Do illegal aliens have the right to protest, peacefully or otherwise, in our country? They should all be arrested.

Right to protest all they want.

They can still be detained and deported, and that doesn't violate their rights in any way!

They have the right to protest. They also have the right to be arrested and deported.

is it possible for an illegal alien to protest legally?


i don't think the word illegal means what many liberals seem to think it means.

rgleml said:

---

Do illegal aliens have the right to protest, peacefully or otherwise, in our country? They should all be arrested.

---

No.

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

Bingo. Unalienable, creator endowed, self evident rights are exercisable regardless of legal status… but illegals first and foremost rate deportation. Go exercise those things to the degree that you can in your own homelands.

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

---

Try reading the constitution. It says otherwise.

HTownAg98 said:

---

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

---

Try reading the constitution. It says otherwise.

---

It does?

Not it doesn't. It is an interpretation by SCOTUS that "people" applies to those here legally and illegally.

I do NOT think the FFs sat down and envisioned a scenario where laws had been passed to define citizenship, immigration procedures, legal aliens, illegal aliens, etc. If they had, they likely would have made this distinction clearer.

The concept that all people are equal and have certain inalienable rights is based on the premise that you are here, subject to our laws, and not subject to another countries laws. For illegals, that is NOT the case.

So no one can read the constitution and arrive at the conclusion without debate.

Sorry, hate to disappoint with what the constitution does and does not explicitly say / define.

Ag87H2O said:

---

They have the right to protest. They also have the right to be arrested and deported.

---

two ironies in this for the illegals:

1) waving Mexico flags - if it is so great , gtf back

2) in their home countries , they would be swept off the streets for protesting their own governments actions

They are too ignorant to even realize this

AgDad121619 said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

They have the right to protest. They also have the right to be arrested and deported.

---

two ironies in this for the illegals:

1) waving Mexico flags - if it is so great , gtf back

2) in their home countries , they would be swept off the streets for protesting their own governments actions

They are too ignorant to even realize this

---

I think the irony here is that like the pro Hamas crowd most of these are white liberal twerps and similar funded by the NGOs.

We are about to see the lessons learned from BLM applied to these saps. And there should be no mercy for these folks, Jan 6th taught us it is okay to hold political prisoners without due process and deadly force is authorized even when there is no imminent fear of danger and the "suspect" / victim is unarmed.

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

---

Try reading the constitution. It says otherwise.

---

It does?

Not it doesn't. It is an interpretation by SCOTUS that "people" applies to those here legally and illegally.

I do NOT think the FFs sat down and envisioned a scenario where laws had been passed to define citizenship, immigration procedures, legal aliens, illegal aliens, etc. If they had, they likely would have made this distinction clearer.

The concept that all people are equal and have certain inalienable rights is based on the premise that you are here, subject to our laws, and not subject to another countries laws. For illegals, that is NOT the case.

So no one can read the constitution and arrive at the conclusion without debate.

Sorry, hate to disappoint with what the constitution does and does not explicitly say / define.

---

Well… clearly everybody on the Supreme Court is a ****ing idiot and you are clearly so much smarter than everybody and we should all just listen to you.

You don't have the right to block streets, destroy property, come at the police and hurt innocent people.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

---

Try reading the constitution. It says otherwise.

---

It does?

Not it doesn't. It is an interpretation by SCOTUS that "people" applies to those here legally and illegally.

I do NOT think the FFs sat down and envisioned a scenario where laws had been passed to define citizenship, immigration procedures, legal aliens, illegal aliens, etc. If they had, they likely would have made this distinction clearer.

The concept that all people are equal and have certain inalienable rights is based on the premise that you are here, subject to our laws, and not subject to another countries laws. For illegals, that is NOT the case.

So no one can read the constitution and arrive at the conclusion without debate.

Sorry, hate to disappoint with what the constitution does and does not explicitly say / define.

---

Well… clearly everybody on the Supreme Court is a ****ing idiot and you are clearly so much smarter than everybody and we should all just listen to you.

---

Yeah..they're all geniuses. Perhaps you should go read Roe and Casey and let us know what you think of the brilliant "logic" displayed in those decisions.

They can be wrong you know? They've overturned themselves many, many times.

Jack Boyette said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

---

Try reading the constitution. It says otherwise.

---

It does?

Not it doesn't. It is an interpretation by SCOTUS that "people" applies to those here legally and illegally.

I do NOT think the FFs sat down and envisioned a scenario where laws had been passed to define citizenship, immigration procedures, legal aliens, illegal aliens, etc. If they had, they likely would have made this distinction clearer.

The concept that all people are equal and have certain inalienable rights is based on the premise that you are here, subject to our laws, and not subject to another countries laws. For illegals, that is NOT the case.

So no one can read the constitution and arrive at the conclusion without debate.

Sorry, hate to disappoint with what the constitution does and does not explicitly say / define.

---

Well… clearly everybody on the Supreme Court is a ****ing idiot and you are clearly so much smarter than everybody and we should all just listen to you.

---

Yeah..they're all geniuses. Perhaps you should go read Roe and Casey and let us know what you think of the brilliant "logic" displayed in those decisions.

They can be wrong you know? They've overturned themselves many, many times.

---

I don't disagree with the ruling.

I'm also not a pretend constitutional lawyer sitting on a college fan forum screaming at people like a street preacher to anyone that will agree with you and jumping that azz off any one that doesn't think like the guy that knows better than the courts.

They can be arrested and deported. ICE operations are still on in LA, nearly 20 happened TODAY.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

---

Try reading the constitution. It says otherwise.

---

It does?

Not it doesn't. It is an interpretation by SCOTUS that "people" applies to those here legally and illegally.

I do NOT think the FFs sat down and envisioned a scenario where laws had been passed to define citizenship, immigration procedures, legal aliens, illegal aliens, etc. If they had, they likely would have made this distinction clearer.

The concept that all people are equal and have certain inalienable rights is based on the premise that you are here, subject to our laws, and not subject to another countries laws. For illegals, that is NOT the case.

So no one can read the constitution and arrive at the conclusion without debate.

Sorry, hate to disappoint with what the constitution does and does not explicitly say / define.

---

Well… clearly everybody on the Supreme Court is a ****ing idiot and you are clearly so much smarter than everybody and we should all just listen to you.

---

Have you heard "Ketanji" speak?

CrackerJackAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

---

Try reading the constitution. It says otherwise.

---

It does?

Not it doesn't. It is an interpretation by SCOTUS that "people" applies to those here legally and illegally.

I do NOT think the FFs sat down and envisioned a scenario where laws had been passed to define citizenship, immigration procedures, legal aliens, illegal aliens, etc. If they had, they likely would have made this distinction clearer.

The concept that all people are equal and have certain inalienable rights is based on the premise that you are here, subject to our laws, and not subject to another countries laws. For illegals, that is NOT the case.

So no one can read the constitution and arrive at the conclusion without debate.

Sorry, hate to disappoint with what the constitution does and does not explicitly say / define.

---

Well… clearly everybody on the Supreme Court is a ****ing idiot and you are clearly so much smarter than everybody and we should all just listen to you.

---

Yea, pretty much. Keep in mind they are just normal people who worked the system and knew the right people at the right time.

Read up on KBJ and similar for their hot takes on the US Constitution.

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

---

Try reading the constitution. It says otherwise.

---

It does?

Not it doesn't. It is an interpretation by SCOTUS that "people" applies to those here legally and illegally.

I do NOT think the FFs sat down and envisioned a scenario where laws had been passed to define citizenship, immigration procedures, legal aliens, illegal aliens, etc. If they had, they likely would have made this distinction clearer.

The concept that all people are equal and have certain inalienable rights is based on the premise that you are here, subject to our laws, and not subject to another countries laws. For illegals, that is NOT the case.

So no one can read the constitution and arrive at the conclusion without debate.

Sorry, hate to disappoint with what the constitution does and does not explicitly say / define.

---

Well… clearly everybody on the Supreme Court is a ****ing idiot and you are clearly so much smarter than everybody and we should all just listen to you.

---

Have you heard "Ketanji" speak?

---

Yeah, don't love it.

Still lots of courts to go through and they all seem to agree right up to the 9 at the top

HTownAg98 said:

---

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

---

Try reading the constitution. It says otherwise.

---

They still have the right to be arrested, detained, and deposited somewhere outside our borders. And I'm 100% behind that happening to every last f'n one of them.

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

---

Not true. IANAL but understand everyone here has some rights but not all rights. A lawyer could explain better than I can.

Just answer one question… has SCOTUS ever gotten an opinion wrong?

If no, then illegals have all the rights in the world. If yes, then maybe there is some interpretation that has occurred regarding what rights people here ILLEGALLY have.

And that's a distinction, if you are a guest here, legally that is, you have certain rights but not all.

The US Constitution is reserved for the citizens of the United States. Period.

richardag said:

---

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

---

Not true. IANAL but understand everyone here has some rights but not all rights. A lawyer could explain better than I can.

---

Here's the rub. No lawyer in America has the answer on this. They can cite precedent and opinions, but there is no final answer on what rights ILLEGALS have.

Good news is the dip****s rioting now are going to help bring some clarity here.

rgleml said:

---

Do illegal aliens have the right to protest, peacefully or otherwise, in our country? They should all be arrested.

---

Pretty simple logic. It would help solve the illegal alien problem in the US, and would solve the riot problem in LA. Why is this rocket science for Trump?

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

---

Try reading the constitution. It says otherwise.

---

It does?

Not it doesn't. It is an interpretation by SCOTUS that "people" applies to those here legally and illegally.

I do NOT think the FFs sat down and envisioned a scenario where laws had been passed to define citizenship, immigration procedures, legal aliens, illegal aliens, etc. If they had, they likely would have made this distinction clearer.

The concept that all people are equal and have certain inalienable rights is based on the premise that you are here, subject to our laws, and not subject to another countries laws. For illegals, that is NOT the case.

So no one can read the constitution and arrive at the conclusion without debate.

Sorry, hate to disappoint with what the constitution does and does not explicitly say / define.

---

It absolutely ****ing says that, because our founders were smart enough to make the distinction between "people" and "persons." SCOTUS has never said that all people, whether legal or illegal, have the same rights; otherwise, illegals could own firearms. Hint: they can't. All "persons" get some basic rights, whether they are here legally or not. People get more rights. It's not that complicated.

But it is more complicated, because you a relying on previous SCOTUS opinions and interpretations of persons, people, etc.

I know very well what the current understanding is and you have presented that.

I am very clearly saying their understanding is incorrect. You are free to not agree with me, but you have no standing to say I am "wrong".

If you think the FFs want illegals to be able assault our law enforcement, rape our citizens, burn our flag and buildings, and then get defense attorneys funded by taxpayer dollars and a lifetime of healthcare housing and subsistence for their troubles… then maybe history is something that needs to be taught.

An alien has the right not to incriminate himself if arrested for a crime. He must first receive Miranda warnings for his confession to be admissible as evidence against him.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

---

Try reading the constitution. It says otherwise.

---

It does?

Not it doesn't. It is an interpretation by SCOTUS that "people" applies to those here legally and illegally.

I do NOT think the FFs sat down and envisioned a scenario where laws had been passed to define citizenship, immigration procedures, legal aliens, illegal aliens, etc. If they had, they likely would have made this distinction clearer.

The concept that all people are equal and have certain inalienable rights is based on the premise that you are here, subject to our laws, and not subject to another countries laws. For illegals, that is NOT the case.

So no one can read the constitution and arrive at the conclusion without debate.

Sorry, hate to disappoint with what the constitution does and does not explicitly say / define.

---

Well… clearly everybody on the Supreme Court is a ****ing idiot and you are clearly so much smarter than everybody and we should all just listen to you.

---

Have you heard "Ketanji" speak?

---

Yeah, don't love it.

Still lots of courts to go through and they all seem to agree right up to the 9 at the top

---

This court hasn't ruled on this question.

Some of us are real lawyers.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

---

Try reading the constitution. It says otherwise.

---

It does?

Not it doesn't. It is an interpretation by SCOTUS that "people" applies to those here legally and illegally.

I do NOT think the FFs sat down and envisioned a scenario where laws had been passed to define citizenship, immigration procedures, legal aliens, illegal aliens, etc. If they had, they likely would have made this distinction clearer.

The concept that all people are equal and have certain inalienable rights is based on the premise that you are here, subject to our laws, and not subject to another countries laws. For illegals, that is NOT the case.

So no one can read the constitution and arrive at the conclusion without debate.

Sorry, hate to disappoint with what the constitution does and does not explicitly say / define.

---

Well… clearly everybody on the Supreme Court is a ****ing idiot and you are clearly so much smarter than everybody and we should all just listen to you.

---

Not arguing whether the USSC's opinion on who the US Constitution represents and/or protects is correct and/or just.

With that said,

1) The USSC is political

2) The USSC has a history of bad decisions

flown-the-coop said:

---

But it is more complicated, because you a relying on previous SCOTUS opinions and interpretations of persons, people, etc.

I know very well what the current understanding is and you have presented that.

I am very clearly saying their understanding is incorrect. You are free to not agree with me, but you have no standing to say I am "wrong".

If you think the FFs want illegals to be able assault our law enforcement, rape our citizens, burn our flag and buildings, and then get defense attorneys funded by taxpayer dollars and a lifetime of healthcare housing and subsistence for their troubles… then maybe history is something that needs to be taught.

---

There you go again, putting words in peoples' mouths and using hyperbole to better fit your argument. Show me where I've said anything about illegals being allowed to assault law enforcement, rape our citizens, burn our buildings, etc.

They have the right to protest, but they also risk being arrested and deported.

HTownAg98 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

But it is more complicated, because you a relying on previous SCOTUS opinions and interpretations of persons, people, etc.

I know very well what the current understanding is and you have presented that.

I am very clearly saying their understanding is incorrect. You are free to not agree with me, but you have no standing to say I am "wrong".

If you think the FFs want illegals to be able assault our law enforcement, rape our citizens, burn our flag and buildings, and then get defense attorneys funded by taxpayer dollars and a lifetime of healthcare housing and subsistence for their troubles… then maybe history is something that needs to be taught.

---

There you go again, putting words in peoples' mouths and using hyperbole to better fit your argument. Show me where I've said anything about illegals being allowed to assault law enforcement, rape our citizens, burn our buildings, etc.

---

I didn't put words in your mouth. You need to take what I said as a whole.

It's not they should be allowed to do those things, it's that we don't owe them due process, a lawyer, 3 hots and a cot, and lifetime healthcare.

us citizens are provided those things. We owe no duty to offer such to ILLEGALS.

If in July 1941 a boat of Japanese soldiers arrived at the Port of LA, made some false claim of asylum, then proceeded to be mostly violent criminals who led anti American protests and burned the flag, would the folks back then be talking about the due process rights or what people vs persons meant in the Constitution?

No, likely they would have been held indefinitely, likely tortured, potentially executed, or sent back to sea in a leaky boat.

People need to reality check themselves on what our Constitution is for. It's NOT to protect our enemies.

Those on the streets of LA and Dallas tonight are enemies of the state. Period.

richardag said:

---

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

---

Not true. IANAL but understand everyone here has some rights but not all rights. A lawyer could explain better than I can.

---

You are correct.

Ignore the CA "protests" because those go beyond free speech. There are numerous examples of non-citizens having rights.

A foreigner suspected of burglary could not be held indefinitely without bail or summarily executed without a trial.

A foreigner advocating against US policy arrested for doing so would have a first amendment defense to criminal charges.

That does not mean they could not be deported for the same though. Deportation is allowed (among other reasons) when their "presence or activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences".

That non-citizens have some rights under the constitution isn't in dispute. What those rights entail is many situations.

Every conservative member of the Supreme Court agrees that non-citizens have constitutional rights in certain situations. I doubt you could find any conservative in America that disagreed.

So rest assured, if someone says to you "non citizens have no rights" you know you are dealing with a person that has no clue what they're talking about

non citizens have no rights