• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do "illegal" aliens have the same rights as citizens?

Do "illegal" aliens have the same rights as citizens?

  • Total voters
    58
They can't vote nor run for office .
But the constitution says that all men are created equal, not just American men.
All other rights fully apply .
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
Yes

No

Other
Click to expand...

I'm confused. Of course they don't. Is this a question of whether they should? or whether they do? What is with the quotes? Are you referring to someone who has filed out the proper paperwork to live in the United States or someone who just came here while bypassing all the proper channels?

Your quotes implies that the person is referred to as illegal but really isn't illegal. Either way. I am over the age of 35. I am eligible to run for president in 2016. The immigrant would not have that same right. I am also eligible for Social Security benefits if I become permanently disabled. An immigrant who does not possess a valid Social Security number does not have that same right. If my income is too low then I have access to food stamps, Earned Income Credit and Child Tax Credit. A person without a valid Social Security is ineligible for all government benefits in the form of transfer payments. I am not sure about voting but I would imagine that would vary from state to state. Overall a citizen has more privileges than an immigrant and has even more privileges than an immigrant who does not have proper documentation.

Can you explain why you put the word illegal in quotation marks? Otherwise I have to rely on my own assumptions of your motivation behind it.

As far as getting a driver's license in North Carolina goes, anybody can get a driver's license in North Carolina even if they are unable to prove their legal status as an United States resident. If this thread was about driving in North Carolina then I would have voted, "yes". Since you didn't specify the rights then I have to go with, "no". You could probably have a more productive conversation about this topic if you narrowed it down a lot. This thread allows too much room for the imagination(s) of posters to go all over the place. This thread is bound to produce partisan nonsensery. I challenge you to make a new and better poll where we can discuss the issues that concern you the most. This thread is worthless except to the extent that people love venting their frustrations.
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
Actually, I'm pretty sure that someone here illegally is prohibited from owning property. While you don't have to be a US citizen to own property you DO generally need to maintain some form of legal status to do so. Among other things, no bank in their right mind would give you a loan to purchase property when they have no possibility of legal recourse with you or the property.
Click to expand...

IIRC, there are shysters in this country that allow illegals to buy homes and such with the stipulation the article goes back to the seller if they somehow renege on the contract. Of course it's all highly illegal.
 
faithful_servant said:
That's not the issue. The post is about the rights of illegal immigrants. Do they have the right to vote??
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they haven't. Wouldn't be hard for you to find out.
 
ocean515 said:
Ok. I can buy that because it's, well, Germany. After the beer, sauerkraut, sausage, and the autobahn, what have you got?
Click to expand...

Four reasons to move there?
 
countryboy said:
So when the BOR refers to "the people", it means "the people of the world"?
Click to expand...

It means everyone under the jurisdiction of American law.

American said:
So when We The People established the Constitution, they meant everyone including illegal aliens right? Were they legal in the states too? Because the states preexisted the union.
Click to expand...

When We The People established it, there were no American citizens yet, because there was no America. And, of course, the preamble has no bearing whatsoever on the law, and I only talked about the Bill of Rights, not the constitution as a whole, which does differentiate between citizens and non-citizens. Although it does determine representation by persons, not by citizens, but I imagine that it's pretty hard to get illegal immigrants on the census. Either way, congress certainly can't pass laws prohibiting non-citizens from practicing their religions or denying them due process of law, so it's clear that some of the Bill of Rights applies, and no "originalist" nonsense can parse a word to say that any specific part doesn't.
 
Yes.

It says right in our own Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.


Any so-called "rights" beyond that, which one might attribute only to citizens, are not rights at all.... rather the product of a dystopian, fascist mindset.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Illegal alien, is the proper term describing people who are aliens illegally in a country. If they were to receive a Visa or go home they would cease being illegal, so the person themselves is not illegal their status in the country is what's illegal.

And when did we start assigning the status of nobility to illegal aliens? How many people are we supposed to allow in the United States? 10 million? 30 million? 1 billion? 5 billion? When we dry all our rivers and develop our national parks to house them? At some point we got to realize the carrying capacity is been reached. You know longer have an empty continent to fill
Click to expand...

Maybe we should get the fire Marshall to rate this country has a occupancy limit of blank.
 
Carrying capacity is dynamic. It changes along with improvements in technology and infrastructure. The US is nowhere near carrying capacity. Would be cool if the US had 1 billion people. Imagine Seattle with 10 million people? Or LA with 50 million. Would be magnificent. Maybe one day :)
 
foadi said:
Carrying capacity is dynamic. It changes along with improvements in technology and infrastructure. The US is nowhere near carrying capacity. Would be cool if the US had 1 billion people. Imagine Seattle with 10 million people? Or LA with 50 million. Would be magnificent. Maybe one day :)
Click to expand...

Seattle at ten mil? No thank you there's too many people here now.

LA cannot support anywhere near that many people. Even if the court ordered re-watering of the Owens river was overturned they couldn't put near enough water down the pipes . And have you been to LA recently? Where will 50 million people go?
 
Of course. The Bill of Rights outlined pre-existing rights "endowed to us by our creator." So yeah, they have the rights. Whether or not those rights are legally respected on the same level as, say, a US citizen, is a whole different story.
 
foadi said:
Carrying capacity is dynamic. It changes along with improvements in technology and infrastructure. The US is nowhere near carrying capacity. Would be cool if the US had 1 billion people. Imagine Seattle with 10 million people? Or LA with 50 million. Would be magnificent. Maybe one day :)
Click to expand...

It's a horrifying vision, certainly not one supported by biology and the environment.


And not shared by anyone that values open spaces with natural habitats (not grass and courts), the wildlife that currently shares such spaces, and privacy and peace and quiet.

I live less than an hour outside of Seattle and I have those things....not the nightmare you envision.


(And I have a Bach of Science in Natural Resources Management so I'm not just casually discounting your statement)
 
EMNofSeattle said:
LA cannot support anywhere near that many people. Even if the court ordered re-watering of the Owens river was overturned they couldn't put near enough water down the pipes . And have you been to LA recently? Where will 50 million people go?
Click to expand...
Not concerned about water, with any luck this drought will get worse, which will force investment into a new generation of water infrastructure. LA can easily support 50 million people with the proper infrastructure. Kind of concerned about all the rain we've been getting this year, but fortunately none of it has been going to snowpack.

As far as where the people would go, urban infill obviously. tear down the old single family homes and build mid-rise mixed-use multifamily. This is an ongoing trend and will continue for the foreseeable future, although I would like the speed up the process. It's also important to remember that LA already has relatively dense suburbs. The urban core could be a lot denser, though. Most places it don't even break 20,000ppsm. Pathetic.
 
Lursa said:
It's a horrifying vision, certainly not one supported by biology and the environment.


And not shared by anyone that values open spaces with natural habitats (not grass and courts), the wildlife that currently shares such spaces, and privacy and peace and quiet.
Click to expand...
I love wide open spaces and all that hippie crap. I think green stuff is awesmoe. Or at least I prefer it to low density suburban development. A large population doesn't require you have to tear down the forest and kill all the koala bears and chihuahuas though. The Seattle urban area is 2,616.7km2 in area. Fairly large for only 3 million people. Now look at a place like Hong Kong. 7 million people in 1,104 km2. And the amazing thing? Only a small fraction of that land is urbanized, maybe 200km2. The rest is preserved as parks and green space.
 
foadi said:
I love wide open spaces and all that hippie crap. I think green stuff is awesmoe. Or at least I prefer it to low density suburban development. A large population doesn't require you have to tear down the forest and kill all the koala bears and chihuahuas though. The Seattle urban area is 2,616.7km2 in area. Fairly large for only 3 million people. Now look at a place like Hong Kong. 7 million people in 1,104 km2. And the amazing thing? Only a small fraction of that land is urbanized, maybe 200km2. The rest is preserved as parks and green space.
Click to expand...

The Hong Kong area and waterways are terribly polluted. As I tried to point out, all green space is not equal.

And yes, the business aspect of developers and development generally mean that the koalas and chihuahuas are driven out to make way for roads and houses. $$ talks, wildlife walks.
 
Lursa said:
The Hong Kong area and waterways are terribly polluted. As I tried to point out, all green space is not equal.
Click to expand...
A lot of the air pollution is actually coming in from Shenzhen and Dongguan.
 
Illegal aliens are criminals. They have all the same rights criminals do, and only those rights.

Legal aliens have human rights, but fewer civil rights.
 
Paschendale said:
It means everyone under the jurisdiction of American law.



When We The People established it, there were no American citizens yet, because there was no America. And, of course, the preamble has no bearing whatsoever on the law, and I only talked about the Bill of Rights, not the constitution as a whole, which does differentiate between citizens and non-citizens. Although it does determine representation by persons, not by citizens, but I imagine that it's pretty hard to get illegal immigrants on the census. Either way, congress certainly can't pass laws prohibiting non-citizens from practicing their religions or denying them due process of law, so it's clear that some of the Bill of Rights applies, and no "originalist" nonsense can parse a word to say that any specific part doesn't.
Click to expand...

Originalist nonsense, what the hell are you talking about? Those people wrote the document.
 
Some, not all. Not a professional legal opinion, just my view.

I think there are certain things Americans are entitled to as citizens such as equal access to polls during elections. There are certain things everyone is entitled to such as a presumption of innocence until proven guilty when accused of a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom