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

marc, you are completely misrepresenting what is being said about the constitutional rights of non-citizens. The Constitution is quite clear that ALL persons within the jurisdiction of the United States have the Constitutional right to due-process, to not be subject to illegal search and seizures, and to all protections that the Constitution provides for the dignity and justice that is deserving of all human beings.No one is saying that illegal aliens should enjoy ALL the privileges that citizens do, only those that have been extended by the Constitution - those related to "all men are created equal" and "equal protection under the law" and the rule of law in general. The United States is based on the rule of law, and the rule of law applies to ALL persons within the jurisdiction of our country.A person, by virtue of being within the jurisdiction of the United States, is subject to the obligations of the Constitution and should therefore also be afforded its protection. This doesn't mean that people who are here illegally have a constitutional right to be here illegally. It means that by being here they have subjected themselves to our laws (including our laws related to immigration) but that they also deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and that the enforcement of our laws, even in regard to the illegal alien, should also follow the rule of law.Your trying to make it that people are saying that all people everywhere have Constitutional rights and that, for example, we should enforce the 2nd amendment on all people of all nations is just absurd. All this rhetoric about "make America great again" makes me wonder what period in our history are they referring to; during what period in our history were we "great" that we wish we could get back to?How about...

quote:

---

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

---

THIS is the greatness of America! During the period between 1880 and 1920, 20 million immigrants entered the U.S.! Was that wave of immigration "great" because it was mostly white Europeans that were immigrating? Why now do people think we should close our borders to the tired, the poor, the huddled masses who are yearning to breathe free? Just because they are not white Europeans who are the tired, poor and yearning to be free? That attitude is not great by any measure.HBD

You are apparently having a little trouble with reading comprehension. I did not make a racist slur... I insinuated that when immigration is predominately white, it's good but when it's heavily Muslim or Mexican, it's bad. The rhetoric is that we need to protect ourselves from these "bad hombres" that are coming here to rape, steal, kill and change our sacred way of life. She who is without sin... The fact is that many people hated the immigrants that came here at the turn of the century. It was a result of the same kinds of rhetoric and fear. Our policy of being a nation of opportunity for ALL people regardless of their race or national origin is what has made us great. Our determination to be a nation that is governed by the rule of law, not the tyrannical authority of an individual or a group of individuals is what has made us great. And it is because of that: ALL people within the jurisdiction of the United States are not only under the authority of the rule of law but also shares in its protection as well. I don't understand why you can't understand this. It is based on a plain, simple reading of the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions from over 100 years ago.What period in our history do you think we were "great"? And that is a serious question. What period in time do you wish we could return to?HBD

So, marc... would it then be acceptable for you to take their things or destroy their property or even attack or kill them personally since everything having to do with them is illegal and they are not protected by the Constitution?Why or why not?HBD

You do know there are amendments to the Constitution right? And they are just as much a part of the Constitution as the original section?From Message 84

quote:

---

But "real Constitutional rights" belong ONLY to the citizens of the United States.

14th Ammendment:

​

quote:

---

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.

---

​

Source: Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

​

Unless you want to try and argue that non-citizens (illegal or legal) are not actually 'persons', then the Constitution is pretty clear that even illegal aliens have the Constitutional right to due process and equal protection under the laws of the United States.

​

quote:

---

"Aliens," legal and illegal, have the full panoply of constitutional protections American citizens have with three exceptions: voting, some government jobs and gun ownership

---

​

quote:

---

The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the second president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

---

​

---

Never said it was. I said that attitude, that concept is what has made America great. Uhmm... we have been in debt pretty much since our founding. See History of the United States public debtSo, the 60's and 70's? You mean when we wrecked the environment without care of the future. Where would we be today without the Clean Water Act? Manufacturing prior to the 80's was terribly irresponsible. All our natural systems would be destroyed by now if it weren't for the EPA. Are you old enough to remember the lines at gas stations in the 70's due to oil the embargoes of OPEC? Domestic production of oil and gas is higher than ever and our dependence on foreign oil is lower than it has been in over 30 years. Revisionist history, you say? How so? Did you not have to take a US history class in high school or what? Cause this list is just not true. Of course, you can call what is written in the history books "revisionist" and replace it with your "true" version. How much of your tax dollars go to support illegal immigrants? Do you know? fear mongering. How many terrorist attacks in the US have been carried out by our own citizens compared to those carried out by foreign nationals? Of course, 9-11 was the worst and overshadows all others, but aside from 9-11, do you know how many have been carried out by US citizens?For one thing, we tend to identify actions by foreign nationals as "terrorism", but when it is a domestic action, it tends to not get that label and instead called "mass murderer." You are much more at risk of being killed by a "mass murderer" than you are by a "terrorist." This fear of immigrants coming to this country so they can kill us is unfounded and only results in fear and hatred.Do we need to be vigilant and be careful about who we allow into the country? Yes, definitely. Do we need to cower in fear because the boogie man is coming to get us? No, absolutely not. So, just to be clear... I am not advocating illegal immigration or saying that we should look the other way. But I am saying that the current attitude surrounding immigration is misplaced and does nothing but breed fear and hate.But the bigger point is... even illegal immigrants within our borders have Constitutional rights.HBD

But WHY? Why can you not take matters into your own hands since they are here illegally and have (as you believe) no protection under the Constitution? Are they protected by the laws of the country they come from? That wouldn't make sense. So, without protection from the Constitution (as you suggest) they would have no protection what-so-ever. If you believe they are still protected from you personally being able to enact justice upon them, where does that protection come from?HBD

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

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