Illegals have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment

[TheJ]

How in the heck does an "illegal" have any rights once so ever under the constitution of the United Stated. They
are ILLEGAL, they are not a US citizen????

So technically the government could just shoot them all then.. no? If they have "no rights".

Where in the constitution does it say that only citizens have rights? Or that only citizens are protected by the constitution?

You realize that for many many decades after the founding of the country we had completely open borders, right?

What about LEGAL immigrants (non-citizens) or tourists? They are not citizens either. Do they have rights? Are they protected by the constitution?

 

[TheJ]

...Our country has no jurisdiction over citizens of another country, which on a sidenote is why people also misunderstand the 14th as well, and the only thing we can do is stop them from entering or send them back when they get in, unless they break other laws in our country....

The recognition of limited diplomatic immunity notwithstanding, the US certainly has "jurisdiction" over citizens of another country when they are on sovereign US soil. If this wasn't so, then the US could not do anything about them "breaking the others laws" (as you said) except deport them.

 

[JkEnder]

I fail to see the substantive issue here. I fully support the ruling of the panel of judges. They said, that the 2nd amendment, as written, does not apply only to citizens. It is a universal right of "the people," under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution. I approve of this finding. I also approve of the panels decision to uphold deportation proceedings under a Federal ban on possession of firearms but illegal immigrants. We arrive at the desired result without chipping away at the scope of the 2nd Amendment. How is this not win-win? What's the problem here?

 

[batoncolle]

The recognition of limited diplomatic immunity notwithstanding, the US certainly has "jurisdiction" over citizens of another country when they are on sovereign US soil. If this wasn't so, then the US could not do anything about them "breaking the others laws" (as you said) except deport them.

Hence the reason I said "breaking other laws"...

 

[TheJ]

Hence the reason I said "breaking other laws"...

If the us has jurisdiction over citizens of another country to prosecute them for breaking laws while on US soil then those same people are by definition "subject to the jurisdiction of the US".

 

[TheJ]

Well first I hate to break this to you but defending one's self does not automatically equate to having a firearm. If I was being attacked, and for whatever reason I did not have a firearm, I'm not going to ask the attacker to hold off until I can retrieve a firearm.

And setting aside your utopian theories of how the world should work, we're not talking about human rights. We are discussing our laws and the US Constitution. And we're not going to get distracted with needless semantics either as you know exactly what I am referring to in this discussion when it comes to 2A and rights in general, and it ain't "human" rights. I have already stated multiple times that the Constitution places restrictions on the government, and it does not grant us rights.

This topic is covering a judge that for the first time in the history of this country has determined that 2A applies to illegal immigrants. We're not talking about self-defense because of course an illegal immigrant has the right to defend themselves, but once again this in no way automatically equates to firearm ownership.

We're talking about people who according to our laws are not supposed to be in this country, but yet they somehow have 2A rights anyway??? That truly is the height of absurdity. If the government was enforcing the immigration laws they created, and once again the right given to the government via the Constitution, then we would not even be having this conversation. It's just beyond asinine.

The right of self defense is a human right (or fundamental right as the SCOTUS describes it) and it is in part, that right the second amendment was created to protect. Firearms as a tool are the most effective tool as a means of self defense that exists. If a government denies the means of exercising a right, it is denying that right. If this were not held to be true then the government could ban all paper, writing instruments, internet, loud speakers, signs, art, speaking in public, etc and claim you still have a right to free speech. They could ban churches and wearing of religious symbols in public and claim you still have a right to freedom of religion. The government could create crazy tests they knew some people couldn't pass to prevent them from voting... Oh wait they tried that already. (Jim-Crow anyone?) In short, the right to bear arms is the right of self defense. Just because someone present in the US does not have legal status, does not mean we do not recognize their fundamental rights.


What about legal immigrants? Do they have a right to bear arms? Why or why not?

 

[batoncolle]

If the us has jurisdiction over citizens of another country to prosecute them for breaking laws while on US soil then those same people are by definition "subject to the jurisdiction of the US".

The only right an illegal immigrant has is to be deported, although they should not have been here in the first place. If an illegal breaks any additional laws while here, then we are able to prosecute them under our laws.

I honestly can't understand what is so hard to understand about the fact that by law these people have 0 right to be here, and they are to be deported. The rest of this discussion is just people's idiotic utopian desires and/or misrepresentation of our country's laws, founding, and the Constitution.

The right of self defense is a human right (or fundamental right as the SCOTUS describes it) and it is in part, that right the second amendment was created to protect. Firearms as a tool are the most effective tool as a means of self defense that exists. If a government denies the means of exercising a right, it is denying that right. If this were not held to be true then the government could ban all paper, writing instruments, internet, loud speakers, signs, art, speaking in public, etc and claim you still have a right to free speech. They could ban churches and wearing of religious symbols in public and claim you still have a right to freedom of religion. The government could create crazy tests they knew some people couldn't pass to prevent them from voting... Oh wait they tried that already. (Jim-Crow anyone?) In short, the right to bear arms is the right of self defense. Just because someone present in the US does not have legal status, does not mean we do not recognize their fundamental rights.


What about legal immigrants? Do they have a right to bear arms? Why or why not?

I have already covered this multiple times in this thread so I'm not going to repeat myself.

 

[TheJ]

The only right an illegal immigrant has is to be deported, although they should not have been here in the first place. If an illegal breaks any additional laws while here, then we are able to prosecute them under our laws.

I honestly can't understand what is so hard to understand about the fact that by law these people have 0 right to be here, and they are to be deported. The rest of this discussion is just people's idiotic utopian desires and/or misrepresentation of our country's laws, founding, and the Constitution.

The founders would not agree. You do realize that we had totally open borders for many many decades after the founding, right?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Note it doesn't say "all men who have legal US citizenship".

 

[batoncolle]

The founders would not agree. You do realize that we had totally open borders for many many decades after the founding, right?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Note it doesn't say "all men who have legal US citizenship".

It doesn't have to say anything. Article 1 Section 8 covers it.

And I get that some of you guys think that if the Founders were around today, they'd be discussing how Kim Jong Il enjoys "certain unalienable Rights", but I'll leave you guys to discuss those absurd theories amongst yourselves...

We are a nation with borders and laws. We are not a one world government.

 

[TheJ]

It doesn't have to say anything. Article 1 Section 8 covers it.

And I get that some of you guys think that if the Founders were around today, they'd be discussing how Kim Jong Il enjoys "certain unalienable Rights", but I'll leave you guys to discuss those absurd theories amongst yourselves...

We are a nation with borders and laws. We are not a one world government.

Article 1 section 8 doesn't say only citizens are protected by the constitution. Or that only US citizens have inalienable rights.

Do legal resident aliens get protection of rights from the constitution?

And your "one world government" comment strikes me as a bit of a straw man. I don't think anyone here is insisting that every person on the planet not on US soil is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. However, that doesn't mean everyone on the planet is not born with inalienable rights. Whether or not those rights are recognized and/or protected by in the jurisdiction of other governments is another matter entirely.