I ask Simon to give posters the option of having their national flag under their Avatar.This would be helpful in preparing comments as then I/we would some idea of where the others are coming from. Just an idea thats all.
tommy Robinson --update
by zeb 193 Replies latest social current
-
zeb
-
Simon
Non-citizens DO have some constitutional rights but not all the rights of citizens.
They have some rights that mirror those in the constitution, but that doesn't make them the constitutional rights. They are all built on the same legal foundation which is why there is overlap.
The reason that non-citizens get some of the same rights is because of the ones there legally. Permanent or temporary residents who are non-citizens get the same protection under the law even though they can't vote.
I don't believe that illegal immigrants should have the same rights or that it's settled law yet (with supreme court ruling on that specific point).
-
Simon
give posters the option of having their national flag under their Avatar.This would be helpful in preparing comments as then I/we would some idea of where the others are coming from.
Yes, we had this and a few people lost their shit over it but I don't think their arguments were valid. I think I'll add it back as it is useful to see.
-
recovering
Precedent has been set as far as the constitution applying to non citizens. Law in the United States is codified by constitution and by the legislation branch of government. Courts interpret these laws and set precedent. Our legal system in the U.S. relies on precedent to judge similar cases before them. I have provided precedent setting cases with regards the constitution, and its application to non citizens.
I don't believe that illegal immigrants should have the same rights or that it's settled law yet (with supreme court ruling on that specific point)
It really does not matter what you believe .
In the modern legal system, the term precedent refers to a rule, or principle of law, that has been established by a previous ruling by a court of higher authority, such as an appeals court, or a supreme court. Courts in the U.S. legal system place a high value on making judgements based on consistent rules in similar cases. In such a system, cases based on similar facts have a fair and predictable outcome. To explore this concept, consider the following precedent definition
-
Simon
Precedent has been set as far as the constitution applying to non citizens
No, it hasn't. All that has been decided is that people are allowed certain rights. But they do NOT automatically inherit the rights under the constitution just by virtue of "being there".
The things they do "get" are less important - freedom of religion for instance. This was in the article you linked earlier. Wait, you didn't just read the headline and not bother to read the detail did you?
Undocumented immigrants have many constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and religion. But they don’t share all the constitutional rights of citizens.
For example, some undocumented immigrants in removal proceedings have not gotten due process in court, and they don’t have a right to a government-paid lawyer in immigration court.
Precedent only goes so far. At some point things can be overturned and new precedents set. Typically this is when things go to the supreme court.
-
recovering
Lol you keep changing what you say you believe in. Previously you claimed that non citizens had no rights under the constitution . You now claim that they have some rights .
I think that deep down you know your argument is flawed. It is interesting that you continue to debate here. If you are so confident of your position ,why not debate me on the moderated debate site.
The precedent setting cases that I cited are from the U.S. Supreme court. Yes precedent can be overturned ,but since the supreme court set the precedent it would require the SCOTUS to overturn it. Until then that is the current law of the land.
-
recovering
Here is another Supreme court case that extends some constitutional rights to noncitizens.
Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)
“Petitioners are aliens designated as enemy combatants and detained at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” “Petitioners present a question not resolved by our earlier cases relating to the detention of aliens at Guantanamo: whether they have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus”. “We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege.” [3 – Page 9] “We hold that Art. I, §9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay.” [3 – Page 49] “[F]or the first time, this Court holds there is […] constitutional habeas jurisdiction over aliens imprisoned by the military outside an area of de jure national sovereignty”. [3 – Pages 79-80]It looks like the constitution is applying to noncitizens outside of American borders. It is interesting to note that these individuals where not even attempting to immigrate. This makes The case for non citizens having constitutional rights even stronger. The SCOTUS is a credible authority on American law
-
Simon
Lol you keep changing what you say you believe in. Previously you claimed that non citizens had no rights under the constitution . You now claim that they have some rights.
Nope, consistent throughout if you re-read it. I said from the start that many of the legal processes mirror those that the constitution provides to citizens. But you are not a citizen and don't get the rights of the constitution, even if some of the rights you are granted are also in there. It's really not difficult to understand although you are managing to do it incredibly well.
I think that deep down you know your argument is flawed. It is interesting that you continue to debate here. If you are so confident of your position ,why not debate me on the moderated debate site.
You have mentioned this several times but never mentioned the site. I'm not going to accept an invite to something site-unseen and generally have better things to do with my time.
The precedent setting cases that I cited are from the U.S. Supreme court. Yes precedent can be overturned ,but since the supreme court set the precedent it would require the SCOTUS to overturn it. Until then that is the current law of the land.
Just because the supreme court rules on something doesn't mean they make it a ruling on specific aspects. The gay wedding cake was a recent example - they punted on coming up with a hard ruling on something more wide reaching and made it about the narrow specifics of that particular case.
-
Simon
It looks like the constitution is applying to noncitizens outside of American borders.
But it doesn't, it's just applying certain principles to a specific situation. It is not extending the constitution to non-citizens in the way you suggest. It is simply that the US is currently deciding that it's policy is to follow some of the same legal approaches it uses elsewhere.
Think of it like this: a Hotel has a platinum member level that offers certain benefits. One of those is access to the spa. One day, they decide that all guests of the hotel can now access the spa. The thing they get may be the same, but it doesn't mean everyone is now a platinum member and entitled to all the other things that provides.
I don't care if you accept it or not but I think we've had enough of this particular off-topic derailing of this thread.
-
recovering
If you wish to see the site there are a many . You choose the site there are many I am willing to debate you on any of them. Below are a couple .
Your right let's take this debate elsewhere. A moderated debate forum of your choosing would be excellent place. Since I am giving you the choice of sites and not limiting them you should have no objection to the format.