Lol I keep.presenting legal opinions and court citations . It is you who can not back up your claims with any proof. You have not showed that constitution does not apply to non citizens. All you have done is claimed that it did not. A claim is not proof.
tommy Robinson --update
by zeb 193 Replies latest social current
-
-
recovering
Tell you what Simon there is a site that.allows for moderates debate . It is ranked.and the debate is.judged by the members of the site. if you are interested we could debate in that forum. Let me know if you are interested.
-
recovering
That should say moderated debates
-
Simon
You have not showed that constitution does not apply to non citizens. All you have done is claimed that it did not. A claim is not proof.
I did, by claiming I should be able to vote and have a gun. Both promised under the US constitution, but not available to me because I am not a US citizen. Standing at the fence saying "let me in" or climbing over the fence does not magically bestow these rights on me.
And you agreed.
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.
What you seem to get confused about is whether something is provides because of the constitution or because it's just the current legal policy. Some of the things may be the same, hardly surprising when they are often todo with the same things (legal process) but just because there may be overlap doesn't mean the constitution applies to non citizens.
-
Simon
Tell you what Simon there is a site that.allows for moderates debate . It is ranked.and the debate is.judged by the members of the site. if you are interested we could debate in that forum. Let me know if you are interested.
You seem incapable of understanding basic facts and immediately back-track on a point you accepted a couple of posts previously (example just given). I'm not wasting my time with you other than to point out the flaws in your arguments when you post them on my site. It's for others to decide who's made the best points and presented the most logical, compelling argument.
-
recovering
I have never back tracked . Show me.where I have.
Simon I have shown which portions of the constitution apply to non citizens. The SCOTUS has ruled that the only constitutional rights that are expressly prohibited from non citizens is the right to vote and the right to hold.a governmental office/job .I
You can not defend your argument with case law ,hence your argument has no merit.
-
Simon
You still can't quite grasp the concept can you?
The constitution and the rights defined under said constitution either apply in whole) or they don't. You can't have some rights but not others. You have them as rights if you are a citizen, you don't if you are not.
That's simple, right?
Now, some of the same principles of law defined in the constitution may be granted to others. But they are not unalienable rights. They are granted as current policy by a generous nation based on principles of law.
But don't pretend you have constitutional rights just because the US grants people due process during an immigration hearing process. It makes sense for a country based on law and legal principles to have those underly the things it does.
I can think of examples when it hasn't done this. Obama drone-striking US citizens for instance - seems like a slight violation of their constitutional rights.
-
recovering
The constitution and the rights defined under said constitution either apply in whole) or they don't. You can't have some rights but not others. You have them as rights if you are a citizen, you don't if you are not.
That's simple, right?Wrong just so wrong Simon
The constitution has many rights afforded only to certain groups of.people. Does this mean that the rights of the others is not protected by the rest of the constitution? No. I will give you one.of the simplest examples.
Who has the right to be elected to the presidency of the United States? The constitution affords that right to the following...
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Article In U.S. Constitution
Does the fact that only persons 35 and over, and natural born citizens are excluded from the rest of the rights afforded the people? Of course not.
BTW the words you used "unalienable rights. " is not found in the constitution. The declaration of independence and the constitution refer to "inalienable rights " . Furthermore the concept of unalienable rights does not apply to all the rights granted in the constitution. Please read the following to understand the topic better. -
humbled
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/mar/29/florida-immigrant-coalition/do-undocumented-immigrants-have-constitutional-rig/
Non-citizens DO have some constitutional rights but not all the rights of citizens.
-
recovering
Exactly humbled. That is the law.