Is amnesty a civil right?

Eric Holder says it is. What say you?

What an idiot, illegals have NO civil rights. Civil Rights are for citizens and legal aliens.

You folks are confused.

Democrats have a civil right to win elections by any means necessary, and they're simply stacking the deck so that at some point in the future after 11 million newly registered (mostly democratic, they hope) are eligible to vote, it will be impossible to pry them out of office. And I'm pretty sure that 13 year period will be shortened quite a bit, perhaps even enough so that some of them can participate in 2016.

On the other hand, Republicans have a civil right to ensure that their big business pals have an ample supply of cheap labor even if it means flooding the job market to apply downward pressure on wages or turning their backs on one of their supposed platform planks, being the party of "Law and Order".

Which is worse? I'd say the Republicans, as they are deliberately betraying one of their core values. The Democrats are just being stupid. We already did amnesty and increased documentation requirements for employers back in 1986. Fat lot of good it did us.

As far as I'm concerned, the only acceptable "immigration reform" is impenetrable borders combined with a massive search & deport operation to evict those who have violated our laws by sneaking in. Deport every illegal found, regardless of circumstances, and they can re-apply by the established procedures that are already in place. Of course, their history of already showing a blatant disregard for our laws might count against them.

Quote :

On the other hand, Republicans have a civil right to ensure that their big business pals have an ample supply of cheap labor even if it means flooding the job market to apply downward pressure on wages or turning their backs on one of their supposed platform planks, being the party of "Law and Order".

What you do not think that democrats have big business buddies who want cheap labor. Just look no further then Nancy Polosi and Starkist.

Quote :

As far as I'm concerned, the only acceptable "immigration reform" is impenetrable borders combined with a massive search & deport operation to evict those who have violated our laws by sneaking in. Deport every illegal found, regardless of circumstances, and they can re-apply by the established procedures that are already in place. Of course, their history of already showing a blatant disregard for our laws might count against them.

I say invade Mexico and turn it into a state. We did it once before.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Quote :

On the other hand, Republicans have a civil right to ensure that their big business pals have an ample supply of cheap labor even if it means flooding the job market to apply downward pressure on wages or turning their backs on one of their supposed platform planks, being the party of "Law and Order".

What you do not think that democrats have big business buddies who want cheap labor. Just look no further then Nancy Polosi and Starkist.

Oh, I know that. But the Republicans are worse, 'cause they're being hypocrites about it. If you claim to be for Law and Order, you can't very well let a law slide because it's inconvenient for your well-heeled supporters.

Annoyed wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Quote :

On the other hand, Republicans have a civil right to ensure that their big business pals have an ample supply of cheap labor even if it means flooding the job market to apply downward pressure on wages or turning their backs on one of their supposed platform planks, being the party of "Law and Order".

What you do not think that democrats have big business buddies who want cheap labor. Just look no further then Nancy Polosi and Starkist.

Oh, I know that. But the Republicans are worse, 'cause they're being hypocrites about it. If you claim to be for Law and Order, you can't very well let a law slide because it's inconvenient for your well-heeled supporters.

You really think the republicans are worse? I would disagree with this. I would say both parties are the same on this issue. The only difference is the propaganda that the democrats spew. For law and order I would say the democrats are worse. Because they pick and choose. Look at any minority conservative and what the democrats do them. A minority democrat commits a crime and they look the other way. I minority conservative commits a crime and they want to burn him at the stake. Hell a minority conservative doesn't even have to commit a crime and they want to burn them at the stake.

eber322 wrote:

What an idiot, illegals have NO civil rights. Civil Rights are for citizens and legal aliens.

The U.S. Supreme Court would disagree with you.

ilaugh wrote:

eber322 wrote:

What an idiot, illegals have NO civil rights. Civil Rights are for citizens and legal aliens.

The U.S. Supreme Court would disagree with you.

The supreme court would be wrong and the supreme court is broken anyway.

True to the nature of The Sean Hannity Show, I found the whole piece to be heavy with sensationalistic embellishment.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

ilaugh wrote:

eber322 wrote:

What an idiot, illegals have NO civil rights. Civil Rights are for citizens and legal aliens.

The U.S. Supreme Court would disagree with you.

The supreme court would be wrong and the supreme court is broken anyway.

That's your opinion. All people in the U.S. have certain civil liberties and rights, whether they're here legally or not.

ilaugh wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

ilaugh wrote:

eber322 wrote:

What an idiot, illegals have NO civil rights. Civil Rights are for citizens and legal aliens.

The U.S. Supreme Court would disagree with you.

The supreme court would be wrong and the supreme court is broken anyway.

That's your opinion. All people in the U.S. have certain civil liberties and rights, whether they're here legally or not.

In what document?

The supreme court is completely corrupted and doesn't do its job.

The Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 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.

The Supreme Court has ruled on this an has stated that all people regardless of nationality or legal status are guaranteed equal protection of the law and the right to due process.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State 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," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

Now, I'm not trying to argue that the way Holder was implying the term civil rights is correct or honest here, just refuting eber's claim that they have none.

Amnesty itself isn't a civil right, and illegals aren't under the jurisdiction of the US. If they were, they'd be legal.

eber322 wrote:

Amnesty itself isn't a civil right

Nor did I say it was. And I do believe it was a poor choice of words. However I don't believe Holder was saying that undocumented workers have guaranteed rights to be citizens.

eber322 wrote:

and illegals aren't under the jurisdiction of the US

I'm not sure exactly what argument you're trying to make here, but your original statement "illegals have NO civil rights" is incorrect. They do have certain rights, both civil and constitutional. Maybe you could clarify your use of the term "jurisdiction." If you're talking about the right of the U.S. as a sovereign nation to exercise it's laws and administer justice, then yes illegals are under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Legal citizens have rights given to them by the constitution. Illegals do not. I am curious though. What civil would an illegal have. The right not be murdered?

Illegals have basic human rights, the rights protected under international law. Like not to be tortured, enslaved, etc. But those are not the same thing as civil or constitutional rights.

eber322 wrote:

Illegals have basic human rights, the rights protected under international law. Like not to be tortured, enslaved, etc. But those are not the same thing as civil or constitutional rights.

Your right. I wonder why Iran does not follow those basic human rights?

eber322 wrote:

Illegals have basic human rights, the rights protected under international law. Like not to be tortured, enslaved, etc. But those are not the same thing as civil or constitutional rights.

We've already been through this but let's try again.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Legal citizens have rights given to them by the constitution. Illegals do not.

Wrong

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

I am curious though. What civil would an illegal have. The right not be murdered?

I believe some of the answers are below such as the the right of self-defense.

Quote :

Illegal immigrants living and often working in the United States have some rights under the U.S. Constitution, despite their immigration status. Aspects of the Constitution that address human rights apply to everyone, even those without proper documentation. Some states grant illegal immigrants certain rights as well.

Constitutional Rights

Even if you're in the country illegally, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution apply to you. This means that if someone sues you, you have the right to receive notice and to defend yourself. The Fourth Amendment also protects your rights just as it protects those of legal citizens. Law enforcement can't seize and search your property without probable cause. Illegal immigrants have the right to file lawsuits, such as discrimination suits, in federal court. State laws vary, but some jurisdictions give you the right to sue in state court as well.

Defense Against Removal

You have the right to defend yourself against deportation or removal from the United States. If immigration officials discover that you're living in the country illegally, you have the right to a hearing. The government can't simply send you home without one. You also have the right to an attorney, but the government doesn't have to pay for one on your behalf.

http://immigration.lawyers.com/immigration/Legal-Rights-of-Illegal-Immigrants.html

ilaugh wrote:

The Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 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.

The Supreme Court has ruled on this an has stated that all people regardless of nationality or legal status are guaranteed equal protection of the law and the right to due process.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State 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," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

Now, I'm not trying to argue that the way Holder was implying the term civil rights is correct or honest here, just refuting eber's claim that they have none.

You're making it very easy to argue against you.

"The Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

That is about as plain as English gets. You are a citizen only if you are born here or naturalized.

Game over.

Annoyed wrote:

You're making it very easy to argue against you.

Only if you're going to ignore cited supreme court precedent. Here's another one for ya'

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

Revisions to education laws in Texas in 1975 withheld state funds for educating children who had not been legally admitted to the United States and authorized local school districts to deny enrollment to such students. A 5-to-4 majority of the Supreme Court found that this policy was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as undocumented immigrant children are people "in any ordinary sense of the term", and therefore had protection from discrimination unless a substantial state interest could be shown to justify it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12010798883027065807&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr