• 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
Paschendale said:
It means everyone under the jurisdiction of American law.
Click to expand...

No, it means "the people of The United States of America". Which ain't the illegal aliens. Libs. :roll:

I know you play an attorney on the internet, but that character is a far left winger. In the real world, we know what "the people" means. :wink:
 
pbrauer said:
Yes

No

Other
Click to expand...

No. Of course not. They have SOME of the same rights, but a blanket statement of "the same", implying completely identical, is absolutely wrong.

They still, of course, have natural rights the same as anyone else. However, in terms of civil rights....ie privledges bestowed via a social contract that lays the foundation of a functional society....they are limited compared to that of a citizen.

For an example, an individual illegally in this country has absolutely no right to vote; a citizen does.
 
Zyphlin said:
No. Of course not. They have SOME of the same rights, but a blanket statement of "the same", implying completely identical, is absolutely wrong.

They still, of course, have natural rights the same as anyone else. However, in terms of civil rights....ie privledges bestowed via a social contract that lays the foundation of a functional society....they are limited compared to that of a citizen.

For an example, an individual illegally in this country has absolutely no right to vote; a citizen does.
Click to expand...
You are correct, admittedly I asked the wrong question. I should have asked "Do Illegal aliens have some Constitutional rights?"
 
I'd say they have the same rights as other citizens when it comes to legal proceedings and free speech. The government still retains the right to exercise its sovereignty rights and kick them out using legal proceedings. So it's definitely an "other" for me.
 
American said:
Originalist nonsense, what the hell are you talking about? Those people wrote the document.
Click to expand...

Originalists are people who think they know what people who died 200 years ago "really" had in mind and what they would say about a modern society and issues that they could never envision. Of course, they never have any evidence to back up these assertions.
 
Paschendale said:
Originalists are people who think they know what people who died 200 years ago "really" had in mind and what they would say about a modern society and issues that they could never envision. Of course, they never have any evidence to back up these assertions.
Click to expand...

It is interesting isn't it? I think it goes right on hand with the superpowers common people attribute to the FFs. They feel like the FFs would have an answer for nuclear proliferation and the internet. The reality is that these originalists are simply taking the answers these people gave on issues from their time and applying them to issues in the future. So, they're doing the same as the people they accuse of wanting reinterpret the scope of the constitution.
 
pbrauer said:
You are correct, admittedly I asked the wrong question. I should have asked "Do Illegal aliens have some Constitutional rights?"
Click to expand...

I'm going to not play the semantics game and go with what it seems the intent of your question is....do Illegal Aliens have the same constitutional PROTECTION of their natural rights.

Again, the answer is....some.

The Constitution makes clear in my eyes when those limits on the government are in a general sense (which would cover illegal aliens and citizens alike) and when it applies to only citizens. It does this by using clearly repeated term that's meaning is evident when taken into the context of the document: "the people". "The People" in this constitutional sense is speaking of citizens; it's short hand of "The People of the United States".

So take the first. The government has a broad restriction on restricting speech or the press, as well as a broad restriction regarding establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise. However, the restrictions it's placing upon the government in terms of peaceful assembly is limited to "the people".

Similarly, the 2nd amendment is also limiting it to "the people" as well. The government may not infringe upon the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms...it absolutely could pass laws that infringe upon that right for foreigners in this country.

So on and so forth. So for instance, the 4th amendment is pretty clearly meaning to me that such restrictions on the government are limited only to "the people", not everyone. That doesn't mean the government can't CHOOSE to extend those protections to others, but it's not constitutionally mandated to in my eyes.

Everyone has inalianable rights. The Constitution does not prohibit the federal government from infringing upon those rights in a universal fashion. "The people" is speaking of the people of the united states...of which an illegal alien is not a part of.
 
Paschendale said:
Originalists are people who think they know what people who died 200 years ago "really" had in mind and what they would say about a modern society and issues that they could never envision. Of course, they never have any evidence to back up these assertions.
Click to expand...

Maybe because we read what they wrote. But more importantly what they wrote was about human nature, which hasn't changed for thousands of years. They understood that times, technology and circumstances change, but human nature lives on. It's not my problem that you don't like what they wrote, and but they gave you an out.............it's called a Constitutional amendment process. It's been used 27 times, and it works. Carry on.
 
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...

10 million people will never live in the seattle urban area, we have a law called the growth management act, that severly limits new development, and a historical places law that prevents redesigning much of the existing developed area. plus even the US census doesn't anticipate linear population growth, we'll probably be in decline within the next few decades.

plus the existing water system and infrastructure couldn't not provide enough power, water, food, etc to that area. I should note that if China ever shut off the utilities people in hong kong would be dying wholesale. urban developments require massive amounts of outside support.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
10 million people will never live in the seattle urban area, we have a law called the growth management act, that severly limits new development, and a historical places law that prevents redesigning much of the existing developed area. plus even the US census doesn't anticipate linear population growth, we'll probably be in decline within the next few decades.
Click to expand...
*files initiative to overturn growth management act*
*contacts Tim Eyman's corporate buddies for funding*

Ain't no silly law gonna stop me.
 
Once again another poll whose numbers are meaningless do to visitor spam voting. :roll:

Regardless, obviously illegal aliens do not have the same rights as American citizens, such as the right to vote in U.S. elections, the right to obtain employment in U.S. companies, the right to an American ID, etc.

I mean, this is a basic no-brainer.
 
foadi said:
*files initiative to overturn growth management act*
*contacts Tim Eyman's corporate buddies for funding*

Ain't no silly law gonna stop me.
Click to expand...

*sues Tim Eyeman's ass after passage
*initiative overturned on technicality
 
EMNofSeattle said:
*sues Tim Eyeman's ass after passage
*initiative overturned on technicality
Click to expand...
true true :3oops:

One of the things I don't like about the WA constitution is that the state legislature can throw out or amend initiatives after two years with a simple majority vote.
 
foadi said:
true true :3oops:

One of the things I don't like about the WA constitution is that the state legislature can throw out or amend initiatives after two years with a simple majority vote.
Click to expand...

I don't like initiatives so that's not a downside, like this initiative 594 that passed last election, I can't wait until two years when we can get it repealed...
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I don't like initiatives so that's not a downside, like this initiative 594 that passed last election, I can't wait until two years when we can get it repealed...
Click to expand...

Was surprised I-594 passed. PCI had a difficult time getting that thing qualified. Worked on I-591 for a couple months when I had nothing else going that year, now that was an easy issue. Not a whole lot of funding tho.
 
Last edited:
The only "right" they have is to be deported.

Just like every other nation does................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom