Civil Rights

[milehighassassin]

No they do not have civil rights, they cannot vote in the U.S....which is a civil right. They cannot legally get a SS card/number, which is a civil right. They cannot file a case in a civil court (which is why this lawsuit is completely BS!)...which is a CIVIL right. They cannot be gainfully employed, which is a civil right. They cannot run for public office, which is a civil right. I could go on for days! Civil....meaning civilians of the US...they are not civilians of the US. They have select constitutional rights....which derive from basic human rights. They are not allowed to keep and bear arms...they are not free from unreasonable search and seizure....they are allowed due process, trial by jury, and prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. They are allowed freedom of speech and religion.

Ya wanna debate...because this is my cup of tea!

Refresh up first:
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights

They have the freedom of speech, assembly, press. And you cannot discriminate against them because of race, religion, gender, age, etc.


I don't have the time to find the case at this very moment but the Supreme Court already ruled that legal and illegal immigrants have rights in our country.


No they cannot vote, but only because they are not a citizen. The 12 year old kid down the street cannot vote either, but he still has civil rights.

 

[MPS]

What, did you an internet search and came up with this Cornell site? LMAO. Do you know how to read? Read my post over again and refresh up before you speak...I stated they had the rights of the 1st Amendment. They are given certain rights from our Consitution because these rights are considered basic human rights! Most countries around the globe have agreed on basic human rights. Illegals do not have civil rights in this country because they are not part of this civilized society...you might want to brush up on your definition of civil, civilian, civilization, etc. I noticed you only picked one civil right out of several I mentioned. You did hit one nail on the head...that they are not citizens! ....and because of that they do not have 100's of civil rights you and I have. Yes, illegals can enjoy a few of our civil rights because they are basic human rights. They do not have full on civil rights like a US citizen does...as stated they cannot enjoy 100's of our civil rights. Stop confusing the two...civil and human rights. People consistently think they have civil rights because those civil rights parallel human rights. They have HUMAN RIGHTS.

Why did you not address other Bill of Rights I mentioned? Why did you not address other civil rights I mentioned? A debate or argument addresses every point made...not just the ones you actually have an argument for.

Oh ya here is the Miriam Webster Dictionary's definition: : the nonpolitical rights of a citizen ; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress

Might as well through in Wikapedia too: Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation. Contrast with economic, social and cultural rights. Civil and political rights are included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elaborated upon in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The theory of three generations of human rights considers these to be first-generation rights, and most (but not all) of them are considered to be negative rights.

Examples of civil rights and liberties include the right to get redress if injured by another, the right to privacy, the right of peaceful protest, the right to a fair investigation and trial if suspected of a crime, and more generally-based constitutional rights such as the right to vote, the right to personal freedom, the right to freedom of movement and the right of equal protection.

Laws guaranteeing civil rights may be written down, derived from custom, or implied. In the United States and most continental European countries, civil rights laws are most often written. As civilizations emerged and their laws were formalized through written constitutions, some of the more important civil rights were granted to citizens. When those grants were later found inadequate, civil rights movements emerged as the vehicle for claiming more equal protection for all citizens and advocating new laws to restrict the effects of discrimination.
Implied rights are rights that a court may find to exist even though not expressly guaranteed by written law or custom, on the theory that a written or customary right must necessarily include the implied right. One famous (and controversial) example of a right implied from the U.S. Constitution is the "right to privacy", which the U.S. Supreme Court found to exist in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut. In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the court found that state legislation prohibiting or limiting abortion violated this right to privacy. As a rule, state governments can expand civil rights beyond the U.S. Constitution, but they cannot diminish Constitutional rights.

 

[ruffryder]

Did this turn into a semantics game? I think you guys are saying the same thing....

Sounds like this is the point you guys are getting too..

Some human rights are civil rights but not all civil rights are human rights.

A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square....

Oh, and only windowlickers use red text....

 

[Meatman]

Debates 101:

I'm pretty sure MPS knows what hes talkin about here when he clearly states that illegals are granted a few rights under the constitution. MHA attempted to call him out by changing a few words around and taking a few out. Then MPS fed continued to cook up a nice crow dinner for MHA.

most people don't need this spelled out for them. In fact it's pretty clear what had happened here unless you have a double digit IQ.

MHA did have a tactic here though. It's something that will either fool, convince, or change the minds of most people. While in a heated debate, it is not necessary to prove your point right, just your opponent's point wrong....once this happens their defense is considered faulty and falls apart.

and for the kicker ruffy chimes in to try and put it on a level playing field again...he either knows what happened and is trying to help a fellow lib or he's just flat out retarded and everything he says from here on out should be considered dribble.

Thank you and have a good afternoon.

 

[ruffryder]

and for the kicker ruffy chimes in to try and put it on a level playing field again...he either knows what happened and is trying to help a fellow lib or he's just flat out retarded and everything he says from here on out should be considered dribble.

Ouch.... my money is on dribble....

Wiki back at you MPS.... Human rights..

Examples of rights and freedoms which have come to be commonly thought of as human rights include civil and political rights

hmmmm.....

So if illegals get human rights... by default they also get civil rights....

Meat, can you follow this logic?

 

[MPS]

Did this turn into a semantics game? I think you guys are saying the same thing....

Sounds like this is the point you guys are getting too..

Some human rights are civil rights but not all civil rights are human rights.

A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square....

Oh, and only windowlickers use red text....

Yes it turned into a semantics game because your brother can't count to 10.

 

[MPS]

Ouch.... my money is on dribble....

Wiki back at you MPS.... Human rights..



hmmmm.....

So if illegals get human rights... by default they also get civil rights....

Meat, can you follow this logic?

Are you for real!? You are the one b*tching about semantics and you bring in this definition. Ah big brotha gotta fight for little brotha. As I have stated OVER and OVER, YES some civil and human rights coincide!!!! Human rights include a wide array of rights....yes political rights, civil rights, the right to be kicked the hell out of this country!!!!...etc....they do not give an illegal all the civil rights of the United States. In fact they are granted very little civil rights because they are not civilians of the US....as stated for the 3rd time....they get certain civil rights given to US citizens because they are also basic human rights. I feel like I am talking to a couple brick walls here. Maybe you need to learn to count to 10 too.


“ All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. ”
—Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[2]


Did I not mention select nations agreeing on basic human rights? The Declaration of Human Rights...yes I recall mentioning that. Thanks for bringing it up again.

 

[Meatman]

sorry ruffy, what was that? can you type slower?

as stated in Debates 101...the tactic used again is changing/removing words and adding some of his own to make the opposing party's side of the debate weaker...once proven wrong or faulty there is no integrity left therefore fails.

Here we can see ruffy is in favor of the illegals and truly believes that the farmer is in the wrong.

 

[ruffryder]

No they do not have civil rights

So wft is up with this comment? So for more semantics games, what you are arguing is that that don't have civil rights because they don't have all of our civil rights, but they do have some, but you don't call them civil rights you call them human rights, even though they are civil rights that are included in human rights...

They do not have full on civil rights like a US citizen does...as stated they cannot enjoy 100's of our civil rights. Stop confusing the two...civil and human rights. People consistently think they have civil rights because those civil rights parallel human rights. They have HUMAN RIGHTS.

I guess that is so....

So if MHA had said that they have "some civil rights" instead of just "civil rights" there would be nothing else to discuss?

Yah, this sure is a cluster fu(k of a discussion... glad to be a part of it..

Here we can see ruffy is in favor of the illegals and truly believes that the farmer is in the wrong.

That is what you get from my comments???? That is not my stance on this subject...

as stated in Debates 101...the tactic used again is changing/removing words and adding some of his own to make the opposing party's side of the debate weaker...once proven wrong or faulty there is no integrity left therefore fails.

Might want to re-read that, cause you seem to be reading words in my posts that I never said. I don't think I have even stated one way or another. Isn't that like a fallacy of argument you are using. Because I disagree with one part of the argument, I must disagree with all parts of the argument...

 

[Meatman]

but ruffy....you just took out a direct quote from wikipedia stating "Examples of rights and freedoms which have come to be commonly thought of as human rights include civil and political rights" then followed it up with "So if illegals get human rights... by default they also get civil rights."

You can only side with one party in a debate, you cannot jump back and forth. The debate here is who is in the wrong, the farmer or the illegals. From what you said, you stand against the farmer on the side of the illegals...

 

[MPS]

So wft is up with this comment? So for more semantics games, what you are arguing is that that don't have civil rights because they don't have all of our civil rights, but they do have some, but you don't call them civil rights you call them human rights, even though they are civil rights that are included in human rights...

Yah, this sure is a cluster fu(k of a discussion... glad to be a part of it..

Ya you two successfully made this a cluster fu(k of a discussion. For the 4th and final time. They do not have civil rights in this country, YES. They are entitled to human rights....and because some of those human rights are the same as our civil rights....geniuses like you and MHA think they get all the civil rights a US citizen does. Do you finally understand now?

I think I am gonna go talk to a fence post now. I feel dumbed down after this conversation. I need a higher level of intellectual stimulation.

 

[sledchick]

but ruffy....you just took out a direct quote from wikipedia stating "Examples of rights and freedoms which have come to be commonly thought of as human rights include civil and political rights" then followed it up with "So if illegals get human rights... by default they also get civil rights."

You can only side with one party in a debate, you cannot jump back and forth. The debate here is who is in the wrong, the farmer or the illegals. From what you said, you stand against the farmer on the side of the illegals...

touche...by the way, I wouldn't get "definitions" from wiki..worst source of information on the web.(ruffy)

 

[MPS]

touche...by the way, I wouldn't get "definitions" from wiki..worst source of information on the web.(ruffy)

I agree with the wiki comment....that is why I put it in...because as lame as they are, they still understood the basic concept.

 

[ruffryder]

You can only side with one party in a debate, you cannot jump back and forth. The debate here is who is in the wrong, the farmer or the illegals. From what you said, you stand against the farmer on the side of the illegals...

I guess I thought this was a discussion not a debate. If this is a debate then we have all been wasting our time.... and you are wrong... the world is not black and white and neither are my beliefs... It seems our government and most civilized countries believe in a thing called human rights.. Some of which I believe in too.. Do I think the farmer is in the wrong.. no. I think he should get paid a bounty for every illegal he captures... not a suit. Like MHA has said and I agree with him, the suit is bs and it should be thrown out..

 

[ruffryder]

Ya you two successfully made this a cluster fu(k of a discussion. For the 4th and final time. They do not have civil rights in this country, YES. They are entitled to human rights....and because some of those human rights are the same as our civil rights....geniuses like you and MHA think they get all the civil rights a US citizen does. Do you finally understand now?

I think I am gonna go talk to a fence post now. I feel dumbed down after this conversation. I need a higher level of intellectual stimulation.

You should.. as the fence post has the same listening skills as you do..

Why do you think MHA was meaning that they get all civil rights by his comments.. He clearly said that they don't get all of them..

This whole discussion was about an all and who was assuming it was there and who was assuming it wasn't...

You know what they say about assuming... everyone makes an arse out of themselves and will fill up a thread arguing about it... Good times...

 

[Meatman]

i figured you'd just bow out...ruffy gets backed into a corner makes accusations of me claiming everything is black and white...if this was truly a discussion then why were you throwing out facts and definitions? Only one here discussing anything was me genius...that was my whole point. Not once did i ever say anything about human rights or civil rights, who has them and who doesn't, who deserves them and who doesn't, who was born with them and who was not.

I personally dont give a crap what your stance is. See how easy a discussion can turn into a debate and ultimately crush and bit of integrity you may have had? Not only that but you are the one who made the transformation when you stated

"Some human rights are civil rights but not all civil rights are human rights.

A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square"

you are the weakest link....goodbye

 

[MPS]

You should.. as the fence post has the same listening skills as you do..

Why do you think MHA was meaning that they get all civil rights by his comments.. He clearly said that they don't get all of them..

This whole discussion was about an all and who was assuming it was there and who was assuming it wasn't...

You know what they say about assuming... everyone makes an arse out of themselves and will fill up a thread arguing about it... Good times...

oh really

illegal immigrants DO have civil rights, and all the other rights we are entitled in our constitution.

This what your friend said....he said ALL. I have the problem with listening skills? That is clearly saying they don't get all of them? I would say that statement is the opposite...he implies they get all of them. Wow....I am done also. There is no point arguing with a 1st grader about muliplication when he can't multiply.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

this can be settled by someone quoting "tort" law. would be interested in what that would say. IMHO MPS has got it close to right.

 

[ruffryder]

.if this was truly a discussion then why were you throwing out facts and definitions?

To clarify words and meanings that we are talking about... Are we arguing about whether or not this was a debate or a discussion? You killing me here...

 

[ruffryder]

This what your friend said....he said ALL. .

Dang it... quick... MHA edit your post...

No they cannot vote, but only because they are not a citizen. The 12 year old kid down the street cannot vote either, but he still has civil rights.

hmmm...