Loss of your rights

[Darrell C]

Darrell- Are you continuing this for its own sake? It seems that you have retreated from debating facts to arguing the personal.

I have no horse in this race, but if you want to make your point, ague it with facts and citations to back them up...as ITL is doing (references to the Constitution).

You are the one that brought it up, denying that it had been "dumbed."

Why is it that when I respond to statements and questions, for some reason...some are surprised?

My question was to Cassidy, not you, so don't step in then act as if I am the one perpetuating it. I have every right to defend myself to cowardly attack, and have no problem pointing out that it is cowardly and dishonest. I asked you to comment on whether the posts were dumb or not, and if you didn't notice...those posts were on topic.

So do you think that a hypocritical posting of rights which can be seen to mean nothing to the poster is dumb as well? Do you want to actually address the issue concerning rights? Do you want to say illegal aliens share the same rights to the same extent that law abiding citizens do?

You think ITL is backing up his statements? He is going to need to answer the questions posed in order to do that. Until he, or you do that, the discussion has halted.

But that is the point: when questions that cannot be answered without revealing that a position is weak are ignored...it is insane to think one is making a good argument.

So you can say the posts are dumb, but if you don't mind...at least address those posts so that you also are not unfairly judging with no actual basis.


God bless.

 

[Rolfe]

You are the one that brought it up, denying that it had been "dumbed."

As of the time of my post, nobody had "dumb-boxed" the post that you linked to. I can do it now, if it would make you happier...

You think ITL is backing up his statements?

Yes, with references to the Constitution.

...the discussion has halted.

I doubt it.

 

[Darrell C]

I personally don't think so, but it's not up to me. SCOTUS has ruled.

And if they one day rule that the right to bear arms should be removed as a right? Would you shrug your shoulders and say...nothing I can do about it...?

Should the government have the authority to create laws which directly violate rights?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

As of the time of my post, nobody had "dumb-boxed" the post that you linked to. I can do it now, if it would make you happier...

And you ask me why I am continuing this.

Okay, since you asked, let me ask you...

Do you think I am lying about it?

Why did you point out that it was not dumb-boxed? What is the purpose?

Is it because we disagree in our views so instead of addressing the points raised...you point out that it was not dumb-boxed?

Can you explain that to me Rolf?

Then you imply I am being off-topic?

And by the way...feel free to dumb-box it, lol. Just know that I will publicly ask you to support why you did.

Apparently you think it was dumb, or, you, like Cassidy, are the ones guilty of what you charge me with:

Darrell- Are you continuing this for its own sake? It seems that you have retreated from debating facts to arguing the personal.

Yes, with references to the Constitution.

How has he backed up anything by simply saying I am wrong...that illegal aliens have rights?

I have asked you to now defend your defense of him...where is the address of the points made? Where is a dismantling of the dumb posts?

Do you feel I have the right to confront my accuser?

That is you now.

Maybe you should ask Cassidy, if it means that much to you to deflect from the topic...whether he dumb-boxed it or not.

I doubt it.

No, the discussion has halted, this is not the discussion.

This is simply deflection and more false declaration of addressing the actual discussion. It is nothing more than deflection from the discussion.

And until those who continually disrupt discussion and derail threads understand that, they will continue to perpetuate the same errors, which in turn shuts down discussions that could be beneficial.

Will you at this time address the dumb posts and dumb points and dumb questions? lol

Or will you continue on this side issue?


God bless.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have seen claims made about illegal aliens and the constitution but no actual support for the claims. So no, no actual facts or citations have been given as of yet.

Illegals are afforded a limited amount of rights under the constitution but not all rights under the constitution are afforded to them. Here is a pretty exhaustive article on the subject:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alien

 

[Darrell C]

And we can start at the beginning:

Rights, Privileges, and Duties of Aliens
Legal immigrants enjoy the opportunity to reside within the United States without having obtained U.S. citizenship. While they have no legal or constitutional rights to remain within the country, they may stay provided that the government renews their visas at the expiration of the previous visa. In return for the U.S. granting temporary residence, these aliens owe "temporary allegiance" to the United States. Temporary allegiance involves obeying all U.S. laws while within the U.S., implied consent to U.S. court jurisdiction for alleged violation of tort and commercial laws, and submission to the court system's power of subpoena. While aliens may face suit under tort or commercial laws, they also possess the right to sue.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alien


God bless.

 

[InTheLight]

And if they one day rule that the right to bear arms should be removed as a right? Would you shrug your shoulders and say...nothing I can do about it...?

<sigh> Where did I say that nothing could be done about it? (Your reading of things that aren't there is getting tiresome.)

 

[InTheLight]

And you ask me why I am continuing this.

Okay, since you asked, let me ask you...

Do you think I am lying about it?

Why did you point out that it was not dumb-boxed? What is the purpose?

Is it because we disagree in our views so instead of addressing the points raised...you point out that it was not dumb-boxed?

Can you explain that to me Rolf?

Then you imply I am being off-topic?

And by the way...feel free to dumb-box it, lol. Just know that I will publicly ask you to support why you did.

<SNIP rest of diatribe>

You want people to explain why a post of yours was dumb?

I can scarcely think of an endeavor that would be simultaneously endless and fruitless.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[InTheLight]

And we can start at the beginning:

And some of us can read a paragraph or two further :

Aliens also receive treatment very similar to the treatment that U.S. citizens receive in the context of the judicial system. For instance, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution apply to aliens residing within the United States. As such, the courts guarantee aliens the right to due process of law and equal protection of the laws. Courts have generally construed the Fourth Amendment as applicable to aliens as well. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

[Darrell C]

<sigh> Where did I say that nothing could be done about it? (Your reading of things that aren't there is getting tiresome.)

Just asked the question in light of your statements.


I personally don't think so, but it's not up to me. SCOTUS has ruled.

The Constitution spells out our rights. The states are supposed to regulate everything else. That means the state can make you wear a purple hat on Friday afternoons if they legislate it. No Constitutional rights are being violated.


Seems pretty defeatist to me, as well as an acceptance of governmental power which has never been the premise of this Country.

Who appoints those that legislate at this level?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

You want people to explain why a post of yours was dumb?

Yes, that is clear in my post: I feel someone that spouts off about the right to confront an accuser should evidence this actually means something.

If it's dumb, great. I have said stupid things in the past and I am sure I will in the future. But it seems that the intent of this is simply based on hard feelings.

Very Christian attitude.

Whereas I don't see this kind of tactic as Christian, but satanic.

And just so it is clear, ITL, that is the purpose of discussion and debate. It goes something like this: someone says something, someone disagrees and states why they disagree. The initial spokesman then has an opportunity to address the reasons stated for disagreement.

Quite different from simply making statements which have no credible validity.

I can scarcely think of an endeavor that would be simultaneously endless and fruitless.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Well, I can...trying to get you, and a few select people on this forum to answer simple questions.

You guys are hilarious. Complain because someone responds to you in detail, complain when only one question is asked.

That is what is simultaneously endless and fruitless in the posting of some.

You have been asked some questions, you're points have been addressed, and yet you still manage to skip around all of those.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

And some of us can read a paragraph or two further :

Aliens also receive treatment very similar to the treatment that U.S. citizens receive in the context of the judicial system. For instance, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution apply to aliens residing within the United States. As such, the courts guarantee aliens the right to due process of law and equal protection of the laws. Courts have generally construed the Fourth Amendment as applicable to aliens as well. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures.

Okay, I agree.

Now address what I actually posted.

One does not cancel out the other.

And just to remind you of the context of this particular point, you equated it to the discussion about how we, as Americans, are, or are not losing our rights.

Illegal aliens are irrelevant.

You would understand the irrelevancy if you would simply try to respond to a few points already made: ultimately illegal aliens as well as criminals do not have the rights of the law abiding citizen. The police have the right to investigate illegal activity. Bleeding heart whining about excessive or intrusive Police action will not change that. Bleeding heart whining about "poor illegal aliens" will not change that.

They do not enjoy the freedoms we do, and several points were made as to why.

Simple questions, simple points. No response. Deflection and evasion.

And what makes it worse is on one hand you try to prove illegal aliens have rights, yet my right to confront someone that has accused me of something isn't valid.

Okay, another attempt to get you to answer a question.


I posted...

And we can start at the beginning:

Rights, Privileges, and Duties of Aliens
Legal immigrants enjoy the opportunity to reside within the United States without having obtained U.S. citizenship. While they have no legal or constitutional rights to remain within the country, they may stay provided that the government renews their visas at the expiration of the previous visa. In return for the U.S. granting temporary residence, these aliens owe "temporary allegiance" to the United States. Temporary allegiance involves obeying all U.S. laws while within the U.S., implied consent to U.S. court jurisdiction for alleged violation of tort and commercial laws, and submission to the court system's power of subpoena. While aliens may face suit under tort or commercial laws, they also possess the right to sue.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alien


God bless.

...and only that emphasized is in view.

Here is the simple question: does it state that legal, not illegal, but legal immigrants have the right to remain within the country?


God bless.

 

[InTheLight]

Darrell, I'm done dialoguing with you. You keep moving the goalposts of the argument. It's fruitless to continue.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell, I'm done dialoguing with you. You keep moving the goalposts of the argument. It's fruitless to continue.

God bless.

Not sure why asking you to answer questions already asked and maintaining a focus on the rights of American citizens being taken away is moving the goalpost.

Or how evading the issues raised and focusing on side issues isn't moving the goalposts, but, fair enough.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I will resume discussion if you will simply answer my last question, but the deflection will be ignored.


God bless.

 

[TCassidy]

Do illegal aliens have constitutional rights? Let's see what the Supreme Court says.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school.

In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non (legalize for "whether or not") does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."

 

[InTheLight]

Do illegal aliens have constitutional rights? Let's see what the Supreme Court says.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school.

In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non (legalize for "whether or not") does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."

Thank you. That ought to settle it. However, some people don't recognize SCOTUS rulings as being the law of the land, so they will continue to chirp.

 

[acmoore423]

This question is a good one. What rights as a Christian have I lost? Think back 30 years or more, most schools had a moment or silence. 20 years before that schools had daily prayer. Now if a school offered a prayer over the intercom it would be sued by the ACLU. Any Cross in public locations have been taken down. Also, the 10 commandments in court houses have been taken down all across the country. These are a few examples of how the Christian faith is being taken from the public. Privately, at work many job sites actually will write people up if they discuss Christ at work. This is a censorship that never happened just a few years ago. Can anyone think of other ways that someone might lose their rights?

 

[InTheLight]

This question is a good one. What rights as a Christian have I lost? Think back 30 years or more, most schools had a moment or silence. 20 years before that schools had daily prayer. Now if a school offered a prayer over the intercom it would be sued by the ACLU. Any Cross in public locations have been taken down. Also, the 10 commandments in court houses have been taken down all across the country. These are a few examples of how the Christian faith is being taken from the public. Privately, at work many job sites actually will write people up if they discuss Christ at work. This is a censorship that never happened just a few years ago. Can anyone think of other ways that someone might lose their rights?

I think you are misunderstanding the difference between constitutional rights and allowed activities. Displaying a cross in school was an allowed activity for years and years. Same thing with public prayers. If you believe saying a prayer over the intercom is a constitutional right, what would be your reaction if Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and others wanted their "constitutional right" honored and observed. Do you want this?:

Monday: Christian prayer
Tuesday: Hindu prayer
Wednesday: Muslim prayer
Thursday: Jewish prayer
Friday: No prayer (agnostics and atheists)

 

[Darrell C]

Do illegal aliens have constitutional rights? Let's see what the Supreme Court says.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school.

In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non (legalize for "whether or not") does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."

And this cancels out...

Rights, Privileges, and Duties of Aliens
Legal immigrants enjoy the opportunity to reside within the United States without having obtained U.S. citizenship. While they have no legal or constitutional rights to remain within the country, they may stay provided that the government renews their visas at the expiration of the previous visa. In return for the U.S. granting temporary residence, these aliens owe "temporary allegiance" to the United States. Temporary allegiance involves obeying all U.S. laws while within the U.S., implied consent to U.S. court jurisdiction for alleged violation of tort and commercial laws, and submission to the court system's power of subpoena. While aliens may face suit under tort or commercial laws, they also possess the right to sue.

...how?

I would think remaining in the country would qualify as a right we share which they are not enjoying.

Now can you show me the case where an illegal alien bypassed the Law and won his citizenship that way?


Let's take a look:

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

So illegal immigrants don't really need to enter legally?

Illegal immigration is okay?

You still want to argue that they enjoy the same freedoms we do?

Ridiculous.


Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Did you notice...they are still tried for a capital or infamous crime?

And I haven't looked at all of the responses yet, but has anybody ever addressed the fact that criminals do not enjoy the rights law-abiding citizens do? Tell me they have no right to invasion (it's called a cell check). Tell me of their liberty (it's called prison for a reason).

Yep, no chance of me matching wits with a genius like you (that's by the grace of God, by the way).




Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school.

In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non (legalize for "whether or not") does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents

How about the folks?

They get to bypass Immigration Law because they make it into the country and have kids on American soil?

Please provide cases where illegal immigrants bypassed the Law and were made citizens.

Now even if you can find such a case, then deal with the ones who are deported.


A key talking point for proponents of amnesty for illegal aliens is that the Obama administration has made historic improvements to border security and immigration enforcement, leading to “record” numbers of deportations that surpass the performance of earlier administrations. In December 2012, John Morton, then-director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), announced that his agency had removed nearly 410,000 illegal aliens that year. Major news outlets, pro-amnesty lawmakers, and other Obama administration allies heralded this apparent milestone as evidence that the border and illegal immigration were now under control.

(article is the link)

Tell me where these people enjoyed the freedoms we do.


God bless.