Autolycus]

I thought that if someone is not in prison they should be allowed to own a gun. I support immigration.

 

[Autolycus]

Flechette just put it better best. They are given the same rights by the BOR.

 

[Low-Sci]

All things considered, you can beat the whole "legal" thing as long as you want and it won't get any deader. Of course its illegal. That's completely not the point.

I think the reasons for scrapping someone's natural human rights should be really damn good. I don't think illegal immigration should qualify as a reason.

What kind of aggravates me about this is that so many people say they're all about the right to keep and bear arms, but then it just turns out that they want to be able to say who gets to keep and who gets to bear, not that they really want everyone to be able to. So we're not interested so much in human rights as we are interested in saying which humans get the rights, which I think is a load of ponyloaf.

I think the no firearms for convicted felons needs to be loosened. I think it should be no firearms for repeat and violent felons.

The very premise of a human right is that it is a right that all humans have, and to regulate it is to violate that right. Sometimes that's for the good of everyone. But if a man needs a shotgun to keep his family safe from scum in a bad neighborhood, I don't care if he's a citizen or not. He should get one. The right of self defense exists without regard to citizenship. Government should not be sovereign in that realm, human rights should be.

 

[longeyes]

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,

Note, our Declaration of Independence says "all men" does not say "U.S. citizens".

Quote:
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Note that the Second Amendment states "the people" and not "U.S. citizens".

Therfore, the answer is straightforward. Yes, illegal immigrants, being people, have the right to keep and bear arms. Illegal immigrants also have the right to vote...in their own country!

I get it now. The Founding Fathers were really globalists. I never knew that. The Declaration of Independence was intended to create a world state separate from Britain. Interesting. The Bill of Rights wasn't about the new nation called the United States but, well, about everybody, everywhere. Our Constitution applied to everyone. Huh. Very interesting.

 

[Biker]

Doesn't a really important American document begin with "We the People of the United States...."?

I figure that doesn't include illegal Mexicans.

Biker

 

[Mr. James]

So, if an illegal immigrant is caught with a gun, a book or a Star of David, he/she should be arrested and charged with illegal immigration. The gun, the book and the Star of David are completely irrelevant.

Here, here!

 

[Deathrider1579]

hmm in a truly free country sure they could buy a gun, anyone who was walking the street could. They would still be breaking the law by being here illeagley but they could in fact buy a gun.

The constitution does not apply to illeagles they are not Americans. It seems to me that the illegals are country invaders are home invaders and should be treated as such.



-DR

 

[Matt King]

After reading these responses, and thinking about it for a while, I have come to the conclusion, that while the Constitution, Doesn't apply to illegal immigrants, the right to self defense applys to everyone.

Yes, I think Illegal immigrants should have the right to keep and bear arms, while living here.

 

[JBusch8899]

Convicted felons?

They ain't convicted if they are only here unlawfully....

But they are presumed fugitives from justice by their very presence on this side of the border.

However, with respect to the previous statement.........

Rights are merely guaranteed under COTUS in the belief that God has granted rights unto man. Constitutional doctrine states that rights cannot be taken away unless due process occured to remove said rights.

Is the presumption of being a fugitive from justice a reasonable standard to be barred the possession of a firearm?

Yeah, I think it would have to be so.

 

[Fosbery]

Hitler decided that the Jews were not citizens and thus did not have the right to own weapons of any kind (even sword!). We all know where that led. Thus, I believe that until someone is convicted of a violent crime by a jury of their peers in a fair and open trial, or deemed unfit by numerous doctors/psychologists, they have the basic human right to keep and bear arms. In US law, that is not the case but I believe it should be. They may deserve deportation, they may deserve prison, but they do not deserve to be defenceless.

 

[Matt King]

I support immigration.

As do I, however illegal immigration is a completly diffrent matter. Illegal immigrants cut in front of everyone who wants to come here legally. That's not fair to the peole who want to get here legally.


When a legal immigrant comes here, he pays taxes to the government, to pay for the government social services that he is using. However an illegal immigrant does not pay taxes, but can still send their child to a public school, even without paying. Many Americans are poor and need those Social services that the government provides(Meidcare, Public Schools, ect.) Illegals that come here suck the funding out of these programs, hurting Americans.

 

[Fletchette]

I get it now. The Founding Fathers were really globalists. I never knew that. The Declaration of Independence was intended to create a world state separate from Britain. Interesting. The Bill of Rights wasn't about the new nation called the United States but, well, about everybody, everywhere. Our Constitution applied to everyone. Huh. Very interesting.

Sarcasm noted but not agreed to.

To be blunt, the Founders were indeed 'globalists' as they set up our government based on a new concept: popular sovereignty. Prior to the U.S., the justness of government (sovereignty) was accepted to flow from God, to the king, down to the people. Kings felt that they had a divine right to rule according to their will. In fact, kings were often considered demi-gods.

Jefferson, Hamilton et al changed all that. They directly confronted this notion and said that sovereignty eminated from "the Creator" to "the People" and then to the government, who were merely public servants.

Hence, they did indeed believe that *all* people had unalienable rights. In the Federalist Parpers they even go so far as to state that the rights of the subjects suffering under the various kingdoms of Europe were having their rights repressed, not that these people did not have rights because they were European.

So yes, all people have the right to keep and bear arms. Most people on this planet are having this right repressed by unjust laws and governments.

 

[longeyes]

To be blunt, the Founders were indeed 'globalists' as they set up our government based on a new concept: popular sovereignty. Prior to the U.S., the justness of government (sovereignty) was accepted to flow from God, to the king, down to the people. Kings felt that they had a divine right to rule according to their will. In fact, kings were often considered demi-gods.

Jefferson, Hamilton et al changed all that. They directly confronted this notion and said that sovereignty eminated from "the Creator" to "the People" and then to the government, who were merely public servants.

Yes, that's all well-documented, but it still doesn't change the fact that the Founding Fathers weren't "globalists." They were creating a sanctuary in the New World, not a staging area for missisonary work. You'd think libertarians would get that. We are having enough trouble keeping this Republic and RKBA for our own citizens without concerning ourselves over whether there is a right of, as opposed to a desire for, self-defense in a Somalian warlord, ghetto gangbanger from S. Chicago, or illegal aliens in SoCal. RKBA starts with certain moral and political values, begins in the mind and in a specific culture. There's philosophy and then there's hard practical political reality.

 

[Fletchette]

Yes, that's all well-documented, but it still doesn't change the fact that the Founding Fathers weren't "globalists." They were creating a sanctuary in the New World, not a staging area for missisonary work. You'd think libertarians would get that. We are having enough trouble keeping this Republic and RKBA for our own citizens without concerning ourselves over whether there is a right of, as opposed to a desire for, self-defense in a Somalian warlord, ghetto gangbanger from S. Chicago, or illegal aliens in SoCal. RKBA starts with certain moral and political values, begins in the mind and in a specific culture. There's philosophy and then there's hard practical political reality.

I'll agree to the idea that our Founders thought of this country as a sanctuary, as well as the fact that we are having difficulties with parts of our own country respecting our rights, but that doesn't change the justness of the philosophy. A Somali or a Chicago-ian both have the right to keep and bear arms. If the Chicago-ian is a criminal then they should be put in jail for their crimes. A Somali, warlord or not, definitely does have the right to be armed, but not to immigrate into the U.S. illegally.

Simply acknowledging the fact that people, irregardless of the nation where they live, have rights does not mean that our government should be the one to protect those rights. Our government clearly does not have legal judicial jurisdiction over the rest of the world as the people of those nations do not have representation in our government.

 

[cuchulainn]

longeyes: They were creating a sanctuary in the New World, not a staging area for missisonary work.

Well, the idea of Manifest Destiny certainly caught on among their sons by within a few decades. I wonder how far the apples fell from the trees.

 

[longeyes]

And I think we all see where that's taking us. Maybe we'd better shore up our own nation, our own culture?

 

[cuchulainn]

Manifest Destiny -- as a driver of American expansion -- has been a dead issue since the Civil War, despite some later groups embracing it.

I simply was wondering if its accurate to reject the notion that early U.S. citizens were interested in expanding liberty -- Manifest Destiny suggests they were within a few decades, if not in 1789.