You can say what you want, no U.S. court has ruled that this is indeed the interpretation of the constitution is as you say. The courts have indeed applied the constitution to noncitizens. Here are some court rulings to consider
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973). See also Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 161 (1945) (Murphy. J., concurring) (arguing that noncitizens are protected by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896) (holding that noncitizens charged with crimes are protected by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 724 (1893) (observing that foreign nationals are entitled to all "the safeguards of the Constitution, and to the protection of the laws, in regard to their rights of person and of property, and to their civil and criminal responsibil-ity"); Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651,660 (1892) (noting that foreign nationals incarcerated here have a constitutional right to invoke habeas corpus). Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested some limitation on the rights of some foreign na-tionals in the United States in his plurality opinion in United States v. Verdugo-Ur-quidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271 (1990), in which he suggested that a Mexican citizen who had been involuntarily brought into this country for criminal prosecution was not part of "the people" eligible to invoke the Fourth Amendment. However, he was unable to gamer a majority for that view, and Justice Kennedy, whose vote was necessary to the majority in that case, expressly rejected Rehnquist's suggestion that the Fourth Amendment did not extend to all persons present in the United States. !d. at 276-77 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Justice Kennedy rested instead on the fact that the search took place beyond our borders, a factor also relied upon by Chief Justice Rehnquist. [d. at 278.
tommy Robinson --update
by zeb 193 Replies latest social current
-
recovering
-
Simon
Great, I'll pop down to vote and shoot some guns off ...
-
freddo
Anyway - stop worrying about Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, he's getting three square meals a day, TV, exercise and enjoying the kudos from his fellow lags (and probably a good few of his guards) - he might even be writing another book.
He'll be out before Xmas.
-
resolute Bandicoot
Simon - This "oh the crusades!" is seriously done to death - the crusades were in part a response to the expansion and attacks by the Islamic caliphate, to massacres of Christian pilgrims and a desire to retake lands (including the holy lands) by the papacy.
Yep, they don't teach this in school these days.
-
recovering
Simon you know full well that the constitution does not give non citizens the right to vote. I have never claimed it did. However I did point out that it does afford many rights to non citizens. You may not like it , but that is U.S. Law.
-
MeanMrMustard
The Bible is much like the Quran in that regard.
Yes, those elements are present in the Torah. But herein lies an important difference, in my opinion. The Biblical passages don’t come with prescriptive mandates to push Jewish law above secular law. In other words, there can be a separation of synagogue and state.
But it goes far deeper than that. The violent passages in the Bible are grammatically historical. They read like this: “God told Joshua to <list of things that seem quite immoral>.” It would be quite different if the passage were prescriptive for all worshipers forever: “God told Joshua to <list of horrible things to do>. Likewise so should you do until the entire earth is for Yahweh.”
This type of mandate, valid for all time, for the followers to execute, is not found in the Bible. Ruling is for Muslims only - solidifying a tight bond between mosque and state. The non-Muslims pay a poll tax and submit to second class status, and any complaints gets your head sawed off with a butter knife.
There is a reason why Isis-type Muslims do what they do and then point directly to the Quran and insist they are justified: because the justification is plainly and grammatically there. You don’t have Christian groups pointing to Jesus and claiming a terrotist mandate. It’s apples and... cruise ships.
Note: we haven’t even talked about Mohammad and how he is the perfect and excellent example of conduct, to be imitated by all Muslims.
-
MeanMrMustard
Another note: there are two ways Muslims are guaranteed paradise.
1 - kill or be killed in the name of Allah.
2- emigrate in the name of Allah.
#2 seems glossed over so many times-especially for the purposes of threads like this. For those Muslims that don’t want to kill, no worries. Just move to another country and refuse to integrate. This is exactly what is happening to Europe.
To integrate would mean to accept that whatever religious law you might have now comes second to the laws of the new home country.
I think you said you like the “melting pot” analogy. To be part of the melting pot, you have to accept being in the pot, not replacing it.
-
Simon
Simon you know full well that the constitution does not give non citizens the right to vote. I have never claimed it did. However I did point out that it does afford many rights to non citizens. You may not like it , but that is U.S. Law.
Or, to put it another way, people applying for immigration do NOT have the rights set forth under the constitution. Courts have decided that they will apply some of the same principles that also appear in it, like "due process", to them because they are a civilized country of laws. It's just current policy, not a right.
But you were wrong about the constitution applying to immigrants and also got the quote wrong.
Good job, very convincing argument.
-
recovering
Simon you just won't accept facts. Please give a court citation supporting your contention. You can not.
Btw The constitution is what ever the U.S. courts interpret it to be.
Here is a quote.from the faculty of one of preeminent law.schools in the U.S.
THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW 1. ALIENS, CITIZENS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS [Vol. 25:367
The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discrimi-natorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens.12 All other rights, how-ever, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Four-teenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people." The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."13 For more than a century, the Court has recognized that the Equal Protec-tion Clause is "universal in [its] application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of ... nationality."14 The Court has repeatedly stated that "the Due Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."15 When noncitizens, no matter what their status, are tried for crimes, they are entitled to all of the rights that attach to the criminal process, without any distinction based on their nationality.16 There are strong normative reasons for the uniform exten-sion of these fundamental rights. As James Madison himself ar-gued, those subject to the obligations of our legal system ought to be entitled to its protections: [I]t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Con-stitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Con-stitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantageP -
Simon
Please give in court citation for your contention. You can not.
Please try English and explain exactly what you mean clearly. You are the one that was claiming the constitution applied to non-citizens. I showed it didn't. You are the one making a claim of something that has no facts to back it up.