Still don't get why they don't just contain that crowd for a few days without food or water, then offer one gate out, verifying citizenship on each one. If you rowdy, go to the back of the line.

damiond said:

---

non citizens have no rights

---

The Founders believed rights come from God, not man and definitely not government. You can't have this both ways. If you have the right to protest then they have the right to protest. That right is not something the government created. They also have the right to be arrested for breaking our laws. That's something government did create.

rgleml said:

---

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

---

Not that your wrong; but I am pretty certain in your opinion Illegals don't have the right to sit peacefully in a crappy apartment they pay rent for from working a job at a meat packing plant and eat dinner and watch a little TV before going to sleep

Sq 17 said:

---

but I am pretty certain in your opinion Illegals don't have the right to sit peacefully in a crappy apartment they pay rent for from working a job at a meat packing plant and eat dinner and watch a little TV before going to sleep

---

They do, just not inside of our borders. I don't give a damn how they act. I want them gone from this country. There's a correct, legal way to immigrate. Follow it or gtfo.

Illegals have the right to protest. They just don't have the right to protest on this side of the border, peacefully or otherwise.

rgleml said:

---

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

---

Just as any wanted criminal could protest peacefully, they can also be arrested because they're wanted for committing a crime.

Sq 17 said:

---

rgleml said:

---

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

---

Not that your wrong; but I am pretty certain in your opinion Illegals don't have the right to sit peacefully in a crappy apartment they pay rent for from working a job at a meat packing plant and eat dinner and watch a little TV before going to sleep

---

They do have the right to protest. Living in the U.S. isn't a right it's a privilege and one they haven't earned so yes arresting them for sitting peacefully in their crappy apartment is the right thing to do. This isn't hard. Rights come from God. Living peacefully in the U.S. isn't a right it's a privilege, one they haven't earned.

Courts "agreeing" doesn't mean they're right about a lot of things. Many recent court decisions should have opened your eyes to that, particularly cases involving DJT. There are a bunch of judges motivated solely by their personal politics. We have a crisis of integrity in this country.

Some inalienable rights they have…somewhere else.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Some inalienable rights they have…somewhere else.

---

Right, if our Constitution applied to the world population, then certainly Vladimir Putin has an inalienable right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness in the United States, right?

There is a basic flaw in saying illegals have rights. No. In fact, we are able to shoot those who invade our Country.

If defending one's self is a basic right of a human then a nation has a right to protect its borders. That extends to deporting ones who violated that border. Period.

(Yes I understand that it not the current "thinking" of SCOTUS)

Surely someone can't think this is a rational question.

flown-the-coop said:

---

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.

---

Foreign armies aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so they don't have any rights here to begin with.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Some inalienable rights they have…somewhere else.

---

Quote:

---

Foreign armies Illegal aliens aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so they don't have any rights here to begin with.

---

akm91 said:

---

Quote:

---

Foreign armies Illegal aliens aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so they don't have any rights here to begin with.

---

---

Exactly. That was the point of the example.

Quote:

---

Illegal aliens aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,

---

I'd love to see an illegal charged with human trafficking make that claim! LOL

Quote:

---

they don't have any rights here to begin with.

---

Exactly! That is why they HAVE TO GO BACK!

Don't large gatherings require a permit to be issued through local government?

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Illegal aliens aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,

---

I'd love to see an illegal charged with human trafficking make that claim! LOL

Quote:

---

they don't have any rights here to begin with.

---

Exactly! That is why they HAVE TO GO BACK!

---

That is a tricky area to address and more of a decision for the Country to make.

I think the Article II guys get to make the initial decision of deport / not deport. So if you come across someone illegally, they get deported. If they committed another crime, particularly a violent one OR one indicating a proclivity to cause trouble, then the Executive can give them temporary status to stand trial for those additional crimes.

If the latter is chosen, they get the basic "rights" due others held and charged with crimes in the United States.

Now we cover both of your statements in a constitutionally correct manner.

Taking this approach allows for mass deportation without the impossible and extremely costly approach of giving all these illegals full boat due process at each step.

Just some musings from this morning. Again, I understand the current understanding by the courts. I just think we need to refine, improve how this works thanks to BIden's Mass Invasion.

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Not a US citizen? You have no rights.

---

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

Not exactly.

How does a person within the United States defend their legal presence within the United States without due process or a trial where both the plaintiff and the defendant present their cases with a judge present.

If someone is in USA and claims they are there legally and the State says they are not then a neutral party has to be able to review the evidence and rule based on that. What if law enforcement has the wrong person with same name. These things happen all the time not just in legal vs illegal status but in many other cases. Happened to sister-in -law. She had to lawyer up because law enforcement was too lazy to verify that she was not the same person they had a warrant for.

I hate that illegals have made it within our borders and that needs to be fixed but if they are already here then it has to be assumed the person of interest is innocent. And that a trial will be needed to prove a guilty verdict. And maybe the solution is to appoint a lot more immigration judges. But if a person says they are there legally due process must be performed because they could be telling the truth.

If they can't come up with proof of citizenship in 15 minutes, we don't need them here.

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.

---

I think I'll trust the SCOTUS interpretation over Joe Schmo TexAgs poster.

If they are arrested for being in the country illegally, they are not being arrested for protesting. Exercising free speech doesn't mean you are free from the consequences of your non-related actions.

In the same way a citizen with a warrant for armed robbery can protest all they want. If they get arrested, it's not for protesting, it's for the armed robbery.

TA-OP said:

---

I think I'll trust the SCOTUS interpretation over Joe Schmo TexAgs poster.

---

Why? Only 2 of the 9 base their decisions on the Constitution.

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.

---

Not to mention Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Buck v. Bell, and Koramatsu v. US. Arguably others. Lemon was particularly idiotic.

Fun wrinkle about

Quote:

---

…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

is that it only is logically coherent when applied to those who fall within her jurisdiction. Illegals have the god given right to petition THEIR government and assemble peaceably in THEIR streets, but it's completely unworkable to say that illegals have a right to assemble and petition OUR government within our lands. Their presence itself is a violation.

rgleml said:

---

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

---

Peacefully.. Yes. They should remember that they make themselves targets, so if ICE comes a knockin' then they have only themselves to blame.

Slicer97 said:

---

If they can't come up with proof of citizenship in 15 minutes, we don't need them here.

---

So I'm on the street and my legal presence is being questioned? I have the right to a fair trail because while the accuser may say I'm illegally here and even have evidence of this claim, I am still considered innocent and therefore a citizen that is entitled to the protections of the 5th amendment. No where does the enforcement arm of of the executive have to right to act as judge as well and strip me of my rights without me being given right to legal defense. This is Not some Nazi show trial where the verdict is determined already. It is your job the plaintiff to prove I'm illegally here in a court of law where I have the right to form a defense. Because I'm still here legally until a judge/jury settles it.

zag213004 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

If they can't come up with proof of citizenship in 15 minutes, we don't need them here.

---

So I'm on the street and my legal presence is being questioned? I have the right to a fair trail because while the accuser may say I'm illegally here and even have evidence of this claim, I am still considered innocent and therefore a citizen that is entitled to the protections of the 5th amendment. No where does the enforcement arm of of the executive have to right to act as judge as well and strip me of my rights without me being given right to legal defense. This is Not some Nazi show trial where the verdict is determined already. It is your job the plaintiff to prove I'm illegally here in a court of law where I have the right to form a defense. Because I'm still here legally until a judge/jury settles it.

---

Regarding immigration, the executive branch does have the ability to determine legal status. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

And there is plenty of process in that for you to "prove your innocence" of being an alleged illegal.

Do you not have a birth certificate, ID, passport? Proving you are a US citizen is not hard and is a simple yes or no application of the law. Why would a judge be needed? You are either a citizen or legal alien, or you are an illegal alien subject to deportation.

flown-the-coop said:

---

zag213004 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

If they can't come up with proof of citizenship in 15 minutes, we don't need them here.

---

So I'm on the street and my legal presence is being questioned? I have the right to a fair trail because while the accuser may say I'm illegally here and even have evidence of this claim, I am still considered innocent and therefore a citizen that is entitled to the protections of the 5th amendment. No where does the enforcement arm of of the executive have to right to act as judge as well and strip me of my rights without me being given right to legal defense. This is Not some Nazi show trial where the verdict is determined already. It is your job the plaintiff to prove I'm illegally here in a court of law where I have the right to form a defense. Because I'm still here legally until a judge/jury settles it.

---

Regarding immigration, the executive branch does have the ability to determine legal status. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

And there is plenty of process in that for you to "prove your innocence" of being an alleged illegal.

Do you not have a birth certificate, ID, passport? Proving you are a US citizen is not hard and is a simple yes or no application of the law. Why would a judge be needed? You are either a citizen or legal alien, or you are an illegal alien subject to deportation.

---

Because the government sometimes gets things wrong. They also have a bad habit of not telling the truth either.

Slicer97 said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

I think I'll trust the SCOTUS interpretation over Joe Schmo TexAgs poster.

---

Why? Only 2 of the 9 base their decisions on the Constitution.

---

And those 2 have said those here illegally have some limited basic rights. So now what?

Slicer97 said:

---

If they can't come up with proof of citizenship in 15 minutes, we don't need them here.

---

SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!

If you are out jogging and are stopped by some fed who mistakes you Slicero97, you get 15 minutes on the side of the road with no phone to prove you're a citizen. Otherwise you're out.

How does the government get it wrong on whether someone is a citizen? Do you have an example?

Pinochet said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

If they can't come up with proof of citizenship in 15 minutes, we don't need them here.

---

SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!

If you are out jogging and are stopped by some fed who mistakes you Slicero97, you get 15 minutes on the side of the road with no phone to prove you're a citizen. Otherwise you're out.

---

Yea, that's not what is happening or would ever happened. However, if you are in a gas station or Home Depot parking lot at 6am with a bunch of your friends, waiting on a subcontractor to pick you up, then you give a bad address, bad name, bad birthday that cannot be verified, you speak ZERO English, then you run when things get hairy, then yea you got 15 minutes to prove it up.

It's not hard to be honest and prove you are a citizen.

zag213004 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

If they can't come up with proof of citizenship in 15 minutes, we don't need them here.

---

So I'm on the street and my legal presence is being questioned? I have the right to a fair trail because while the accuser may say I'm illegally here and even have evidence of this claim, I am still considered innocent and therefore a citizen that is entitled to the protections of the 5th amendment. No where does the enforcement arm of of the executive have to right to act as judge as well and strip me of my rights without me being given right to legal defense. This is Not some Nazi show trial where the verdict is determined already. It is your job the plaintiff to prove I'm illegally here in a court of law where I have the right to form a defense. Because I'm still here legally until a judge/jury settles it.

---

Wrong. It's not the government's burden to prove you're not here legally. It's your burden to prove you are.

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-e-chapter-4