Questions based on a plain and simple reading of the US Constitution

I note that you consider folks who disagree with you to be revisionists. I'm going to provide information that such is not the case. You can still question whether giving non-citizens any rights is a good or bad idea or should be overturned. But you cannot blame your lack of knowledge about the law on liberals as you are currently doing.The question of whether non-citizens have rights under the 14th Amendment is a question that was settled by the Supreme Court in 1886, a scant 18 years after the 14th amendment was ratified. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

quote:

---

Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons of similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution [the 14th Amendment].

---

More recently, the Supreme Court ruled in 2001:

quote:

---

Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory."

---

Those 14th amendment rights do not include the right to vote. They do include the right to due process and most likely all of the rights in the bill of rights including the 2nd amendment thanks to some rulings after Heller v DC.Now the question of whether that applies to folks who are nowhere near the US and have no intention of coming here is one you have asked about, but it is not a question anyone here has opined on. In particular, the limited constitutional rights granted in the 14th amendment would apply to folks who hold green cards, and maybe even to folks who have been issued visas, at least for those who are returning to the US after a visit following a first lawful entry.The fourteenth amendment says that these rights apply to all persons and not just to citizens. You can opine on what persons mean if you want, but the federal courts have already given the official answer.So, instead of lying about what folks are saying, you can do some homework. Or you can continue with Faith down the same rat hole she continued down in a previous thread. Or come up with some reasonable argument why things ought to be different. Or keep blaming liberals. Your call.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Because every house they own or rent, every paper and effect having anything to do with them, would be illegal because their presence in the U.S. is illegal.

---

Perhaps you can tell me the law which makes it illegal for any non-citizen to be present in the U.S. To the best of my knowledge the U.S. Has a tourism industry welcoming visitors to the country, special visa programs allowing non-citizens to work in the country, universities that take on foreign students and even a special status for residents who are not citizens (Green Cards). You are telling me that all that is illegal ?

quote:

---

If a person breaks into a store and steals one thing and doesn't get caught, does that mean from then on that it's perfectly legal for him to steal anything he wants in that store?

---

How charming. If I visit the U.S. as a tourist or on business (my employer has a sizable U.S. presence) I can expect to be treated as a criminal and the protections afforded me by the Constitution would be denied as further crimes on my part. Presumably I would be required to go up to police and demand to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure ?

But this thread is about how people are treated in this country, regardless of national origin or citizenship status.When you go to a foreign country (assuming you do) do you desire to be treated as

1. An American citizen entitled to special privileges such as openly bearing arms and freely saying whatever you want, or
2. A person with the same legal rights of the citizens of that country, or
3. A lesser person, someone that can be tossed in prison for no reason and with no recourse to justice.

Inquiring minds want to know.Enjoy

There is a case that is making its way up to the Supreme Court that will at least partially determine if the US Constitution applies even to non-citizens that are outside the US but near our borders.

quote:

---

In June 2010, Sergio Hernandez, 15, was playing with two friends in the concrete culvert that marks the boundary between El Paso and Juarez, Mexico. Cellphone video shows the boys ran up the culvert on the U.S. side and touched the high fence. They turned to run back to the Mexican side when a U.S. border patrol agent on a bicycle came upon them.

​

Officer Jesus Mesa Jr. grabbed one of the boys and turned his gun toward the other, Sergio, who had hidden behind a pillar about 60 feet away on the Mexican side. The officer fired three shots and killed the teenager.

---

The family of the child that died sued charging the Border Patrol Agent with unlawful use of excessive force and unlawful seizure (IV Amendment) as well as deprivation of life without due process (V Amendment). So far the courts (divided) have held that the US Constitution does NOT extend beyond the border itself and that the family does not have the rights to sue but now the issue has been appealed to the SCOTUS.

quote:

---

As usual, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy appears to hold the key vote. In the past, he has said the reach of the Constitution should turn on practical concerns, including whether U.S. officials are in control. If so, he could join with the court’s liberals to say the Constitution constrains U.S. agents operating on a border, thereby clearing the family’s lawsuit to proceed. Such a decision would surely be cited by lawyers and judges in the litigation over the travel ban.

---

If they decide that the area was under US Control then the suit against the agent and likely the US Border Patrol will proceed.

The case almost certainly won't proceed regardless of how the Court rules. There is a nuance regarding this point.From the article:

quote:

---

The full 15-member appeals court then took up the case and decided that because the law was not clear, the border agent could not be held liable for violating it.

---

If the Supreme Court agrees with this, it would mean that despite the fact that the Constitution does apply to non-citizens near the border, Officer Mesa will not be held liable. He will be granted immunity because the state of the law on this issue was not clear.On the other hand, the law would be considered clear for the next defendant in similar circumstances.There is no doubt that the idea of Officer Mesa being held responsible is very unpopular among a large segment of the folks here. Foreigners die at the hands of border control agents in circumstances that are sometimes questionable. Few if any agents are ever held responsible.Link to reports of shootings involving border agents. You'll see pretty much the same mix of circumstances that confront law enforcement in other situations. Some good shootings and some that are likely bad.Killed by Border Patrol - Southern Border Communities CoalitionEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

As you say, Officer Mesa may well be granted immunity however the case may decide how far the protections of the US Constitution do extend.A secondary issue revolves around what justifies extreme responses. Is shooting justifiable when the person is 60 yards away and may throw rocks? Remember in this case the supposed justification was a report of kids throwing rocks.There are many other examples where things are clearer. For example where shots, actual gunfire, is directed from the Mexican side of the border into the US, but this case is no where near that clear.

One of the arguments against torture is that IF the US tortured prisoners then foreign elements could justify torturing Americans, but IF the US did NOT torture prisoners then foreign elements could NOT justify torturing Americans, thus gaining moral support for US side of the conflict.I would think this principle would hold for any action by US citizens outside the US, that if we treat people as though they were law abiding US citizens in addition to the way they are treated outside the US then we would be seen as better and not the evil empire.The US is admired (supposedly) as the home of the free and the land of the brave, for our purported "all men are created equal" "with liberty and justice for all" and other founding concepts. It is sad how little of this is actually true.Just sayin

None of this stuff is at issue in the current appeal. If Officer Mesa is granted immunity because the constitutional issues were not clear, then those questions will be left until next time. Absent the constitutional issues, the case is very similar to many domestic use of force cases.Border security agents have been pardoned after convictions for committing attempted murder at the border. Prosecutions of these folks are extremely unpopular.

Yup. Attitudes change slowly and sometimes change faster than the law.

My initial thought about this issue is that Constitutional protections should not extend beyond our borders. I see two problems with extending it beyond our borders: 1) We would lack jurisdiction. If protection extends say 100 feet beyond our border, then all persons within that area are under its protection. We, however, have no jurisdiction to enforce our laws within another sovereign nation. So lets say it was a Mexican police officer that was the one who violated the rights of these boys. By extending Constitutional rights beyond our border we would afford them protection under its provisions, yet we could not hold the Mexican authorities culpable. 2) It opens up all kinds of weird issues, like does this protection extend around our embassies or our military bases? I think that is a rather weak argument for not torturing prisoners, is it not? Our Constitution is not just a list of privileges and rights we have as citizens, but it is a statement describing the values we have as a nation. Torture goes against those core values. My thought is very similar, but I would put this slightly different.An person who is representing the United States should be bound to uphold the Constitution and must be accountable to the rule of law regardless of where in the world they are performing their duties. If we claim the Constitution describes our values as a nation then anyone who represents us as a nation should also represent those values.I am not sure it would be practical to extend this requirement to all citizens. Exactly, those represent some of our core values as a nation and we should always operate within those values regardless of where someone is in the world; whether 50 feet from the US / Mexican border or in the deepest parts of Afghanistan. And we should require that not because we want to gain the higher moral ground or we want other nations to view us positively, but because those are our values!So, even without extending the protection of the Constitution beyond our borders, the law enforcement officer in question IS (or should be) obliged to follow the rule of law and represent the values that are presented in the Constitution.HBD

I think your statement is nowhere near the issue. The Constitutional protections we are discussing here are about limitation on what our government can do to people and not about using force to tell Mexico what to do with their own citizens. The question is about enforcing our own laws in our own courts. At this point the US has refused to enforce any law and refused to grant Mexico jurisdiction. Surely both of those things are within the ability of the US.Further it seems the height of hypocrisy to claim no jurisdiction to enforce our laws as cover for having law enforcement kill someone.

Uhmmm... did you read my entire post?Besides the title of the sub thread is "Do the protections of the IV and V Amendments even apply outside the US? "Do the "protections" apply outside the US was the question posed.Further I said that yes, we should enforce the case against the officer because he is a representative of the US and is therefore bound to uphold the Constitution and laws regardless of whether he was in US territory or not.Has Mexico formally requested extradition? All I read was the family was suing in court.HBD

Yes. It was denied. The US refused to prosecute the agent as it was not in US jurisdiction. Mexico charged the agent, the US refused to extradite. The fifth circuit said the action was not reasonable so the family could sue, the appeals courts overturned it arguing that even if the allegations against the agent were true, the agent has qualified immunity anyway.Seems to me that if the US government is right anda) it wasn't in US jurisdiction
b) Mexico has no right to try the agent
c) The family cannot sueThen only two interpretations remain.1) The border is a quasi legal badland - and US border agents are fair game.
2) This was an act of war.The arguments in the case seemed strange to me - there was some concern that if the boy's family could sue - then victims of drone strikes could argue the same precedent and this was presented as a problem. Seems like an argument of political convenience rather than one of law, but it came up.Also argue was that since the area was maintained by both countries, the law of both countries should apply. the transcript

"Just as much"? Many conservative constitutional scholars consider all the amendments from number 11 on to be not quite as much as the first 10. Those, distorted by activist courts in later years, are how revisionist history gets written. I see your link left off the first sentence of the 14th amendment, as did you in your quote. Let's get the context of the whole thing;

quote:

---

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

---

No it's not clear at all, if you include the first sentence, realize that where you started actually follows it, and then take into consideration what was going on in the U.S. at the time the 14th amendment was written. This amendment was adopted in 1868, it was written explicitly concerning the end of slavery. The only "persons" it was actually referring to that were not "born or naturalized" in the U.S. were other former slaves who were dragged here against their will from Africa. It's dishonest, revisionist history to claim that those who worded the 14th amendment had later, undocumented immigrants in mind when they were referring to "persons". Sure, activist courts later on agreed with you, that's how the "living, breathing" Constitution is today a shadow of its original intent. No, but you implied that it's a far more prominent part of U.S. history than it actually is. It was dreamed up by one person at a fundraiser. If it made America great before, times have now changed to the point that a careless look at it now could destroy America. I sat in those lines. Whatever increase that has happened in domestic production, and lower dependence on foreign oil happened
IN SPITE of those on the left who revise U.S. history, not because of them. Yes, I learned about the Homestead Acts, where the U.S. government gave land away to applicants, simply for occupying and using the land that the government had plenty of, to give away. It's not happening today. But I don't remember a thing about terrorist threats in the U.S. back then. The U.S. really is a different place now than it was 150 years ago, when the 14th amendment was adopted. Illegal Immigrants To Get Billions In Tax Credits Under Obama's Amnesty I only sometimes donn my Kevlar underwear and helmet and wade into this amazing place mainly for one reason, to try to somewhat understand how the far left thinks. I can somewhat understand the lefts desire for big government and free stuff, the emotional fears of global warming, the jealousy of the successful and all of that. What I CAN'T BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND is why so many of you are so happy at the flood of immigration coming into this country. How do you think it will benefit you? How do you think it will benefit the country? Won't it be a competition for the free stuff? I know you feel sorry for the poor dears, that they really need us, and all of that. But don't you see the other pressing problems this country has?

No. If I'm there legally, yes. If I'm there illegally, yes. Why do you like illegal immigrants being here? That's what I'd love to know.