It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Jamie1
Back up a step.
Nobody has a "right" to work.
That would imply that another person would be "required" to provide a job.
We can't force one person to take an action so that another person can express a so-called "right."
You should Because it breaks the part in the constitution that says ones property should be safe from being taken without due process
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok
You should Because it breaks the part in the constitution that says ones property should be safe from being taken without due process
Actually.
The willfull commission of a crime rights are not guaranteed, especially constitutional rights.
Just ask felons that lose their right to vote, and the right to own a gun.
originally posted by: macman
a reply to: crazyewok
The Constitution is there to protect US Citizens, not illegal invaders.
If this were the case, deporting an illegal invader would be outlawed. But, it isn't.
The illegals are here via breaking US laws.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: burntheships
I honestly don't have a problem with a drug dealers asset's being taken.
Or people like the Madoff's.
And terrorist's.
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok
You should Because it breaks the part in the constitution that says ones property should be safe from being taken without due process
Actually.
The willfull commission of a crime rights are not guaranteed, especially constitutional rights.
Just ask felons that lose their right to vote, and the right to own a gun.
Yes those are convicted felons.
Due process through a court has been done and it would certainly be acceptable to suspend certain rights. And as I have stated taking money and property from convicted felons is fine with me.
BUT
Civil forfeiture laws as they stand now allow police departments to seize money and assets on just suspicion of crime without there having to be a conviction in court.
THAT to me is morally wrong and from I see is constitutionally wrong.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Jamie1
Back up a step.
Nobody has a "right" to work.
That would imply that another person would be "required" to provide a job.
We can't force one person to take an action so that another person can express a so-called "right."
Yes. You have a right to work. BUt you don't have a right to a job.
But it all boils down to: does an individual have a right to ply their trade? Or can there be laws that stipulate who can and cannot mow a yard, or flip a burger, or clean a house, or prepare a tax return.
We all have a right to work if we so choose. Whether we will actually find work....that's a whole 'nuther story.
originally posted by: Jamie1
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok
You should Because it breaks the part in the constitution that says ones property should be safe from being taken without due process
Actually.
The willfull commission of a crime rights are not guaranteed, especially constitutional rights.
Just ask felons that lose their right to vote, and the right to own a gun.
Yes those are convicted felons.
Due process through a court has been done and it would certainly be acceptable to suspend certain rights. And as I have stated taking money and property from convicted felons is fine with me.
BUT
Civil forfeiture laws as they stand now allow police departments to seize money and assets on just suspicion of crime without there having to be a conviction in court.
THAT to me is morally wrong and from I see is constitutionally wrong.
You have this exactly backwards.
The due process you speak of is what the illegals failed to complete.
A non-citizen has the burden of proof when visiting a foreign country. The country does not have the burden of proof.
No documents to prove you belong here? Leave.
At least that's how it works in every single country on planet earth except the U.S.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok
LOL due process would actually be illegals knocking on the door, and ask to come in this house.
Their 'right's are not being denied.
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: macman
a reply to: crazyewok
The Constitution is there to protect US Citizens, not illegal invaders.
If this were the case, deporting an illegal invader would be outlawed. But, it isn't.
The illegals are here via breaking US laws.
Thats not what im discussing with neo.
I was responding to his comment here:
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: burntheships
I honestly don't have a problem with a drug dealers asset's being taken.
Or people like the Madoff's.
And terrorist's.
Im actually with you and neo on the deporting illegal immigrants. I can see first hand how unrestricted immigration can overburden public services. Laws and regulation of immigration need to be in place and enforced.
originally posted by: neo96
I wonder why that doesn't seem to apply to gun owners, rich folks,bankers,and business owners.
None of those people ever had their 'due process' in courts of law.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok
What do you mean IF ?
There are literally TENS of THOUSANDS of laws regulating their conduct.
Regulation is punishment.
Taxes is punishment.