Civil Rights

[Puff_N_AK]

Oh ya ya....hehe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7c69r3mD8w


Here we go

 

[MPS]

Last January, the wife of a friend was struck and killed by a Mexican that ran a red light making a left turn and struck her in the crosswalk. The mexican was here legally but had a suspended license because of speeding and traffic signal violations. Also had no insurance. Norm's wife was taken to the hospital and later died. The Mexican was cited, released, and disappeared. This individual didn't care about the family he destroyed and ran to avoid being held accountable.

I hear you bro! Just PM'd you.

 

[highmtn]

pm'ed back thanks

 

[Grizzly Adams]

" Puttin on the foil coach"

From the movie " Slapshot"

I'm the Hanson quadruplet! with a beard!

 

[MTm7]

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.

yeah its called hegelian dialectic...its a tactic thats been around for awhile. all liberals are versed in it. its basically based on no absolutes and its ever changing. and good catch meatman!

 

[milehighassassin]

You want to cite the case that the Supreme Court ruled that illegal aliens get all consitutional rights? So an illegal can carry a firearm? Is that what you are saying, because the 2nd amendment allows that. They have 4th amendment rights? haha ...so they are free from search and seizure without a search warrant? haha You brought the Supreme Court into it smart one...so read up on the opinion of the Supreme Court when concerning the 4th amendment read by Chief Justice Rehnquist. He delivers the decision of the court near the bottom, so you don't have to read all that legal mumbo jumbo....because I know you wouldn't understand it.

http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/sc/494us259.html

However this supreme court case refers to property outside of the US. If he had been a US citizen it would have mattered and they wouldn't have been able to search. The search and seizure of an illegal's property on US soil without a warrant has been debated for a long time, but people assume they have that right too because of INS v. Lopez-Mendoza.

...and like i said before I named several civil rights, but you keep focusing on voting. They can hold public office? They can legally work? They can receive federal college assistance? They can legally enroll in public schools (directed at your 12 year old argument)? They can legally obtain a driver's license in most states? They can receive a business grant from the federal government? Are they allowed tax breaks for certain things? Can they receive an FHA loan on a home if they qualify? These are all civil rights. You better get back to school kindi gartner.

You keep changing your verbage....no you didn't say that many people have rights....citizens or not. Keep changing it until it molds into what you know is right! LMFAO!

...and by the way since you keep saying illegals get the rights our Consitution gives us....well by your own admission they cannot vote....and that is a Consitutional right...do you need the amendment?

Illegal aliens are entitled to the rights finding their source in the nature of man (human rights) or in the constitution (unless the right, such as voting, is limited to citizens). Which I have already stated that they are entitled to certain constitutional rights BECAUSE THESE RIGHTS ARE DERIVED FROM BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS....They do not receive all consitutional rights! When it comes to statutory rights, there may be differences between aliens and citizens, and between legal and illegal aliens, unless the statute’s doing so violates the Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes they can enroll in public schools. Drivers license, well that is not a right given to us by our constitution. That is a STATE right, so it will change from state to state.

Where is the right to work included in our constitution?

One of the arguments against the idea of rights for illegal aliens is the wording of the Constitution itself. People focus on use of the words “the people” in the Constitution, and say this means it applies only to citizens. The courts have disagreed with this approach, as cited in Johnson v. Eisentrager, (339 U.S. 763, 771(1950)) where the court said, "in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien's presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act." There are several Court opinions mentioning “resident aliens.” A surface reading may tempt one to interpret this as applying to aliens who have the administrative classification under immigration law as “Resident Alien.” In fact, deeper research shows the court refers to resident aliens as those who have established a form of practical residency in the US, regardless of their status as undocumented or “illegal” aliens. Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have consistently extended constitutional protections to these “resident aliens.” An exhaustive discussion of court rulings regarding the rights of illegal aliens would take tens of pages, and would be so full of legalese it would be difficult to understand. In the interest of brevity and readability, I have summarized below some of the court precedents that affirmed the rights of illegal aliens.
The right of Habeus Corpus has been raised many times in the courts, usually
relating to long-term detention of illegal or criminal aliens awaiting hearings or
deportation. The courts have consistently held that aliens within the United
States, regardless of legal status, do have a right to Due Process and Habeus
Corpus. To be sure, their rights follow a different path than US Citizens because citizens are not subject to removal, but the basic rights still apply to illegal aliens. In Wong Wing v. U S, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), the Supreme Court stated (in citing a previous case and affirming 14th Amendment rights):
“The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: '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 law.' These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.' Applying this reasoning to the fifth and sixth amendments, it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guarantied by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. “Other Supreme Court cases on First Amendment rights repeatedly refer to the 5th and 14th Amendments to provide guidance based on the principle of “Equal Protection.” In other words, the Equal Protection clause helps extend First Amendment protections for everyone protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments. Since the Court has ruled that illegal aliens are protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments, they also have First Amendment rights. In fact, in the Plyler V. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its ruling, the Court said:
“The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents.”
Some have argued the intent of Congress in drafting the 14th Amendment was to limit protection to citizens, and the use of the word “persons” was merely semantic.

So in short, yes THEY DO RECEIVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Yes there are certain rights that are reserved specifically for citizens, such as voting, holding office, etc.

 

[MPS]

Yes they can enroll in public schools. Drivers license, well that is not a right given to us by our constitution. That is a STATE right, so it will change from state to state.


Where is the right to work included in our constitution?



So in short, yes THEY DO RECEIVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Yes there are certain rights that are reserved specifically for citizens, such as voting, holding office, etc.

I never said a driver's license or the right to work was a consitutional right....holy chit....you are something else. Receiving a DL and working are civil rights........NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...and no they cannot LEGALLY enroll in public schools!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There ya go!!!!! You admitted...they don't receive ALL consitutional rights like you have STATED!!!!!!!!!! I never said they didn't get certain ones and in fact stated they did receive certain consitutional rights. Seriously are you for real? Do you think slowly changing into what you just typed in the last paragraph makes you right from the beginning....you have already contrdicted your self. You first stated they received all constitutional rights and now you say it is some of them. You are a head case....BYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[capen4]

Maybe next time it will be shoot, shovel, and shut up. They should feel lucky this time.

X2 the guy is just trying to protect his property. Look at it like this most of us on here live on a 100' by 100' lot in the middle of a subdivision. If someone broke into you r house and didn't respond to your threats of being shot I woulds shot first and ask questions later as long as they are a threat or in the house. this guy happens to own 22,000 acres thats his home and property I wouldn't want all that crap either, the Question really is. WHY ISN'T OUR BELOVED FOR THE PEOPLE GOVERNMENT HELPING HIM? In stead they are putting him behind the 8 ball so to speak.

I apploud the man for standing up and protecting what he has worked for all his life. I learned one thing in the navy as a SEABEE we protect what we build and everyone I served with would give there lifes for each other and what we built and OUR COUNTRY.

 

[FIII_Mtn]

Unfortunetly, the dems have courted the illigals for 4 years now.
They have promised amnesty, full citizenship and all the give aways that go with it.
As a result of that the illigals and their supporters are considered to be a major reason the dems are in total control.
The rancher is in trouble.
The criminals may very well win.

GWB on immigration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf0hAc7LGNg&feature=related

Some interesting commentary:
http://projectusa.org/2004/08/30/embrace-amnesty-just-dont-call-it-an-amnesty/

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-attacks-republican-critics-of-amnesty-bill

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/05

An interesting fax:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Immigration_memo_intended_for_Rove_arrives_on_Demo_0919.html
/googlebombing_proamnesty_repub.php

 

[milehighassassin]

I never said a driver's license or the right to work was a consitutional right....holy chit....you are something else. Receiving a DL and working are civil rights........NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...and no they cannot LEGALLY enroll in public schools!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There ya go!!!!! You admitted...they don't receive ALL consitutional rights like you have STATED!!!!!!!!!! I never said they didn't get certain ones and in fact stated they did receive certain consitutional rights. Seriously are you for real? Do you think slowly changing into what you just typed in the last paragraph makes you right from the beginning....you have already contrdicted your self. You first stated they received all constitutional rights and now you say it is some of them. You are a head case....BYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RECEIVING A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT!!!

It is a STATE right.

Go drink another one

YES Illegals can enroll LEGALLY into public schools:
Here is the case and the reason why:
No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Plyler/

PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)


and another:
http://njlegallib.rutgers.edu/legallib/njar/v06/p0168.pdf

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Interesting read, However would be interested to see tort law on Trespass and the like in regards to private property in the area mentioned. Lots of off topic links but no tort on this subject yet. In Canada if you have mass signage and can prove such, then it is possible to bring private court action against anyone caught in the act. I have had to do this in the past when a crackhead broke in to a property we own and then electrocuted himself while trying to steal a breaker panel. This azzhat tried to then sue my company for his costs and some punitive damages as well. The remedy was to charge with criminal trespass and theft. Then the courts up here looked upon matters from my viewpoint. In Canada if you posted signs in all applicable languages, you then have the right to bring private charges against the perp. Wondering if this applies down there? Win this disagreement by quoting legal history. That is what the judiciary has to do. Just a opinion from the right winger living on the left coast of Canada tho.

 

[milehighassassin]

Interesting read, However would be interested to see tort law on Trespass and the like in regards to private property in the area mentioned. Lots of off topic links but no tort on this subject yet. In Canada if you have mass signage and can prove such, then it is possible to bring private court action against anyone caught in the act. I have had to do this in the past when a crackhead broke in to a property we own and then electrocuted himself while trying to steal a breaker panel. This azzhat tried to then sue my company for his costs and some punitive damages as well. The remedy was to charge with criminal trespass and theft. Then the courts up here looked upon matters from my viewpoint. In Canada if you posted signs in all applicable languages, you then have the right to bring private charges against the perp. Wondering if this applies down there? Win this disagreement by quoting legal history. That is what the judiciary has to do. Just a opinion from the right winger living on the left coast of Canada tho.

I think the lawsuite is going to be tossed, but this is a state issue, so I really don't know what Texas law is. There might be some criminal charges for holding them at gunpoint. Not saying I agree with it but you are not allowed to hold someone against their will... false imprisonment.

Tresspassing laws vary from state to state. In Colorado the landowner does not have to have any signage or fencing. It is your responsibility to know if you are or are not on private property. It can honestly be a pain at times. Many states the landowner has to have proper signage/fencing if they are going to enforce no tresspassing, etc.

 

[MPS]

RECEIVING A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT!!!

It is a STATE right.

Go drink another one

YES Illegals can enroll LEGALLY into public schools:
Here is the case and the reason why:
No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Plyler/

PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)


and another:
http://njlegallib.rutgers.edu/legallib/njar/v06/p0168.pdf

Ok you got me on the public schools...kudos to you. What do you think a civil right is? It encompasses all rights of a civilized society. Is a state not a civilized society? Sounds like you think civil rights have to be constitutional....go back to school. Yes the ability to get a DL is a civil right because those people in that state are a civilized society.....get it now genius?

 

[milehighassassin]

Ok you got me on the public schools...kudos to you. What do you think a civil right is? It encompasses all rights of a civilized society. Is a state not a civilized society? Sounds like you think civil rights have to be constitutional....go back to school. Yes the ability to get a DL is a civil right because those people in that state are a civilized society.....get it now genius?

You are so wrong, that I am going to leave it at that.

With your definition EVERYTHING would be a civil right.

 

[Vertical_Escape]

Interesting nobody has hit on ranchers right to hold them for authorities arrival.

Found this pertaining to Citizens Arrest Laws.

http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm

 

[milehighassassin]

Interesting nobody has hit on ranchers right to hold them for authorities arrival.

Found this pertaining to Citizens Arrest Laws.

http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm

It really depends on the state. Citizens arrest is very tough to do. It varies from state to state. Some states it would be false imprisonment, others it would be perfectly legal. I really don't know what Texas law is.

Many states require a police officer to be present for a citizens arrest (WTF). Some state require you to have a class to be able to make a citizens arrests.

Either way the lawsuit is bull****.

 

[MPS]

You are so wrong, that I am going to leave it at that.

With your definition EVERYTHING would be a civil right.

Are you going to leave it at that genius? Im edemacated!!! So you is wrong! hahaha

Oh here is a nice tidbit for ya, since you are such a supporter of illegal's rights.

From
the L. A. Times
1. 40% of
all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County
has 10.2 million people)are working for cash
and not paying taxes. This is because they are
predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green
card.
2. 95% of
warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal
aliens.
3. 75% of
people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are
illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all
births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien
Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by
taxpayers.
5. Nearly
35% of
all inmates in California detention centers are
Mexican nationals here
illegally.
6. Over
300,000 illegal aliens in
Los Angeles County are living in
garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang
members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens
from south of the
border.
8 Nearly
60% of
all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9.
21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish
speaking.
10. In L. A. County 5.1 million
people speak English, 3.9 million speak
Spanish.
(There are 10.2 million people in L.
A. County . )


(All
10 of the above are from the Los Angeles
Times)


Less than 2% of illegal
aliens are picking our crops,
but 29%
are on welfare.
Over 70% of the United States ' annual population
growth(and over 90% of California , Florida
, and New York ) results from immigration.
29%
of inmates in federal prisons are illegal
aliens .

 

[swampwater]

Right on, stole my thunder. The Republicans, including Bush have done no more than the dems on this issue. Swampy

GWB on immigration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf0hAc7LGNg&feature=related

Some interesting commentary:
http://projectusa.org/2004/08/30/embrace-amnesty-just-dont-call-it-an-amnesty/

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-attacks-republican-critics-of-amnesty-bill

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/05

An interesting fax:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Immigration_memo_intended_for_Rove_arrives_on_Demo_0919.html
/googlebombing_proamnesty_repub.php

 

[MPS]

Right on, stole my thunder. The Republicans, including Bush have done no more than the dems on this issue. Swampy

Now come on, you can't say Bush didn't propose numerous ideas! They just never took and he didn't get support....yes by both sides...including my state's fag of a senator...Larry Craig!

 

[milehighassassin]

MPS

You are changing the subject since you are losing this argument. I have said several times that this case is bull$hit, but you are educated so why do I have to point that out? I guess it goes to show that just because you have an education, doesn't mean you are intelligent huh?


ONCE AGAIN, a DRIVERS LICENSE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT. It only becomes a civil right if you were denied it based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Having a drivers license is a state right.

As for you link, I could give two $hits about L.A. and I am glad you know how to copy and paste. Did you learn that in school?