Posted on 06/12/2007 1:51:58 PM PDT by Graybeard58
Enforcement of immigration laws by federal authorities have nothing to do with states’ rights.
Slaves weren’t considered people. They were considered livestock.
The Constitution applies to people, not livestock.
Lush!
Deal.
That’s an interesting buncha nonsense, yet again.
Those slaves WERE people, not livestock. The constitution did NOT extend rights to them, it extended such rights to citizens. Women WERE people AND they were citizens, but they didn’t have the right to vote until the constitution extended rights to them. Were they NOT people until the constitution decreed they were? Your argument is ridiculous.
Illegal aliens ARE people, not livestock. The constitution does not apply to them, it applies to citizens.
We can make the constitution apply to them. That’s what the process is all about.
If we’re going to extend rights to illegal aliens by way of the same constitution that enables me the free speech to type this out, then we need to be careful. There are security concerns, social concerns, political concerns, health concerns, economic concerns, and a shipload of other concerns. I personally prefer that we focus on extending rights to life to unborn children in this society if we’re gonna go about handing out rights.
In the meantime, in the absence of enforcement, I think we will see the bloodsucking lawyers move in for the kill here.
There is money to be made in filing RICO lawsuits against employers who hire illegal aliens. RICO lawyers could turn it around in a few years and MAKE MONEY at the same time. I’m surprised they haven’t done it already.
Employers would have no trouble shutting down the border if they could get sued by someone under the RICO statutes for hiring these people in the first place. The next time an illegal alien kills someone in a drunk driving accident or somesuch thing, I’m going to point out that the victim’s family might be able to seek compensation from the employer under these statutes in the hopes that it would catch on. If this did catch on, would see such a swift backlash against illegal immigration that no employer would go near these people and they’ll all simply want to go back home.
I knew I could count on ya, Czar! (And I want to hear how good they were, lol!)
hehehe....don't tell anyone. :0)
You’re just wrong.
The right to worship as one pleases, freedom of speech peaceably assemble are guaranteed to all people within the U.S. So is the right to be secure in their houses, papers and effects and the protection against unreasonable search and seizures. So is the right to a trial by a jury the right to no excessive bail, or fines, or cruel and unusual punishment.
People all over the world own property here and have the same property rights you have.
Voting is restricted to citizens, as is holding elected office.
As for the right to keep and bear arms, we have allowed the ruling political class to abridge that right and turn it into a privilege. When the second Amendment was in full effect, visitors and immigrants were free to carry guns just like citizens were.
We are in serious danger of having the rest of the Bill of Rights damaged at least as much as we’ve allowed the Second Amendment to be damaged. When that happens the U.S. will no longer be “that shining city on a hill.”
The Bill of Rights applied to women before they got the vote. It applies to people not just citizens.
Women (their house, person, papers, and effects) couldn’t be searched without a warrant, nor can an alien’s.
Women couldn’t be held without an indictment, neither can aliens. Women couldn’t be forced to testify against themselves, neither can an alien.
The Bill of Rights applies to everyone in the country not just citizens. That’s why the ICE officers in the above article got warrants. It’s also why they aren’t claiming the Constitution doesn’t cover aliens.
There is money to be made in filing RICO lawsuits against employers who hire illegal aliens. RICO lawyers could turn it around in a few years and MAKE MONEY at the same time. I’m surprised they haven’t done it already.
Employers would have no trouble shutting down the border if they could get sued by someone under the RICO statutes for hiring these people in the first place. The next time an illegal alien kills someone in a drunk driving accident or somesuch thing, I’m going to point out that the victim’s family might be able to seek compensation from the employer under these statutes in the hopes that it would catch on. If this did catch on, would see such a swift backlash against illegal immigration that no employer would go near these people and they’ll all simply want to go back home.
###
You’re right about this. The Supreme Court already ruled that companies hurt by competitors who hire illegal aliens can sue under the civil portion of the RICO law. There have been a couple of suits settled but they all had confidentiality agreements attached so we hear very little about them. A couple of others are still working their way through the system.
I’m surprised that someone hasn’t bought a small meat-packing company just to go after Swift and Tyson’s. There would be a huge payoff there.
The government could use the RICO forfeiture section to confiscate ALL the assets of the company, the executives, and the board of directors, of a company ACCUSED of hiring illegal aliens as long as certain predicates are met and the case is scheduled for trial.
Under the RICO forfeiture rules the government doesn’t have to prove the assets are the fruit of the illegal act. The former owner has to prove they aren’t if he wants to try to get them back. That’s an almost impossible burden.
If the government took everything the Board of Director and the executives had and had them and their families living under a highway overpass, the criminal employers would be tripping over each other to get rid of their illegal employees, and nobody would hire anyone who was illegal.
The Bill of Rights applies to everyone in the country not just citizens.
***Yeah, right. The same billorights that applied to slaves, which are not people in your estimation. I’m not buying it. You are the one who’s wrong here. It was the 14th amendment which explicitly delineated who the rights were going to be extended to, and illegal immigrants was not one of the groups.
Looks like we can both agree on something, I am quite surprised. Good place to end this dialog, so I’ll let you have the last word.
Big a$$ BUMP
So are you claiming illegal aliens are not persons??
Either aliens are not "persons" or according to the 14th Amendment they are have a constitutional right to due process and to equal protection.
If that is your position, I can live with that. As long as they are detained during the “due process” proceedings. Too many times, at least here in Houston, they are given court dates and released. We both know that they never show up for their day in court.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Does “We the people of the United States” apply to Illegal Alien criminals?.
I was not being sarcastic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.