Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fozzy
I'm still waiting for the text in the Constitution that says anything about illegal aliens...
|
From the Preamble: "We the People of the United States" -
The Constitution was written BY and FOR the
"people" of the United States, and by
ANY definition of the word, under the context, means the
CITIZENS.
Article I, Sec. 2: "No PERSON shall be a Representative who shall not have attained [age] and been SEVEN years a CITIZEN of the U.S." -
Illegal aliens are thusly barred from representing themselves or the rightful CITIZENS of the U.S. By further definition in the Constitution, wherein their numbers ARE represented...they are accorded the equivalent of 3/5ths of a "whole person." Moreso than what is being debated HERE, this Article was intended to prohibit the intrusion into (and influence over) our government by "representatives" of foreign countries (like the nobles of England) who might have the means to take up temporary residence within our borders.
Article III, Sec. 2: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law or equity..... and between a state, or the CITIZENS thereof, and
foreign states,
citizens, or subjects" -
Though "illegal aliens" who insist on living off our land were not a problem at the time, they
WERE "enumerated" as an entity by our Constitution. [Although the 11th Ammendment later altered this statement, it did
NOT alter the status of illegal aliens as expressed here.]
Article IV, Sec. 2: "The CITIZENS of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of CITIZENS in the several states." .... "No PERSON held to service or labor in one state, .... shall be discharged from such service or labor." -
As terrible as it was, this article delineated between the rights of CITIZENS and those of SLAVES - which were NOT deemed to have equal protection under the laws. [Although the
14th Ammendment later gave this "equal protection" to descendants of slaves, it's application to "illegals" who MAY OR MAY NOT be considered "under the jurisdiction" is still an ongoing debate.]
Ammendment 14, Sec. 1: "All persons
BORN or naturalized in the U.S.,
AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S. 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 U.S." -
This is the most basic civil rights ammendment, and defines
WHO is a citizen and what every citizen's rights are.
(note the conjuctive "AND.") The REMAINDER of this section is what is being debated both here, on this forum, and throughout the land, and it hinges on the definition (as intended by the framers) of the word
"person." It goes like this:
"...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."
Unfortunately, it seems that our forefathers also suffered certain limitations to their writing skills, and did not foresee an era wherein people would sqabble over things like the definition of
"is!" I am trying to better discern their intent in
ALL cases and usage of the word 'person,' but there is no doubt that
MY interpretation and analysis MIGHT, COULD and probably
WOULD be challenged by some on this forum, as well as legal scholars throughout the land! However, it is my CURRENT opinion (subject to revision,) that in
THIS particular case at least, the word 'person' pertained to, and was a literary substitute for, the word CITIZEN.
There MAY be other instances in the Constitution that will pertain to Fozzy's question, though not too many - as it was not an issue at the time. However, I believe this SHOULD suffice to at least IMPLY
(if not prove) that the Constitution
DID address "citizens of foreign states (meaning countries,) and that it specifically was written to establish the rights of the CITIZENS of the United States - to the exclusion of (or at least irrelevant to) those citizens of foreign states/countries who have not qualified for American citizenship. [Illegal Aliens]
--------
It amuses me that
Fozzy did not even understand that
Greg was agreeing with him and offering case law in support! :lol:
However, the case that Greg submitted did NOT "per se" uphold any "de facto" rights of illegal aliens themselves, (and Article I, Sec. 9 expressly prohibits any "ex post facto" laws that Congress could make concerning THIS situation OR that of amnesty for illegal aliens,) but only "held" that the innocent children of illegal aliens, (NOT born in the U.S.,) who have not attained the age of responsibility sufficient to be held accountable for their parents' criminal acts, could not be discriminated against as a 'suspect class.' (yeah.... I went to the link and read it all!)
Furthermore, I feel strongly that a competent legal opposition could be presented to overturn this decision based BOTH on the proper interpretation of the
14th Ammendment.... AND a resolution to the ongoing debate over the interpretation of the
11th Ammendment, which if taken literally, means that the Supreme Court had NO JURISDICTION over this particular suit against Texas by a "guardian" for Citizens of a Foreign State/Country." [Illegal Aliens]
That does not mean that I think children of illegal aliens shouldn't be allowed to attend public schools without paying full tuition.... but I
DO believe that college age children, who are illegals,
SHOULD have to pay full "out of state" tuition..... or go back to the state of their origin for FREE education (as they have now attained an age of responsibility.)
My point was simply ( :shock: :roll: :lol: ) that this case law did NOT indicate that the Constitution in any way affords "equal protection" for illegal aliens
SIMPLY because they "might" be considered as being under the jurisdiction of a state. It was a SINGLE case based on a specific interpretation by the Supremes.
--------
Now....
FOZZY..... how about addressing
MY 3 questions?? Or are you just gonna "sidestep" them once again? They're not all that difficult.... and they are NOT intended to be argumentative. I just want to know what you
MEANT by your statements.
As I said, I'm no big fan of Ron Paul, but I
AM a fan of the Constitution. I'd just like to know how he is using it as a prop? (and the other 2.)
Yet again, I offer you another way OUT.
IF, as I suspect, you cannot defend (or at least explain) your statements, you can simply
ADMIT so. Otherwise, I fear I
MUST don my tinfoil hat whenever you respond to any post here.... as I am deathly "skeert" of
MOONBATS!!! :wink:
