• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A federal court may have declared immigration arrests unconstitutional

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
7,656
Reaction score
3,652
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The 4th Amendemnt is probably not the proper amendment to litigate this claim. The 14th Amendment Due Process Clause regarding the deprivation of liberty, which is what is at issue, is the proper amendment to litigate this claim.

What you said reminds me of Scalia’s dissent in Hamdi v Rumsfeld where he explores the long history of “liberty” from indefinite detention, and that is enshrined in Due Process.
I agree that, litigation-wise, the 14th Amendment is the clearer statement. But the fundamental principle of Due Process is enshrined in the Constitution in numerous places. I should probably have noted that it appears explicitly in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]" Here, of course, there are two applicable points: seizure (of the person) (4th Amendment); and due process (5th Amendment). What the 14th Amendment made clear is that these conceptions are conjoined.

I also agree that at a minimum Scalia's statement in his Hamdi Dissent that "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive." is pertinent.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
7,656
Reaction score
3,652
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You guys need to read the case to find out why this is coming up.
Multiple indirect pronoun references makes the comment too confusing to respond to specifically ("you guys" and "this"), but here is the decision: GONZALEZ V. USICE. I didn't realize when I started this thread some of the facts of the underlying case. Of note, Gonzalez is a US citizen (so much for that argument).
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
21,065
Reaction score
18,588
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Multiple indirect pronoun references makes the comment too confusing to respond to specifically ("you guys" and "this"), but here is the decision: GONZALEZ V. USICE. I didn't realize when I started this thread some of the facts of the underlying case. Of note, Gonzalez is a US citizen (so much for that argument).
My point is this case is all about the mistaken detainment of a US Citizen by ICE, the legal qualifications for the case and inclusion of coverage by the decision is rather limited in scope. While it does apply to a detention center in California operated by ICE that does not circumvent who would be covered by the decision no matter which way it goes. The only way around this is the Supreme Court making a decision (assuming it gets there) that expands the impact of the decision.
 

mrjurrs

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
4,235
Reaction score
1,197
Location
The Bay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
What the US Constitution does is require the US government to enforce all immigration laws to the letter.

And any government employee, appointed judge, or elected official who refuses should be held legally accountable.
Please quote the area of the Constitution that says that. Thanks
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
7,656
Reaction score
3,652
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Please quote the area of the Constitution that says that. Thanks
I am constantly astounded by mindless statements of "law" or "fact" that are completely unsupported by either the law or facts. I find it disheartening.
 

Overitall

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
5,129
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The preamble is just that, a preamble. The preamble is not a declaration of rights. Neither is the preamble an expression of who the rights are applicable to under the Constitution.

The text of the amendments are what matters. The Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments are applicable to a “person,” which includes a citizen and non-citizen.

“No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/preamble-ic/interps/37
The word “preamble,” while accurate, does not quite capture the full importance of this provision. “Preamble” might be taken—we think wrongly—to imply that these words are merely an opening rhetorical flourish or frill without meaningful effect.

It was well understood at the time of enactment that preambles in legal documents were not themselves substantive provisions and thus should not be read to contradict, expand, or contract the document’s substantive terms.

But that does not mean the Constitution’s Preamble lacks its own legal force. Quite the contrary, it is the provision of the document that declares the enactment of the provisions that follow. Indeed, the Preamble has sometimes been termed the “Enacting Clause” of the Constitution,
When reading the word “person” you can’t just make up your own definition of who that is when it clearly makes it known in the preamble “We the people (later referred to as person).

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/persons-people-peoples/
Most of the time, people is the correct word to choose as a plural for person. Persons is archaic, and it is safe to avoid using it, except in legal writing, which has its own traditional language. Peoples is only necessary when you refer to distinct ethnic groups (for example, within the same region).
In the preamble the plural form of the singular word person is people. Each individual (person) encompassing “We (plural) the people (plural) of the United States . . .”(plural). is entitled to the rights expressed in the body of the Constitution.
 

NotreDame

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
506
Location
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/preamble-ic/interps/37


When reading the word “person” you can’t just make up your own definition of who that is when it clearly makes it known in the preamble “We the people (later referred to as person).

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/persons-people-peoples/


In the preamble the plural form of the singular word person is people. Each individual (person) encompassing “We (plural) the people (plural) of the United States . . .”(plural). is entitled to the rights expressed in the body of the Constitution.
That’s your answer? The preamble defined the word “person” in the 5th and 14th Amendments? And your evidence for such a link is what? You say so? Not likely. That would mean you are invoking an idiom for the word “person” because the meaning of the word “person” in 1790, when the BOR and 14th Amendment were drafted and ratified by 1791, the meaning of the word “person” didn’t include “citizen.” Rather, the meaning of the word “person” at the time was “a human being.” Consult a dictionary from the time.

There’s no evidence the word “person” in the 5th and 14th Amendment meant something other than the common meaning of “human being.”

The language of the due process clause, including the word “person,” long preceded the 5th and 14th Amendments. The wording traces its origin back to the Magna Charta, 39th clause, which says, “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

Notice the phrase “free man,” as such a phrase wasn’t limited to English citizenship, like the word “person.”

The words “due process” appeared in a 1354 English statute. “No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.”

Observe the word “man,” parallel to the use of the word “person” in that it’s meaning doesn’t invoke citizenship.

The framers, keenly aware of the word “citizenship” as it appears specifically in the Constitution, see Article 4, Section 2, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States,” see also
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President,” did NOT use the word “citizen” for the protections of Due Process. If they wanted to limit the protections of Due Process to “citizens,” then they would have done so, as they qualified other provisions in the Constitution with the specific word “citizen.”

But the framers didn’t use the word “citizen” in either Due Process Clause, but the word “person” instead, and as a result, neither Due Process Clause is limited by the word “citizen.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Overitall

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
5,129
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That’s your answer? The preamble defined the word “person” in the 5th and 14th Amendments? And your evidence for such a link is what? You say so? Not likely. That would mean you are invoking an idiom for the word “person” because the meaning of the word “person” in 1790, when the BOR and 14th Amendment were drafted and ratified by 1791, the meaning of the word “person” didn’t include “citizen.” Rather, the meaning of the word “person” at the time was “a human being.” Consult a dictionary from the time.

There’s no evidence the word “person” in the 5th and 14th Amendment meant something other than the common meaning of “human being.”

The language of the due process clause, including the word “person,” long preceded the 5th and 14th Amendments. The wording traces its origin back to the Magna Charta, 39th clause, which says, “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

Notice the phrase “free man,” as such a phrase wasn’t limited to English citizenship, like the word “person.”

The words “due process” appeared in a 1354 English statute. “No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.”

Observe the word “man,” parallel to the use of the word “person” in that it’s meaning doesn’t invoke citizenship.

The framers, keenly aware of the word “citizenship” as it appears specifically in the Constitution, see Article 4, Section 2, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States,” see also
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President,” did NOT use the word “citizen” for the protections of Due Process. If they wanted to limit the protections of Due Process to “citizens,” then they would have done so, as they qualified other provisions in the Constitution with the specific word “citizen.”

But the framers didn’t use the word “citizen” in either Due Process Clause, but the word “person” instead, and as a result, neither Due Process Clause is limited by the word “citizen.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The word “citizen” doesn’t exist in the preamble either.

The “natural born citizen” does not apply to Congress. There the requirements is seven years as a citizen.

In any case you’re just proving my point. Not any “person” can enjoy the benefits of the Constitution. Only a “person” who has attained citizenship by birth or becomes a citizen. The Constitution was written for and by “We the people of the United States. All those “persons” who visit here are just that visitors. There are requirements for their continued stay in our country. They can be deported. Try deporting a citizen (or person of the United States).
 

Empirica

Transcend
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
4,366
Reaction score
1,691
Location
Here to Eternity
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Illegal entry should be treated as a violation of the law but let the punishment fit the crime.
Most countries treat it as "unauthorized". It is a civil violation, and the punishment may involve immediate deportation if the person is convicted of one or more crimes, certainly above that of a minor misdemeanor.
It may also only involve fines and more paperwork instead, and reporting requirements with deadlines for finishing and/or correcting the process, with steps involved in determining if the entrant has the potential to be here with authorization, and demands to fulfill those requirements if so.
Illegals have brought crime, street gangs, disease, bedbugs, and burdens on schools, prisons, hospital ERs, social services and US taxpayers in general.

Entering the US illegibly and/or being in the US illegally, should be considered extremely serious crimes...because they are!

And upon discovery of a suspects illegal status, they should be detained and the process of deportation begun immediately!

And under no circumstance should Amnesty be granted to any illegal alien because rewarding this crime is what made it epidemic!

Even 11 million illegal aliens in the US is epidemic but some believe it could be as high as 20 million to 30 million illegal aliens...

Employers are not held responsible enough for screening, and the tools for them to use if they try are paltry and clumsy.
Employers should be required to access a national data base for quick and reliable verification of every job applicants citizenship.

And employers of unverified "citizens" should be subjected to high fines for each and every undocumented worker on their payroll.

All of this is for a very obvious reason: This administration, like many before it, LOVES illegal immigration. But they love it on an altogether bigger level.

If all illegal immigration or entry were to magically drop to ZERO tomorrow, it would result in waves of catastrophic bankruptcies followed by a bigger wave of lawsuits by the industry that this administration PROPS UP in true fascist style.
This administration has catapulted the profit-based private detentions and corrections industries to levels several orders of magnitude above anything in our history. This industry is to Trump what The Carlyle Group was to Bush43.

The Trump Camp is not out to fix illegal immigration, they're making more money than God off it, at taxpayer expense.
We are underwriting concentration camps.
The issue is whether or not a person is here with authorization from federal and state governments.
The shortest, cheapest, most efficient route is to correct the situation when possible.
There must be a bar of merit applied if for no other reason than almost every other country does it.
But moreover, we do have the right to demand a certain amount of net socio-economic positives.
These should be reasonable, and so should administrative fees and penalties.
If they are refugees, they must be processed by a uniform method, and we also have the right to set limits on numbers of refugees admitted for processing.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Checkerboard; but this is a collection of gobbledygook, mumbo-jumbo, and poppycock...

This is the propaganda of radical leftist social engineers pushing for open borders to destroy Western Culture/Capitalism; the #1 ideo-political enemy of all Marxists.

All those young naturally rebellious college students might buy this progressive garbage, and some will even carry it to adulthood; but the majority of us are smart enough to spot a trash barge when we see one and smell it when it gets too close.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

I'm the Leon Russell guy.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
36,288
Reaction score
19,670
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
[QUOTE-@Checkerboard Strangler]All of this is for a very obvious reason: This administration, like many before it, LOVES illegal immigration. But they love it on an altogether bigger level.

If all illegal immigration or entry were to magically drop to ZERO tomorrow, it would result in waves of catastrophic bankruptcies followed by a bigger wave of lawsuits by the industry that this administration PROPS UP in true fascist style. [/QUOTE]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Checkerboard; but this is a collection of gobbledygook, mumbo-jumbo, and poppy****...
Well, you should have zero difficulty debunking it with facts and data that prove Trump's cronies are NOT in the business to make a profit. I am sure their shareholders will be very happy to hear that news.

Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) depends on Heartland Human Services to run five shelters in the Chicago area for approximately 400 unaccompanied children. Despite the "nonprofit" designation, these companies are still making a lot of profit from these arrangements. Southwest Key Programs, another nonprofit that runs shelters for Health and Human Services, made $955 million just since 2015. Its former CEO resigned last year when it became public that he earned $1.5 million in 2016—the Washington Post confirmed this week that he earned $3.6 million in 2017.

GEO Group and CoreCivic earned a combined $985 million from contracts with ICE in 2017.
In These Times has meticulously documented companies profiting from immigrant detention: "The corporations get paid whether the beds are full or not, arguably providing government an incentive to seek out prisoners so as not to 'waste money.'"
And that's because these companies DO SUE when they have too many vacancies, and Trump has even sued California over the state ban on private prisons.

By the way, you will note that I included references that precede Trump because I thought private prisons were unacceptable even during Obama. By the way, Trump reversed Obama's eventual disconnect FROM private prisons.
 

NotreDame

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
506
Location
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The word “citizen” doesn’t exist in the preamble either.

The “natural born citizen” does not apply to Congress. There the requirements is seven years as a citizen.

In any case you’re just proving my point. Not any “person” can enjoy the benefits of the Constitution. Only a “person” who has attained citizenship by birth or becomes a citizen. The Constitution was written for and by “We the people of the United States. All those “persons” who visit here are just that visitors. There are requirements for their continued stay in our country. They can be deported. Try deporting a citizen (or person of the United States).
No, I’m not “proving your point.” In fact, I’ve undermined “your point.”

When I say the word “person” means “human being,” that isn’t “proving your point.” To the contrary, its weakening “your point,” because the phrase “human being” is broader than “citizen” and includes human beings who are “non-citizens” as human beings are either “citizens or non-citizens.” That isn’t “proving your point” but weakening it.

Second, when I illustrate the framers knew how to use the word “citizen” and specifically reference in parts of the Constitution, evinces they know how to limit what they are taking about to “citizen.” In regards to the Due Process Clause, they didn’t use the word “citizen” as they did elsewhere, demonstrating they didn’t limit the protections of the Due Process Clause to citizens. That doesn’t “prove your point” but specifically, by its content, seeks to weaken “your point.”

So, no, what I’ve said doesn’t “prove your point.” What I have said is contrary to your point, and seeks to specifically refute “your point.”

Not any “person” can enjoy the benefits of the Constitution.
That’s a strawman. The issue was applicability of the Due Process Clause and 4th Amendment to “persons,” which includes people who aren’t citizens. The conversation isn’t about the “benefits of the constitution” generally.

The Constitution was written for and by “We the people of the United States.
Repeating it X number of times doesn’t make it true. There’s absolutely no evidence the preamble was an universal declaration for every line in the Constitution to be made applicable to only citizens. You are free to believe what you want, despite a lack of evidence for your belief, just as flat earth believers today do not have any evidence for their belief the earth is flat.

The preamble doesn’t change the meaning of “person” as the word appears in the Constitution. There’s no evidence supporting any notion this is the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Overitall

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
5,129
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No, I’m not “proving your point.” In fact, I’ve undermined “your point.”

When I say the word “person” means “human being,” that isn’t “proving your point.” To the contrary, its weakening “your point,” because the phrase “human being” is broader than “citizen” and includes human beings who are “non-citizens” as human beings are either “citizens or non-citizens.” That isn’t “proving your point” but weakening it.

Second, when I illustrate the framers knew how to use the word “citizen” and specifically reference in parts of the Constitution, evinces they know how to limit what they are taking about to “citizen.” In regards to the Due Process Clause, they didn’t use the word “citizen” as they did elsewhere, demonstrating they didn’t limit the protections of the Due Process Clause to citizens. That doesn’t “prove your point” but specifically, by its content, seeks to weaken “your point.”

So, no, what I’ve said doesn’t “prove your point.” What I have said is contrary to your point, and seeks to specifically refute “your point.”



That’s a strawman. The issue was applicability of the Due Process Clause and 4th Amendment to “persons,” which includes people who aren’t citizens. The conversation isn’t about the “benefits of the constitution” generally.



Repeating it X number of times doesn’t make it true. There’s absolutely no evidence the preamble was an universal declaration for every line in the Constitution to be made applicable to only citizens. You are free to believe what you want, despite a lack of evidence for your belief, just as flat earth believers today do not have any evidence for their belief the earth is flat.

The preamble doesn’t change the meaning of “person” as the word appears in the Constitution. There’s no evidence supporting any notion this is the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of is a preposition expressing the relationship between a part and a whole. In this case between people and the United States.

Let’s substitute your word human being for people.

We, the human beings of the United States. . .. All people are human beings but not all human beings have a relationship to the United States. Human beings belong to the class/group of mankind. But not all mankind belongs to the class/group of United States. The word “of” is the key to the interpretation.

A preamble sets the stage (so to speak) for what follows. It sets the parameters of to whom it is applicable to. In this case “We the people of. . ..”

For many years I’ve had (and observed) these types of discussions and typically they end up the same. Disagreeing. But I remind people that the Supreme Court always has an odd number of justices sitting on the court for a good reason. Their role is to settle disagreements. An even number would bring only chaos. But one should note that even among these Constitutional scholars there is disagreement. An opinion of the majority and a dissenting opinion of the minority. And the debate among the citizens continue for decades.

Our current situation with an empty SC seat only highlights the potential Constitutional crisis we may face. A tie does not settle law.

You have your interpretation and I have mine of the Constitution. Who is right? It doesn’t matter. Sometimes agreeing to disagree is the best course forward.

Thanks for your insights.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
11,589
Reaction score
3,217
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is an issue with many variables, 1) The Federal government is responsible for immigration, not the States, the States ceded that power when they became a State. 2) Does the Federal government have the right to arrest people who break federal laws? 3) Does "We the people" as draft in the preamble to the Constitution mean "All people regardless of citizenship" or does it mean "U.S. citizens" ? 4) The 14th amendment says 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. Does this pertain to just U.S. citizens or does it mean all people citizens or not?

A "person", such as an immigrant perceived as illegal or what, is not necessarily a "citizen" and is under the US Constitution afforded due process.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
11,589
Reaction score
3,217
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A federal court may have declared immigration arrests unconstitutional (The Hill, Opinion).

A fundamental aspect of "due process" is the opportunity to be heard. The Ninth Circuit has raised that issue with regard to immigration arrests, and I think it is a valid one that deserves to be a addressed. Immigration detainees are incarcerated for indefinite periods - months, years - with no meaningful opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of their detention. That, I think, is a fundamental problem.

IMHO, while there may be legitimate reasons to distinguish immigration cases from criminal cases, the fundamental Fourth Amendment considerations regarding "seizure" still apply. The Fourth Amendment is intended to safeguard against unchecked government power. We, as a society, have deemed it a fundamental right within our borders. It's not a matter of citizenship, it is a matter of presence: if we want to contend we have the legal authority to assert jurisdiction, we must comport our behavior to our fundamental principles.

My question is why such a judgement hasn't been made before or a case presented in a manner for such a judgement. And, if an undocumented immigrant turns themselves in to a local authority for entering the US illegally, can the local authority arrange due process, release the immigrant and thus the feds can't take the immigrant into custody because court appearance is in process? Maybe a way to avoid the rabid ICE and Trump border enforcement that defies due process.
 

NotreDame

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
506
Location
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Let’s substitute your word human being for people.

We, the human beings of the United States. . .. All people are human beings but not all human beings have a relationship to the United States. Human beings belong to the class/group of mankind. But not all mankind belongs to the class/group of United States. The word “of” is the key to the interpretation.

For many years I’ve had (and observed) these types of discussions and typically they end up the same. Disagreeing. But I remind people that the Supreme Court always has an odd number of justices sitting on the court for a good reason. Their role is to settle disagreements. An even number would bring only chaos. But one should note that even among these Constitutional scholars there is disagreement. An opinion of the majority and a dissenting opinion of the minority. And the debate among the citizens continue for decades.

Our current situation with an empty SC seat only highlights the potential Constitutional crisis we may face. A tie does not settle law.

You have your interpretation and I have mine of the Constitution. Who is right? It doesn’t matter. Sometimes agreeing to disagree is the best course forward.

Thanks for your insights.
Who is right is determined by the evidence and reasoning.

There isn’t one shred of evidence for your interpretation. Anyone on the planet can have an interpretation but not all interpretations are equal. Those interpretations supported by evidence and logical inferences from the evidence are superior. Your interpretation is evidentiary anemic.

Of is a preposition expressing the relationship between a part and a whole. In this case between people and the United States.
Yes, that is right but you are erroneously treating the relationship as exclusively “citizenship,” and doing so for the entirety of the Constitution. There’s absolutely no evidence to support your treatment of the preamble in this specific manner. None. Neither is there any evidence the word “person” in the BOR and other amendments exclusively meant “citizen.”

Indeed, once again, the plain meaning of “person” in 1789, 1790, and 1791, meant human being, just as it does today.

We, the human beings of the United States. . .. All people are human beings but not all human beings have a relationship to the United States.
That doesn’t help your point. Rather, you’ve weakened your argument above.

My point is at least some of the protections in the BOR are not exclusively for “citizens” as you contend, but for non-citizens as well. The word “person” is used in the BOR at times, specifically the 5th Amendemnt, and the word “person” isn’t limited in meaning to “citizen,” but means “human being.” Which is to say, any person subject to the authority of the U.S., especially on U.S. soil, is protected by those parts of the BOR where the word “person” is used. (They are otherwise protected elsewhere by the BOR where the restriction is generally to federal power).

A preamble sets the stage (so to speak) for what follows. It sets the parameters of to whom it is applicable to. In this case “We the people of. . ..”
Of course, but nobody is arguing the Constitution is for the people of Norway. I’m saying the word “person” in the 5th and 14th Amendments is applicable to non-citizens, who naturally are subject to the legal authority of the U.S., especially when on U.S. soil. After all, those two amendments say “person” and not “citizen.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Overitall

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
5,129
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Who is right is determined by the evidence and reasoning.

There isn’t one shred of evidence for your interpretation. Anyone on the planet can have an interpretation but not all interpretations are equal. Those interpretations supported by evidence and logical inferences from the evidence are superior. Your interpretation is evidentiary anemic.



Yes, that is right but you are erroneously treating the relationship as exclusively “citizenship,” and doing so for the entirety of the Constitution. There’s absolutely no evidence to support your treatment of the preamble in this specific manner. None. Neither is there any evidence the word “person” in the BOR and other amendments exclusively meant “citizen.”

Indeed, once again, the plain meaning of “person” in 1789, 1790, and 1791, meant human being, just as it does today.



That doesn’t help your point. Rather, you’ve weakened your argument above.

My point is at least some of the protections in the BOR are not exclusively for “citizens” as you contend, but for non-citizens as well. The word “person” is used in the BOR at times, specifically the 5th Amendemnt, and the word “person” isn’t limited in meaning to “citizen,” but means “human being.” Which is to say, any person subject to the authority of the U.S., especially on U.S. soil, is protected by those parts of the BOR where the word “person” is used. (They are otherwise protected elsewhere by the BOR where the restriction is generally to federal power).



Of course, but nobody is arguing the Constitution is for the people of Norway. I’m saying the word “person” in the 5th and 14th Amendments is applicable to non-citizens, who naturally are subject to the legal authority of the U.S., especially when on U.S. soil. After all, those two amendments say “person” and not “citizen.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I will refer you to the Dred vs Sandford case and ask you. Was Dred a human being?
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
15,858
Reaction score
6,912
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Using that logic, what will stop a theoretical boat invasion of ships from China disembarking in US ports.

Obviously, the need for a passport has been erased by “due process”.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
7,656
Reaction score
3,652
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
My question is why such a judgement hasn't been made before or a case presented in a manner for such a judgement.
I've wondered for a long time why a court hasn't weighed in on the absolute abuses being perpetuated by the immigration enforcement system. Perhaps it took the Trump administration bringing them out in the open and extending them so far.
And, if an undocumented immigrant turns themselves in to a local authority for entering the US illegally, can the local authority arrange due process, release the immigrant and thus the feds can't take the immigrant into custody because court appearance is in process? Maybe a way to avoid the rabid ICE and Trump border enforcement that defies due process.
I'm not sure who you mean by "local authority". The federal government has exclusive authority over immigration and naturalization.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
7,656
Reaction score
3,652
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Who is right is determined by the evidence and reasoning.

There isn’t one shred of evidence for your interpretation. Anyone on the planet can have an interpretation but not all interpretations are equal. Those interpretations supported by evidence and logical inferences from the evidence are superior. ....
I wanted to commend your patience. I broke my rule and opened up the "ignored" posts to better understand the substance (or complete lack thereof) that you were addressing. Whew. What a bunch of ahistorical nonsense!

When I posted the OP, I was, perhaps, a bit hasty - I was reacting. You have brought clarity to the subject that that is much appreciated. Well presented, my friend. Keep it up.
 

NotreDame

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
506
Location
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I will refer you to the Dred vs Sandford case and ask you. Was Dred a human being?
I’ve read the decision. How exactly do you think it applies here? It doesn’t but I’m most interested in knowing how you think it does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Overitall

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
5,129
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I’ve read the decision. How exactly do you think it applies here? It doesn’t but I’m most interested in knowing how you think it does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Definitions.
 

NotreDame

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
506
Location
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Definitions.
Yeah? So? You do realize it dealt with a black male as a slave, claiming feeedom, in which at the time slaves were recognized as chattel property. The majority opinion was limited to slaves and African Americans. That doesn’t help your point to non-citizens because they are not slaves, are not property, and are people, persons, under the law of the U.S. now.

And the 14th amendment abrogated the Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott decision is no longer good law.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Overitall

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
5,129
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yeah? So? You do realize it dealt with a black male as a slave, claiming feeedom, in which at the time slaves were recognized as chattel property. The majority opinion was limited to slaves and African Americans. That doesn’t help your point to non-citizens because they are not slaves, are not property, and are people, persons, under the law of the U.S. now.

And the 14th amendment abrogated the Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott decision is no longer good law.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wonder how much of the case you’ve actually read.
We think ... that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.
Interesting that you chose not to directly answer my question. Dred was considered property (a thing) rather than a human being (a person). Bad law? Sure it was, but it shows that men of great scholarly minds can get it wrong. It comes down to interpretation.
 

ClaraD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
11,053
Reaction score
3,305
Location
Mt Pleasant, South Carolina
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
No Clara they are guests in our country. If you were a guest in my home and violated my rules I can toss you out on your butt without a thought about your rights because you simply don’t have any. You have privileges. You’re subject to my jurisdiction because I allowed you to enter my home.
however, you cannot hold me hostage in your home for the amount of time you decide to...and this is the problem....the US is not something you own....and while we have laws...apparently the president does not know how to follow those laws....nor does ICE for that matter.
 

ClaraD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
11,053
Reaction score
3,305
Location
Mt Pleasant, South Carolina
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Illegals have brought crime, street gangs, disease, bedbugs, and burdens on schools, prisons, hospital ERs, social services and US taxpayers in general.

Entering the US illegibly and/or being in the US illegally, should be considered extremely serious crimes...because they are!

And upon discovery of a suspects illegal status, they should be detained and the process of deportation begun immediately!

And under no circumstance should Amnesty be granted to any illegal alien because rewarding this crime is what made it epidemic!

Even 11 million illegal aliens in the US is epidemic but some believe it could be as high as 20 million to 30 million illegal aliens...


Employers should be required to access a national data base for quick and reliable verification of every job applicants citizenship.

And employers of unverified "citizens" should be subjected to high fines for each and every undocumented worker on their payroll.


Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Checkerboard; but this is a collection of gobbledygook, mumbo-jumbo, and poppy****...

This is the propaganda of radical leftist social engineers pushing for open borders to destroy Western Culture/Capitalism; the #1 ideo-political enemy of all Marxists.

All those young naturally rebellious college students might buy this progressive garbage, and some will even carry it to adulthood; but the majority of us are smart enough to spot a trash barge when we see one and smell it when it gets too close.
The case is about a US citizen illegally detained by ICE....how are you going to address that instead of the nonsense you just plastered all over the board?
 
Top Bottom