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.

 

AZ. All hispanics... Why not all be criminals?

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 





We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


I am offering the Preamble to acknowledge how perhaps some confusion may stem from this. I offer the Preamble, because I assure you, you could not point to a single Amendment within the Bill of Rights, that makes any distinction at all about who gets rights, and instead acts to prohibit government from trampling over the rights of people. However, the Preamble does make a distinction of We the People of the United States.

Yet, that distinction has not been made to separate the people of the United States from all other countries as being the sole bearers of rights, nor does the Constitution in any way grant rights. All the Preamble is making clear is that before there was a United States, there were people. The people come first, government second.

The parchment this Preamble is written on could no more protect you or I than it could survive the ravages of time. Efforts have been made to preserve the original parchment, but time will erode that piece of paper and what will you do then? All that piece of paper does is embody the rule of law. Law needs no paper to exist. Law existed before you or I were even born and will be here long after we've shuffled off this mortal coil.

When you make arguments insisting that this piece of paper only protects a class of citizens, you are arguing that all non citizens are not entitled to speak freely, to worship how they choose, to print words as they please, to assemble peacefully, to keep and bear arms, and to expect due process of law. You are asserting that a non citizen has no right to a trial by jury, you are asserting that a non citizen has no right to remain silent, you are arguing from a divine right of kings perspective, rather than defending the natural rights of all.

Just as surely as gravity and the speed of light affects us all equally, so too do the rights of people. Either all have rights, or none do, and any freedoms we may enjoy are merely privileges granted by government. Grant that kind of authority to government and watch the privileges they, in their gracious magnanimity, granted you, disappear. Argue that others rights can be erased, and watch someone else argue how yours and my rights can just as easily be erased.




posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Janky Red
 


No where in the Constitution are illegal immigrants protected. The Constitution applies to all lawfully residing in the US. ++++


And while I don't want to see harsh punishment befall people who enter the country illegally, it would be prudent of us to seek then out and return them home. Many illegals here are working with cartels that murder our own citizens every day. This can no longer stand. At some point we are going to have to demand that Mexico and Mexicans fix their own country. There is no will in Mexico to remove the corruption, to offer all classes of Mexicans a better life. No. Instead the government of Mexico encourages illegal immigration and the people would rather come here and reap our benefits than fixing their own mess.



I am sorry, but you are wrong

The Constitution grants rights to PEOPLE in America


An example I have already used;

IS A BRITISH FELLOW WHO IS HERE ON VACATION ALLOWED FREE SPEECH?

WHICH DOCUMENT GRANTS HIM THAT FREE SPEECH?

WOULD IT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO CENSOR HIM AND IF SO WHY?

Your entire argument and its incorrect nature are addressed with these three questions and the resulting answers.

The portion of your argument after ++++

is YOUR "problem" in seeing this clearly...

You are mixing emotional fueled justification into constitutional inquiry


This immigration problem and the constitution are not one, they are two separate
things all together. Don't allow the Immigration Problem infect your constitutional
prowess and outlook, they are in fact two individual variables. Just because one is problem does not mean you should allow the other suffer as a result.



[edit on 25-4-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 25-4-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


We either have the Constitution or we do not.

Until the Constitution is followed again, I say we follow the legislation that is in effect now.

You cannot state you follow the Constitution and then use this as an argument when it is not being followed.

What I am getting at, is that we are currently operating under a certain format. The illegals are being allowed NOT to have to follow that format. Hence, it destroys the right of fair play or equal under the law tenet.

Yes, if we are operating under the Constitution, the true components and no others, I say everyone and their frelling cousin can come to the US.

Until that time, how can we compete. The wages have been stagnant for 30 years now. I believe the main reason behind that is the Million per year flooding the US each year.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


The only thing the Constitution grants is a limited amount of power to elected and appointed government officials for a limited amount of time. Beyond that, the Constitution grants nothing else and instead acts to prohibit government from trampling over the inherent rights of the people. Inalienable rights can not be granted.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


As cliche as it may be, it is a truism that two wrongs don't make a right, and certainly three wrongs don't make it any righter. The Constitution is not being followed precisely because so many are willing to argue that rights are things granted by government. I don't know who's signature I read this from, but what it said was:

"The best things in life are not things."

Rights are not things, they are the natural freedoms of people and if they are not jealously guarded and zealously defended, then that Constitution has no meaning at all.



[edit on 25-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Janky Red
 


The only thing the Constitution grants is a limited amount of power to elected and appointed government officials for a limited amount of time. Beyond that, the Constitution grants nothing else and instead acts to prohibit government from trampling over the inherent rights of the people. Inalienable rights can not be granted.




Remember when I said sometimes I get confused or lost?

This is an instance of that, but I will take a stab

Are you saying these rights JUST ARE???

If not I am raising my hand...



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Yes that is exactly what I am saying. Just as gravity is, so are rights. The entire universe abides by law, and so do we.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


That is not at all what I'm saying. I'm not advocating the disregard of due process. I'm saying that matters to do with border security are far different than domestic matters. It is the reason they can search you and detain you simply to make sure you are who you say you are. When you cross illegally into the US you are comitting a crime on top of the fact that you have created a national security issue. The rights afforded to those who legally reside in the US, or are outright citizens, or people here on a temp visa, enjoy all the freedoms of US citizens. The same is not true for those who infiltrate the border. These laws have been in place a long time, you do not have a right to illegally cross into another nation's territory and expect to be treated to all the priviliages and rights as those who enter the country legally.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I haven't read anyone advocating illegal crossing of borders. To be sure, that crossing is an act of defiance to the rule of law just as it would be to murder someone. Yet, because we all have rights, not afforded us, but recognized as being inalienable, then due process must be respected. To grant government discretion on who gets this due process is not protecting due process at all. A person who has crossed illegally and managed to make it to Arizona and is now residing there doesn't get a free pass, and is subject to the same rule of law as we all are, which means, if that person is to be discovered a criminal, it must happen by oath of affirmation, and upon presentment of warrant, or through legal discovery. Legislation does not create legal discovery, as such a thing is a valid act in person, not an act of legislation. Legislation is not law, it is merely evidence of law.

To argue that it is reasonable to search and seize a person simply because there is a suspicion that person is someone who crossed the border illegally, flies in the face of reason. It is no different, frankly than what is all ready happening to U.S. citizens when they are pulled over in their cars, by a law enforcement officer simply for a suspicion. Have you never heard of that person pulled over by an LEO only to be cited for driving without a license and cited for nothing else? I assure you it happens, but how is this reasonable? Is it some form of Minority Report where precogs indicate that so and so is driving without a license and so they must be pulled over an ticketed?

It is one thing, in the course of duty to discover, and not through profiling, that a person is here illegally, then the full force of law is with the government, but to suggest that we can no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the federal government petulantly refuses to protect our borders, and not just that, refuses to act when a citizen goes to the immigration department and offers a verified oath that another person is here illegally, but refuses to act on such affirmation, is no different than cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

There have been many times when citizens have turned to the immigration department and swore that another was here illegally, which then becomes a legal reason to question, and search, and if need be seize and detain, and finally deport, but the immigration department refused to act. This is the problem. Insisting that we should all give up our right to reasonable expectation of privacy because of this failure of our own government, which is you and I, and Pvxn; it matters not that you have not yet obtained citizenship, you are person and residing here legally, and as such as much a part of that government as I am, is folly.

Attempting to fix complex problems with simple solutions is not the answer. It matters not that the person who came here did so illegally when it comes to rights. Unless you care to advocate tyranny or monarchy, or some form of dictatorial government, but even then, those governments exist because the people allow it. I want this immigration problem fixed, but not at the expense of rights. The consequences are no less devastating than disobeying the laws of gravity, and to pretend rights don't have to be acknowledged in certain circumstances is to pretend there are certain cliffs you can jump off of without plummeting to your death. There are no special cliffs where we can ignore the laws of gravity, and there are no special circumstance where we can ignore the rights of people.

Of course, lemmings will foolishly ignore laws of gravity and together jump off a cliff and plummet to their deaths, just as their are plenty of people who will ignore the rights of people, and this too comes with great peril.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
the interpretation of "inalienable rights" that everybody keeps yapping about only apply to those who signed the declaration of independence.

"we hold these truths to be self evident"

"we" is defined at the bottem where all those signatures are. unless your name appears there then your subject to the interpretation of the founders who signed it. in which case you would be subject to their recognition and definitions of "rights" which would in our case be....you guessed it...law.



they had to declare their independence, and liberate themselves to be able to recognize the inalienable rights of all poeple, therefor they set the standards.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by LurkerMan
the interpretation of "inalienable rights" that everybody keeps yapping about only apply to those who signed the declaration of independence.

"we hold these truths to be self evident"

"we" is defined at the bottem where all those signatures are. unless your name appears there then your subject to the interpretation of the founders who signed it. in which case you would be subject to their recognition and definitions of "rights" which would in our case be....you guessed it...law.



they had to declare their independence, and liberate themselves to be able to recognize the inalienable rights of all poeple, therefor they set the standards.


I am not clear what you are saying here, my friend. Are you suggesting that only the Founders had inalienable rights, and because they went and listed certain rights in a Bill of Rights, that all future generations have no such thing as inalienable rights and instead have granted rights?



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Hey, here is a nice thread about our Constitutional rights being squashed and the problems that arise from it. Surprisingly enough, it has the city of Chicago calling for National Guard troops in.

Hmmmm, seems Chicago does not allow citizens the RIGHT to carry firearms.

Does anyone see the humor in a city that does not allow citizens the RIGHT to protect themselves to call in the MILITARY to bust heads?

Chicago Lawmakers: Call In the National Guard

They do not want CITIZENS to have guns, but they call in the MILITARY to "supposedly" protect our rights.

Now, as EVERYONE should know by now, the police and the National Guard HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY to protect the citizens.

They are there to ENFORCE the statutes of the government, not even the law but statutes.

Yes, everything is fine in the US of A. Nothing to see here.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 





Does anyone see the humor in a city that does not allow citizens the RIGHT to protect themselves to call in the MILITARY to bust heads?


There is nothing humorous at all about a city filled with people who allow an institution they are responsible for to then dictate what rights are allowed and what are not.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Okay, I should have said sad, to me though I was referring to the tragic comedy component. Hey, Wisconsin use to have some of these idiotic gun control components. We fought to keep our inherent rights. I now go out with my Ruger strapped on about 75% of the time. I am starting to think that percentage should be at 100%. I have joined a Wisconsin group pushing to remove the last places where we are not allowed to carry.

When you need your gun to protect yourself or others, a gun free zone is usually the place you will need it!



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Oh, I certainly understood what you meant and did not mean to take you to task for pointing out the tragicomedy of such a thing, and only meant to hold accountable the people of Chicago for being so ridiculously apathetic to their own rights.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I only have one major thing to say about this other then it does seem a bit racist. But Arizona will find out in about a year that the economy is getting worse there. When that happens then I hate to say it but they will realize what they did was bad.

I hate to say it but the illegals add a lot of cash to our economy, when there gone, our economy pays for it. In fact it already has, do your homework, because when the $hit hit the fan and the banks had the bottoms falling out it was right after they started sending back illegals. So watch and see.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


no, only the poeple who signed the document hold those truths to be self evident.

isnt that the context its in?

when he says "we" is he not speaking of everybody who signed it? is that not the point of adding your name to it?

im not saying only the ones who signed it have inalienable rights. im saying only the ones who signed it, recognize that everybody has inalienable rights...and everything else it states. is this not so?

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

so the government they established. their establishment...or "ours" if you include yourself.

we didnt declare our independence like they did. we were born into what they established so are subject to their Governing to secure these rights for all who choose to embrace them. but not on our own standards, the standards of the citizens, less we do like they did and declare our own independence..then we would set our own standards and establishment.

in the system established by those who declared it so, we citizens have a say (vote), and anybody not a citizen does not(illegal immagrant). when the poeple vote in legislation and it becomes law, that law is to be unanymously recognized by everybody participating in the estblishment (citizens).

my point is those inalienable rights are offered and applied through the way of the citizens. that way is the legal route and its offered to everybody equally. any other route is not the route established by citizens and therefor not the will of our founding fathers.

once one becomes a citizen by way of the poeple, one gets an equal say in how the future process is offered and applied.

you cant speak until you get your voice.
and your either part of "we" or your not.

so to speak your own interpretation of everybodies God given rights would be like declaring your own independence and forfeit your current liberty (set by our founding fathers).

if your not part of "we", then you need to leave "our" bounderies, or be subject to "our" punishments. but your welcome at anytime to join "us". hope that makes more sense, feel free to correct me if im wrong.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LurkerMan
 





no, only the poeple who signed the document hold those truths to be self evident. isnt that the context its in?


Hey there LurkerMan, thank you for getting back to me:




when he says "we" is he not speaking of everybody who signed it? is that not the point of adding your name to it?


The 56 people who signed the Declaration of Independence were delegates of the Second Continental Congress. There were 13 colonies and each had delegates that were a part of that Continental Congress and they were sent to represent the colony of which they came from. Their signatures are officially that representation of the people who chose them to do this. Thus, the Declaration of Independence speaks for all the people, represented by 56 members of the Continental Congress who signed this document.




im not saying only the ones who signed it have inalienable rights. im saying only the ones who signed it, recognize that everybody has inalienable rights...and everything else it states. is this not so?


I recognize rights as being inalienable and it seems to me that you do too. Unfortunately there are many that don't but there are many who wouldn't recognize their ass from their elbow, so it is not as if there must be a consensus before it is law. The Earth orbits the sun, this is true, but when Galileo advocated this truth he was punished for it, and those who punished him did not recognize this truth. It didn't make it any less true.




we didnt declare our independence like they did. we were born into what they established so are subject to their Governing to secure these rights for all who choose to embrace them. but not on our own standards, the standards of the citizens, less we do like they did and declare our own independence..then we would set our own standards and establishment.


Forgive me if I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting what you have said here, but as best I understand what you are saying, I would suggest the Bill of Rights that comes with certain enumerated rights but also prudently comes with a 9th Amendment that states:




The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


It would be unfortunate if we did indeed have to declare our independence in order to have The Bill of Rights respected once again.




in the system established by those who declared it so, we citizens have a say (vote), and anybody not a citizen does not(illegal immagrant). when the poeple vote in legislation and it becomes law, that law is to be unanymously recognized by everybody participating in the estblishment (citizens).


Legislation is not law, but merely evidence of law. Nothing becomes law, law just is. The Founders established a republic to prevent what you are describing, and there is a long line of jurisprudence in this country where legislation is struck down precisely because is it is not law, and only pretends to be so.




my point is those inalienable rights are offered and applied through the way of the citizens. that way is the legal route and its offered to everybody equally. any other route is not the route established by citizens and therefor not the will of our founding fathers.


What you have just described is not inalienable rights but granted privileges. Inalienable is defined as that which can not be transferred to another or others.




once one becomes a citizen by way of the poeple, one gets an equal say in how the future process is offered and applied.


A citizen has the privilege of voting, serving as a member of the jury or Grand Jury, and may run for offices not prohibiting otherwise. People who are not citizens don't get these privileges, all people, citizen or otherwise have rights.




you cant speak until you get your voice. and your either part of "we" or your not.


Actually, when a newborn baby is first delivered, often times we can hear the voice of that child very clearly, even it this child can not speak.




so to speak your own interpretation of everybodies God given rights would be like declaring your own independence and forfeit your current liberty (set by our founding fathers).


I am not clear in what you mean by forfeiting liberty in order to have it. At least this is what it appears you are saying.




if your not part of "we", then you need to leave "our" bounderies, or be subject to "our" punishments. but your welcome at anytime to join "us". hope that makes more sense, feel free to correct me if im wrong.


This comes very close to being wholly correct in my estimation, if you are defining "we" as all who are residing within our borders and are either citizens or immigrants who have migrated her through legal means. Yes, you are more than correct that all are subject to the law, and the where legislation is not law itself, the immigration laws are of the natural law that speaks to protecting borders, and all are subject to it, so those who have migrated here and defied this law are subject to deportation.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
i guess ill come at this from a different angle, forgive me im not blessed with the skills i need to speak precisely.

The founding fathers declared independence for themselves and those they represented.this was an act of liberation. the declaration of independence only liberated THOSE poeple. they defined their own liberation and set their own terms, some of which are these inalienable rights they are choosing to recognize in everbody, everyone else from then to now who enjoys that same liberty(here) is doing so not on their own terms but the terms of the liberators.(who signed the document)

but it only applys to those participating. it takes more than simply being within a boundery to participate, it takes compliance with the current participaters (who are complying with the original liberators).

the particular individuals of interest are those who think they get to pursue happiness on their own terms...without compliance to the system established by the liberators, who declared it so. this would only be acceptable if said persons name happens to be on the same declaration of independence established for that particular border.

inalienable rights come with inalienable responsibilities

this includes being responsible for your own freedom, which means declaring your own independence (and fighting for it if necessary) if tyranny reigns (this may require leaving a boundery/border)

being responsible for acknowledging others freedom, this includes complying with law and respecting the will of others.

being responsible for coexisting peacefully. this includes voting and shaping the community.

the rights/responsibilities should be balancing each other out, i believe the problem is we have a ton of poeple demanding their personal rights but refusing any personal responsibility that comes with it...something the rest of are in compliance with.


so long story short, if they dont want to comply with the will of the citizenry, then those rights are forfeitted within that particular border, but they are free to pursue another option.

life- they can live within the border and accept punishment (jail)
liberty- they can liberate themselves and join the citizenry
or pursue happiness elsewhere (different border)



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 





Until that time, how can we compete. The wages have been stagnant for 30 years now. I believe the main reason behind that is the Million per year flooding the US each year.


It's because OUR TRADE LAWS ARE TERRIBLE. It won't matter if you kick out all the illegals or not....if you don't protect wages then it's not going to matter. The only thing that will happen is white people will replace the slave labor illegals were doing....hell those who employ them might as well leave the country now. They aren't going to pay crap anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join