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.

 

USA Today / ACLU tell illegals what to do if ICE comes knocking

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I'm not saying I disagree with you, just that the supreme court does.


Truth: Undocumented immigrants DO have legal rights under the U.S. Constitution and federal statute. As far back as 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that: “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. ... All persons in the U.S., therefore, have constitutional rights.




posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
ALL persons born here or naturalized.


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand....


...to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


How's your certiorari coming? May we read it?



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: brutus61

So you are saying that it is not settled law that anyone in the United States has rights? You would be very, very wrong. Also, you are not 'disagreeing' with me, you are doing it with the Supreme Court.

The cases I listed were directly responsible for granting equal protection on anyone here. Are these attorneys all incorrect?


Even if you're in the United States without permission or proper immigration documents, various sections of the U.S. Constitution apply to you. There is a particularly important provision of the Fourteenth Amendment stating that, "No state shall . . . 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 laws." Source



Aliens also receive treatment very similar to the treatment that U.S. citizens receive in the context of the judicial system. For instance, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution apply to aliens residing within the United States. As such, the courts guarantee aliens the right to due process of law and equal protection of the laws. Courts have generally construed the Fourth Amendment as applicable to aliens as well. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. Source


Both of those links will site the same cases I gave you.






The problem is we are not trying to jail them. We want to deport them back to their own countries. If they wish to be US citizens then they need to go through a legal process just like our ancestors and many current :legal" immigrants have done. I saw where it said they can't be sent to prison for being illegals but it also states that our country has every right to deport them.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: neo96

I'm not saying I disagree with you, just that the supreme court does.


Truth: Undocumented immigrants DO have legal rights under the U.S. Constitution and federal statute. As far back as 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that: “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. ... All persons in the U.S., therefore, have constitutional rights.


I can cite Supreme court rulings too.

Like Flemming V Nestor.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder

The Democrats are a dying party. What better way than to make get more illegal votes. Too bad this is a bad strategy and would only increase votes in the coastal regions and they will still lose the electoral map.
edit on 12-2-2017 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

If you actually understood what you are citing you would see that case had to do with something not covered under the 5th Amendment. When the 5th and 14th are applied, everyone gets equal protection.

Tremendous. So simple.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Right cause THIS is really hard to understand.



In July 1956 he was deported for having been a member of the Communist Party from 1933 to 1939.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: brutus61
We want to deport them back to their own countries.


Which you would need the correct legal instrument to accomplish as outlined in the Original Post. You have one of those then you can deport them, if you do not, then the law still applies.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

no you haven't you said they can escalate into one.

you can be pulled over and be sited from the get go with criminal offensive. plain and simple.

your words from three posts.




Vehicular offenses like speeding and parking are not criminal offenses.




It is still not a criminal offense, you do not go to criminal court when contesting a typical parking or speeding ticket, you go to traffic court.




I am not saying a routine traffic stop cannot escalate into something else but the traffic summonses themselves are not criminal.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Anyone got a body count yet. How many have been captured/deported and from which countries are they from..?



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I'm not sure how that case relates to illegal immigrants. Seems it was more about property. The guy was not illegal, he was deported for being a communist.


This case goes to the heart of an interesting question: What is property? The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." In this case, the court had to determine whether a person's interest in his Social Security benefits is "property" that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. As noted above, the court found that it was not. The case has been criticized on many grounds. In dissent, Justice Black argued that the Court's holding was motivated by anti-communist bias.

Charles A. Reich argued that Social Security benefits should be considered to be "property" for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment. Social Security, he argued, is a compulsory substitute for private property, is heavily relied on, and is important to beneficiaries. The beneficiary’s right to Social Security, he argued, should not be subject to public policy considerations (especially not something resembling a loyalty oath, as was the case in Flemming). According to this argument, allowing government benefits to be revoked in this way too extensively threatens the system of private property



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Right cause THIS is really hard to understand.


For you it would seem. The person was deported, hence his rights ended when, hold on here for the difficult part, he left the country.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
no you haven't you said they can escalate into one.


What am I saying here:


It is still not a criminal offense, you do not go to criminal court when contesting a typical parking or speeding ticket, you go to traffic court.


A typical vehicular violation is not criminal.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: FauxMulder

The Democrats are a dying party. What better way than to make get more illegal votes. Too bad this is a bad strategy and would only increase votes in the coastal regions and they will still lose the electoral map.


Yea so the areas that would gain votes already mostly vote dem.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder




I'm not sure how that case relates to illegal immigrants


It relates to two reasons.

First He was deported.

The 14th didn't stop it.

Rights only go so far up to certain points.

This is abundantly clear in the first ,and second amendments.

The 14th is no different.

The Bill of Rights and the 14th are suppose to be absolute rights.

The reality is they aren't.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neo96
ALL persons born here or naturalized.


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand....


...to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


How's your certiorari coming? May we read it?


Hahahahahah brilliant.

Everyone and their dog is a Consitutional scholar and an educated lawyer now-a-days.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

No where have I said that because they have rights they cannot be deported.

Again the guy in this case was a legal alien.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
The 14th didn't stop it.


Are you even reading the Original Post? The 14th Amendment does not prevent ultimate deportation, the article was outlining that ICE needs to have the proper warrant to execute the process for deporting a person.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Obama deports Haitians, Cubans and no one bats an eye.


*Insert Joker meme*


Deport illegal aliens from Mexico and everyone loses their minds.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire
Everyone and their dog is a Consitutional scholar and an educated lawyer now-a-days.


I love how people can scream the Supreme Court is wrong and then cite a tiny snippet of something and go, 'Look, here iz wheres I explains da law!'.




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join