|
MasterJaguar01 -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/11/2017 6:30:23 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
MJ01
Nevertheless, the President says it is a matter of National Security, and it only DIRECTLY impacts people who have ZERO Constitutional rights.
You are terribly misinformed. The 14th Amendment provides equal protection to persons. One does not have to be a citizen to gain this benefit.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
A person having a green card or a visa is provided equal protection of our laws no matter where they may be physically, because they are within the jurisdiction of the United States.
I am afraid it is you who are terribly misinformed.
The 14th Amendment refers to persons born or naturalized in the United States and deems them as Citizens.
It most certainly does NOT provide equal protection to "persons" . One must INDEED be a citizen (as defined by the 14th Amendment) to gain the benefit of being provided equal protection.
A person having a green card or visa is NOT a citizen, and is not protected by the 14th amendment. (no matter where they may be, physically)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PERSONS VS CITIZENS
Ah, no. Sorry, on balance you are incorrect.
The citizen specification of the 14th A was directed to the purpose of safeguarding recently freed slaves. the freed slaves were defined as citizens. Read the history of it. I think you will find I am correct.
Are foreign nationals entitled only to reduced rights and freedoms? The difficulty of the question is reflected in the deeply ambivalent approach of the
Supreme Court, an ambivalence matched only by the alternately xenophobic and xenophilic attitude of the American public toward immigrants. On the one hand, the Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. Because the Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office, equality between non-nationals and citizens would appear to be the constitutional rule.
[SNIP]
Given this record, it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. II But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. The significance of the citizen/noncitizen distinction is more often presumed than carefully examined. Upon examination, there is far less
to the distinction than commonly thought. In particular, foreign nationals are
generally entitled to the equal protection of the laws, to political freedoms of speech and association, and to due process requirements of fair procedure where their lives, liberty, or property are at stake.
Additionally, the First Five articles of the Bill of Rights were incorporated into the 14th Amendment. Please note the clear wording of the Fifth Amendment. The word "person" is used. "Citizen" is conspicuously absent.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[85]
Happy to clarify this for you.[:)]
Your quote from the paper is most certainly out of context of the paper as a whole. On balance, you are definitely on the wrong side of this.
Certainly, the courts have upheld some protections of non-citizens within the "legal obligations" of the U.S. (e.g. Being a defendant in a civil, or criminal case)
You are correct, on one point, that the 14th Amendment was directed to the purpose of safeguarding freed slaves. It considers them "naturalized".
The 14th Amendment clearly says "Born or Naturalized" in the U.S. There was clearly no intent to include foreign nationals. The very definition of VISA AND Green Card holders is that they have NOT been Naturalized in the U.S.
That being said, I will concede the point that the courts have upheld some rights for VISA and Green Card holders, being under the jurisdiction of the U.S. (However, there is no application of the 14th Amendment. That was absolutely misguided)
As far as, non VISA/Green Card holders, they have (pre-Bush) on some occasions been entitled to due process (as a criminal defendant, but that is about it)
Step back and think about it... Our founders most certainly did. The U.S. could not exist as a Sovereign nation, if it extended Constitutional protection to foreign nationals. Every action taken by our government against any foreign government OR individual could be a violation of some individual's Constitutional rights.
It is a rather absurd concept.
|
|
|
|
