Illegal aliens do not have constitional rights same as legal citizens do they?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Judge Blocks Donald Trump’s Executive Order On Sanctuary Cities
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
Brent W
Active Member
Yep, human lives. On top of that this is also a legal fight between a possible overreach of Federal Government into State and local governments rights. But you can just make it about illegal aliens if you wish.
Brent W
Active Member
But local governments and state governments do and that is what is being challenged.
Specifically this is the precedent they are using: Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
Uh no a conservative was not involved.
Illegal aliens have NO right to stay here, correct?
Brent W
Active Member
A George W. Bush appointed Federal Judge. Let me clarify for you and others. Your interpretation of that is clear. You believe he is liberal because he did not rule in your favor.
Its not overreach when the Fed is given the authority to deal with immigration and states interfere.
You have now misrepresented me. I never said that. Further, just because Bush appointed him does not make him conservative.
Brent W
Active Member
Correct, they can be deported. That is not the legal precedent that is being challenged though. I understand that it is the political reason it is being challenged but it is not the legal justification for blocking the executive order.
The legal justification for blocking it is that the executive order violates the 10th commandement. The precedent being used is this: Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
wikipedia? good grief, anyway it cannot violate the 10th because it is the fed who has authority over immigration.
Brent W
Active Member
See above posts about the legal precedent to challenge this.
So you do not wish to go on record on why you oppose this judges ruling other than that he is biased? How do you define his bias? Is he liberal or not? Why would he block the executive order for personal reasons or is he just a bad judge who understands the law less than you do?
Serious questions. I would really like to understand why you believe this Judge blocked the order, if not because of a bias.
Nope,
The president is given authority to deal with clear and present dangers in immigration as he see fits, so can exclude those from known terrorist lands, and illegals doing crimes!
Brent W
Active Member
{{meta.pageTitle}}
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
Printz v. United States | Casebriefs
Printz v. United States Case Brief - Quimbee
Printz v. United States 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
Printz v. United States (1997)
Printz v. United States
Printz v. U.S. case brief
If you require more sources.
It isn't up to you to decide if it violates the 10th. However, you can not dispute that is what is being challenged here.
The libs went shopping for a judge that is how this ended up in the 9th. They know in that court they are likely to get what they want. Presidents have a history of withholding fed funds in this manner, Carter did it, Reagan did it, and i believe Bush. Further, this is all about bringing in liberal voters and creating a democratic voting block with the intent of never letting a Republican win another election. its also why they do not want voter id laws. They want open boarders. It is all tied together.
Brent W
Active Member
Sure. That is not what is being argued here. What is being argued is an overreach by the Federal Government. Feel free to read the court case above.
The Federal Government can not demand that local police collect immigration status information from suspects. That is what is being challenged.
Brent W
Active Member
I hope you will read what I am typing. It is well within the rights of the President to withhold Federal money. Whether it is a good thing to do is debatable but still not the challenge. That is not the challenge. I can not be anymore clear than that. When you understand what is being challenged this conversation can continue. If you just want to bash liberals, I'll find better discussions.
The stated and local cities must obey Federal law in regards to Immigration, as per the Constutition!
Brent W
Active Member
You are obviously not going to read the challenge or the precedent so I will just assume that our conversation ends here. You must first understand what the President is asking local government to do in specific areas of the executive order and why that has been found unconstitutional in the past before we can have a discussion that progresses past you being stuck on illegal immigrants.
Why would we be supporting doing things illegal, are we not as Christians to uphold the Law of the land?