How should the United States handle illegal immigration?

[Zweite Alaje]

Get over it. It was a joke.

No, I don't think it was at all. Regardless, highlighting Alaje's hypocrisy is my own little joke, so perhaps you ought to consider taking your own advice, hmm?

I'm never a hypocrite, try again.

[Ifreann]

No, I don't think it was at all. Regardless, highlighting Alaje's hypocrisy is my own little joke, so perhaps you ought to consider taking your own advice, hmm?

I'm never a hypocrite, try again.

...Rule of law and equality of opportunity should be the basis of society.

...Toss them all into the middle of the Pacific.

My posts don't contradict eachother. The liberals are crying about the Muslims exercising their nation rights as agreed upon by the UN.

Let's try again, with added emphasis

all opinions are heard and represented.

the UN...should shut the fuck up.

>heard and represented
>shut the fuck up
>heard and represented
>shut the fuck up
Pick one.

[Big Jim P]

I'm never a hypocrite, try again.

...Rule of law and equality of opportunity should be the basis of society.

...Toss them all into the middle of the Pacific.

It isn't hypocrisy if ZA does not consider illegals to be part of society.

[Zweite Alaje]

It isn't hypocrisy if ZA does not consider illegals to be part of society.

Which they aren't. They aren't part of our nation.

[Ifreann]

It isn't hypocrisy if ZA does not consider illegals to be part of society.

The US Constitution does. If he does not respect that, then he does not respect the rule of law.

[Gallup]

It isn't hypocrisy if ZA does not consider illegals to be part of society.

The US Constitution does. If he does not respect that, then he does not respect the rule of law.

Where does it say that?

[Ifreann]

It isn't hypocrisy if ZA does not consider illegals to be part of society.

Which they aren't. They aren't part of our nation.

If they are within the jurisdiction of the US, then their rights are secured by the US Constitution. Whether they are part of your nation or not, whatever that means, is not relevant.

[Ifreann]

The US Constitution does. If he does not respect that, then he does not respect the rule of law.

Where does it say that?

14th Amendment.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Where does it say that?

14th Amendment.

That's only for citizens.

It arised as a controversy of African Slaves (or descendants of) in America not being recognized as citizens (how grand isn't it?).

So, you know, most people forget that if it wasn't for the 14th amendment they would still be categorized as second-class Americans.

[Gallup]

Where does it say that?

14th Amendment.

That's for citizen's only.

[The Sova Empire]

My 2 cents on illegal immigration: It's illegal. Illegal = against the law. They should be tried in court and/or sent back over the border, or do it the right way.

[Zweite Alaje]

Which they aren't. They aren't part of our nation.

If they are within the jurisdiction of the US, then their rights are secured by the US Constitution. Whether they are part of your nation or not, whatever that means, is not relevant.

Not a citizen, not a member of the United States.

[Jungblutia]

I think we should throw away the whole you have to have someone you know be born in the U.S. and just make a requirement of anyone in the U.S. to have to take citizenship.

[Ifreann]

14th Amendment.

That's for citizen's only.

14th Amendment.

That's only for citizens.

It arised as a controversy of African Slaves (or descendants of) in America not being recognized as citizens (how grand isn't it?).

So, you know, most people forget that if it wasn't for the 14th amendment they would still be categorized as second-class Americans.

Section 1. 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.

Emphasis mine.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

My 2 cents on illegal immigration: It's illegal. Illegal = against the law. They should be tried in court and/or sent back over the border, or do it the right way.

Wonderful, and have our economy being hurt by it.

And if anyone comes with the entire 285 billion dollar bullshit, you obviously have not done enough research into the subject.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That's for citizen's only.

That's only for citizens.

It arised as a controversy of African Slaves (or descendants of) in America not being recognized as citizens (how grand isn't it?).

So, you know, most people forget that if it wasn't for the 14th amendment they would still be categorized as second-class Americans.

Section 1. 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.

Emphasis mine.

Okay, but that isn't the same as being protected. They are relatively protected until they are tried in a court, but it doesn't mean an illegal immigrant is necessarily protected.

Although this also borders into human rights, so it's good that you mention this.

[Ifreann]

If they are within the jurisdiction of the US, then their rights are secured by the US Constitution. Whether they are part of your nation or not, whatever that means, is not relevant.

Not a citizen, not a member of the United States.

And as I said, that's not relevant. Since they are people, they cannot be denied the equal protection of the laws. Laws like the 8th Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Which is exactly what execution by being tossed into the Pacific would be. But please, tell me more about how you value the rule of law(except the supreme law of the US).

[Zweite Alaje]

That's for citizen's only.

That's only for citizens.

It arised as a controversy of African Slaves (or descendants of) in America not being recognized as citizens (how grand isn't it?).

So, you know, most people forget that if it wasn't for the 14th amendment they would still be categorized as second-class Americans.

Section 1. 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.

Emphasis mine.

It's clear that Amendment 14 is referring to only citizens by how it is written.

[Ifreann]

Emphasis mine.

Okay, but that isn't the same as being protected. They are relatively protected until they are tried in a court, but it doesn't mean an illegal immigrant is necessarily protected.

How is equal protection of the laws not being protected? It's the exact same protection US citizens have.

[Gravlen]

14th Amendment.

That's for citizen's only.

That's wrong.

The Fourteenth Amendment says, in part:

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.

Not "any citizen", but "any person".

Indeed, the Court has also found the Equal Protection Clause protects illegal aliens. In Plyler v Doe (1982), the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that denied public education to the children of illegal aliens. The Court concluded, noting the heavy costs of creating an underclass of uneducated minors, that the law lacked a rational basis.

See also Boumediene v. Bush, where SCOTUS held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen (the detainees were all foreign nationals outside of the U.S.).

For your enjoyment:

Thus, there is little reasoned support for the widely held notion that noncitizens are entitled to substantially less constitutional protection than citizens. While not identically situated in all respects, foreign nationals should enjoy the same constitutional protections for fundamental rights and liberties as United States citizens. The areas of permissible differentiation - admission, expulsion, voting, and running for federal elective office - are much narrower than the areas of presumptive equality - due process, freedom of expression, association, and religion, privacy, and the rights of the criminally accused.

Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens?

[Enadail]

Emphasis mine.

It's clear that Amendment 14 is referring to only citizens by how it is written.

How is that clear? It literally says ANY PERSON, not any citizen. Its pretty damn clear that it applies to anyone, specially given that we extend these rights to non-citizens all the fucking time.

[Gravlen]

Emphasis mine.

It's clear that Amendment 14 is referring to only citizens by how it is written.

You're reading it wrong then.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Okay, but that isn't the same as being protected. They are relatively protected until they are tried in a court, but it doesn't mean an illegal immigrant is necessarily protected.

How is equal protection of the laws not being protected? It's the exact same protection US citizens have.

Technicality I suppose -shrugs-

[Ifreann]

Emphasis mine.

It's clear that Amendment 14 is referring to only citizens by how it is written.

It is clear that it is referring to citizens when it mentions citizens. It is further clear that it is not just referring to citizens exclusively when it stops mentioning citizens and starts mentioning people.

[Czechanada]

I'm of the idea that the Earth belongs to all humans, and borders are just social constructions. Therefore, illegal immigration does not bug me.