View Full Version : Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally
Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/court-second-amendment-also-covers-those-in-us-illegally/ar-BBm5Bx1?li=BBgzzfc)
[Bang]
MADISON, Wis. — People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from Mexico illegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th Circuit ruling. Now an adult, he was arrested in 2013 after a bar fight in Milwaukee. Police found a .22-caliber bullet in his shorts pocket.
Federal law prohibits people in the country illegally from possessing guns or ammunition. Meza-Rodriguez argued that the charges should be dismissed because the law infringes on his Second Amendment right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa rejected that contention on the broad grounds that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally. Meza-Rodriguez was ultimately convicted of a felony and deported.
The 7th Circuit panel, however, ruled unanimously Thursday that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also applies to those in the country illegally. The ruling, which applies in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, conflicts with opinions from three other federal appellate courts in recent years that found the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally.
"We see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that the unauthorized (or maybe all noncitizens) are excluded," Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote.
But the panel upheld Meza-Rodriguez's conviction, saying the federal ban on people in the country illegally possessing weapons remains valid. Wood wrote that the right to bear arms isn't unlimited and the government has a strong interest in preventing people who have already broken the law by coming to the country illegally from carrying guns.
Meza-Rodriguez's attorney, Joseph Bugni, said the decision contradicts itself. He plans to ask all nine active 7th Circuit judges to review the case together. If Meza-Rodriguez doesn't prevail at that level he'll go to the U.S. Supreme Court, Bugni said.
Judge Joel M. Flaum, a member of the panel, wrote in a concurring opinion that he doubts the Second Amendment applies to people in the country illegally. He acknowledged that the decision conflicts with other federal rulings and said the panel shouldn't have addressed the broader constitutional question since the possession ban is clearly legal.
As do all of the other amendments. This opens up the path to felons owning guns though, as many of us believe they should be allowed.
Bailey Guns
08-26-2015, 06:19
So the court said:
1) Illegal aliens have a right to keep and bear arms under the 2A.
and
2) Illegal aliens cannot exercise that right because the law prohibits it.
Makes perfect sense.
Oh, my. The courts have become very, very scary places. Now, no means yes. What could possibly go wrong?
dirtrulz
08-26-2015, 07:25
Will never understand how something given to citizens of a country can apply to people who are not citizens. But i guess if your argument is that guns are a god given right then citizenship doesnt matter.
Believing that the government hands out rights to specific people is a terrifying thought path. I encourage anyone who feels that way to seriously re-evaluate what they believe rights to be. Our country was based on the idea that people are born with certain unalienable rights, and people who are within America will not have those unalienable rights restricted by our government. I wouldn't feel too far off by stating that is pretty much the whole point of the United States of America. You'd be shocked how many people honestly believe they are not at fault for causing an auto accident because they think the other driver is here illegally.
Wait, what? How does a noncitizen, present in this country without legal status, have any claim whatsoever to any of the rights (and the commensurate responsibilities!) of a citizen or person with legal residency status? Seriously, are the judges of the 7th Circuit that fucking stupid?
HoneyBadger
08-26-2015, 10:29
Wait, what? How does a noncitizen, present in this country without legal status, have any claim whatsoever to any of the rights (and the commensurate responsibilities!) of a citizen or person with legal residency status? Seriously, are the judges of the 7th Circuit that fucking stupid?
Well, ALL people have these rights, but our Constitution only establishes the government's role to protect the rights of US citizens. A right is fundamentally something universal that is not granted by a governing body.
Interesting observation: I've looked at about a dozen constitutions and the US constitution is the only one that I found that actually says what the GOVERNMENT is allowed to do. The rest all specify what the PEOPLE are allowed to do. i.e.: Our constitution recognizes that the government's role is to protect the rights of its citizens whereas other constitutions attempt to define the "rights" that the citizens will be allowed to have.
And this is why I shouldn't read threads from bottom to top:
Believing that the government hands out rights to specific people is a terrifying thought path. I encourage anyone who feels that way to seriously re-evaluate what they believe rights to be. Our country was based on the idea that people are born with certain unalienable rights, and people who are within America will not have those unalienable rights restricted by our government. I wouldn't feel too far off by stating that is pretty much the whole point of the United States of America.
Irving, you highlighted exactly the philosophical problem that our founders sought to solve. Fredrick Bastiat's The Law contains a very logical and well-reasoned approach to the origin of rights and why the government cannot effectively issue them, but how the government's primary role should be protecting the rights that all people inherently have. It's a short and fairly straightforward read, but something that should be a part of everyone's personal library.
Looks like we've strayed further from the path than I thought. Freedom is all encompassing by nature fellas.
sellersm
08-26-2015, 11:16
Yep, the government's job description is pretty short! In fact, it's so short that there should be no .gov employees and only part-time representatives...
I get that rights are inherent in all people, but it seems that this ruling basically states that people that flout the laws of this country and have no allegiance to it can clothe themselves in the protections and guarantees afforded to citizens when it is convenient. Rights without commensurate responsibilities are the downfall of great civilizations.
I don't think rights come with requirements to have them. Requirements to keep then sure, but not to have them in the first place.
BPTactical
08-26-2015, 13:43
So how's that gonna work out on a 4473?
So how's that gonna work out on a 4473?
Oh they'll eliminate that line and replace it with one that says -->
Are you a citizen? Si or No. If you check box Si Pay $1000, if you check box No ignore this question and you may steal anything in this store that isn't nailed down.
If we're to be a sovereign nation, we must have defensible borders. The problem is that there should be no illegals to then generate all of the other associated issues like anchor babies, government benefits going to non-citizens, drivers licenses for illegals, etc.
If we're to be a sovereign nation, we must have defensible borders. The problem is that there should be no illegals to then generate all of the other associated issues like anchor babies, government benefits going to non-citizens, drivers licenses for illegals, etc.
Exactly. I was trying to figure out how to say what you said. If the government had done its job in the first place we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
I don't believe any illegal alien should have the all same constitutional rights as the citizens. This will lead to big problems especially when it comes to voting rights. I also don't think any group or individual should be allow to come into this country illegally unchecked and then be lawfully allowed to arm themselves. I understand the difference between rights "everybody" should have (god given) and rights only "citizens" should have (man given). I believe god given right are in the constitution and man given rights are in the Bill of Rights. There are many rights in the Bill of Rights if given to every illegal alien would be problematic.
I am torn on this though, increasing gun ownership is generally a good thing. I don't believe the majority of illegals owning guns would be bent on doing harm and it could increase the pro 2A voting block.
How would you feel if he was asleep in his bed and was defending himself during a break-in?
I don't believe any illegal alien should have the all same constitutional rights as the citizens. This will lead to big problems especially when it comes to voting rights. I also don't think any group or individual should be allow to come into this country illegally unchecked and then be lawfully allowed to arm themselves. I understand the difference between rights "everybody" should have (god given) and rights only "citizens" should have (man given). I believe god given right are in the constitution and man given rights are in the Bill of Rights. There are many rights in the Bill of Rights if given to every illegal alien would be problematic.
I am torn on this though, increasing gun ownership is generally a good thing. I don't believe the majority of illegals owning guns would be bent on doing harm and it could increase the pro 2A voting block.
Our rights are not given by the government, they are protected from restriction by our government.
Illegals have the right to do as they please, those are inalienable rights granted by nature to all free men. However, that doesn't mean they are protected from Government restrictions of those rights like US citizens are, considering their status.
How would you feel if he was asleep in his bed and was defending himself during a break-in?
If he were asleep in his bed in Mexico, I could care less how he defended himself.
We either have borders and immigration laws or we don't. If we don't, then why do any of the other "laws" mean anything?
Enough with the Executive Branch picking and choosing which laws get enforced. That's pretty much the definition of tyranny.
What does Mexico have to do with anything?
buffalobo
08-26-2015, 22:30
What does Mexico have to do with anything?
Pretty sure that would be tacos.
Our immigration laws and policies are ridiculous and very dangerous.
How would you feel if he was asleep in his bed and was defending himself during a break-in?
Anybody breaking the law shouldn't sleep well at night. Maybe I could have been clearer and said they're not allowed to arm themselves with a gun. Let them buy a baseball bat if that helps law breakers sleep. If they go through proper channels to be here legally then they should be allowed to get a gun to protect themselves.
I say stop calling them illegal aliens and start calling it what it is, Breaking and Entering America and third time should be a felony?
So you'd charge a four year-old with a felony?
kidicarus13
08-27-2015, 06:52
Where's The Donald when you need him?
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.
Any person would include citizens and non-citizen alike. (see 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)
68Charger
08-27-2015, 07:37
They shouldn't need a felony charge for a .22LR bullet to deport him- the fact that he's here illegally should be enough to deport him.
but that's not the way Dem's roll- they want him to vote.
68Charger
08-27-2015, 07:40
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.
Any person would include citizens and non-citizen alike. (see 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)
But you're ignoring THIS part... But I still say they can only discuss their rights while we're filling out the paperwork to deport them. I'll be kind- send them back with a copy of the procedures to come into this country LEGALLY.
I'm not ignoring it. The first portion of Section 1. describes who citizens are. The amendment discusses citizens and all people. How some people can be identified as citizens; birth or naturalized, and the equal protection of all people under the law.
Just as with any amendment, courts may interpret, but if We are dissatisfied with the amendment, We can amend the Constitution to reflect what We want it to mean.
Great-Kazoo
08-27-2015, 08:24
Wait, what? How does a noncitizen, present in this country without legal status, have any claim whatsoever to any of the rights (and the commensurate responsibilities!) of a citizen or person with legal residency status? Seriously, are the judges of the 7th Circuit that fucking stupid?
You're forgetting the Lefts demand terrorist be read their rights and tried in a U.S Court of law, vs military tribunal.
How can we even try to have an intelligent conversation if anyone thinks it's realistic to deport a person who was brought here when he was five years-old?
The federal government is incapable of deporting hundreds of thousands, much less millions of people who have over stayed their visas. IMO, self-deportation is the only realistic method for dealing with illegal immigration.
Our nation also needs to come to terms with the addiction We have to cheap labor. When laws are enforced that penalize businesses and criminally prosecute corporate owners that profit on the employment of cheap illegal immigrant labor and force employers to employ legal residents, many immigrants will self-deport and even more potential immigrants will not come to the USA. The cheap illegal immigrant labor is actually subsidized by the taxpayers who provide many of the services utilized by people who need those services because of the conditions of their employment.
Ammending the Constitution to address birth right citizenship is probably as unrealistic as getting either of the major parties to address their own self interest in encouraging the current trends in illegal immigration. For all Donald Trump's bluster on the subject, I'm afraid this issue is beyond the ability of our national government to deal with. We made this problem and have compounded the complexities of the problem over the past 70 years. I think that only some very significant national tragedy will embolden the electorate to address illegal immigration.
How can we even try to have an intelligent conversation if anyone thinks it's realistic to deport a person who was brought here when he was five years-old?
Seriously. Age 6 is my cut off.
68Charger
08-27-2015, 14:36
How can we even try to have an intelligent conversation if anyone thinks it's realistic to deport a person who was brought here when he was five years-old?
Is this like squatter's rights, or more like statute of limitations? I don't have a problem with a path to citizenship, but I do with somebody knowing they're here illegally and continuing to do nothing about it.
I also have a problem with officials/administration that just ignore the law for their political agenda... but that's reality.
What exactly would you do if you were brought here by your parents when you were five years old?
I was brought here by my parents when I was one year old.
Well, I how you don't feel safe at night and why haven't you gone back to wherever you were born yet?
68Charger
08-27-2015, 16:06
What exactly would you do if you were brought here by your parents when you were five years old?
That's a pretty damn open-ended question... I'm sure there would be 1000s of factors that would determine what I would EXACTLY do... but I'll bite-
If I didn't want to feel like a fugitive from the law all the time, I'd find out what it took to become a citizen and go thru the process- but then again, I was an ambitious child.
Otherwise, I'd feel like a fugitive if I was in this country illegally. I'm sure you can come up with excuses about he was raised that way- doesn't change the fact he is here illegally.
What exactly would you do if you were brought here by your parents when you were five years old?
What's being done about the next 10,000 illegal 5 year olds? Nothing.
We can keep debating this issue until the cows come home. Not a damn thing is being done to stem the flow.
We can't even observe the rule of holes; When you find you're in one, put down the shovel.
Well, I how you don't feel safe at night and why haven't you gone back to wherever you were born yet?
I did from 1981-1984 and they deported me.
Keep in mind that 60% of all illegal immigrants enter the country legally. The federal government has no ability, and no plans to create a system to track visa overstays. Border security is important but does not address the current issue of illegal immigration.
Undocumented minors at the border or already in the country are not handled by the agencies most of us think of when we talk about immigration; DHS, INS, CIS, etc... These cases are handled by the Department of Health and Human Services http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/programs/ucs/about
The federal government has no ability, and no plans to create a system to track visa overstays. Border security is important but does not address the current issue of illegal immigration.
Bullshit. They have the ability to track every phone call or email we send. They can track the money we earn via the IRS (just try not reporting wages on your W-2). They have an almost unlimited budget of our tax dollars. They can track what they want to track.
What they don't have is the will to enforce the law. Border security has a lot to do with it, because they have to get here in the first place. Whether they do it by exploiting our crappy visa system or by simply walking over the border.
What's being done about the next 10,000 illegal 5 year olds? Nothing.
We can keep debating this issue until the cows come home. Not a damn thing is being done to stem the flow.
We can't even observe the rule of holes; When you find you're in one, put down the shovel.
I agree with all this, but what to do about one individual, compared to what to do about future immigration is a different conversion. As a country we're far better off discussing future solutions to immigration, than complaining about sunshine shouldn't have been here to start with. That point is completely beside the point and has zero relevance to anything. I just find it pointless to say, "...he shouldn't have been here to start with..." well, they are, so let's not waste time discussing make believe situations.
Also, I noticed no part of your answer included any self-deportation, which is the point I was trying to make.
Bullshit. They have the ability to track every phone call or email we send. They can track the money we earn via the IRS (just try not reporting wages on your W-2). They have an almost unlimited budget of our tax dollars. They can track what they want to track.
What they don't have is the will to enforce the law. Border security has a lot to do with it, because they have to get here in the first place. Whether they do it by exploiting our crappy visa system or by simply walking over the border.
My comment was not about capability. I simply meant that as of today, the federal government has no system, and there are no plans to create a system, which will track visa overstays. I agree that there is no political will in this country that will compel Congress or the President to address the issue. I believe that significant players in both parties see the current illegal immigration issue as working for their own interests.
If not one single person illegally crossed the US border next year, we would still have a significant illegal immigration problem in the US and hundreds of thousands of people legally entering the country would become illegal immigrants when their visa expire.
IMO, tracking phone calls and emails is a piece of cake technologically compared to tracking people.
Another interesting statistic is that 85% of illegal immigrants currently in the US have at least one US citizen family member. Current immigration enforcement (for the past 20 years at least) has given preference to not deporting illegal immigrants who have family ties to a US citizen. Based on this statistic alone, it seems highly improbable that any politician gain office or would remain in office if they were to support rounding up illegal immigrants while breaking up the families of US citizens.
When Mexico and Central America provide equal or better living conditions and opportunities than the US, most illegal immigrants will not come to the US. How do we make the US look worse to illegal immigrants while making their opportunities at home seem more appealing?
UPDATE: I would like to correct my post above. There is a law, passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2004; 8 U.S. Code ยง 1365b - Biometric entry and exit data system The first few years of the system resulted in US-VISIT and the current system is under the control of DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management. As of 2013, the federal government has admitted that they are still unable to meet the requirements of the statute even after millions of dollars and a decade working on a solution. http://www.dhs.gov/news/2013/11/13/written-testimony-dhs-assistant-secretary-policy-house-committee-judiciary-hearing
I stand behind my opinion that the best solution to illegal immigration in the US is finding ways to encourage self deportation.
So you'd charge a four year-old with a felony?
That's just silly, you would not arrest anybodies 5 year old kids if they are in the car when the adults commit a crime. Here's what you do, arrest their adult legal guardians (parents) because I don't believe most 5 year olds are coming here on there own. If your parents brought you here illegally when you were 5 and you are now 18 and still don't understand the concept of illegal alien then your an idiot and should be deported. If your 18, here illegally and have done nothing to rectify the issue except hide in the basement and hope it all goes away then yes you are guilty of a crime.
Our government believes it can register and track every gun in this country, and that is an inanimate object smaller than a bread box. If they can do that then they are capable of devising a system to track visa's and the people that they issued them to. We know they can, but it requires them to own up to the fact that expired or no visa equals "here illegally".
If you are here illegally then you will keep that status until you go through proper channels to make your status legal. If this country insists that illegal's be allowed to stay, fine, but you will not have access to every service we citizens have. If you want those services that is your reward for becoming a legal occupant of this country. The entire problem stems from the fact that there are no consequences for being in this country illegally. And no reward for being here legally. That's what "fix the system" means, we must discourage illegal actions and reward proper behavior.
That's just silly, you would not arrest anybodies 5 year old kids if they are in the car when the adults commit a crime. Here's what you do, arrest their adult legal guardians (parents) because I don't believe most 5 year olds are coming here on there own. If your parents brought you here illegally when you were 5 and you are now 18 and still don't understand the concept of illegal alien then your an idiot and should be deported. If your 18, here illegally and have done nothing to rectify the issue except hide in the basement and hope it all goes away then yes you are guilty of a crime.
What is the logic behind deporting someone who was raised here? The parents are out of the equation, and the birth country didn't send them here. You'd be punishing someone who didn't do anything. I can't agree that just because you turn a certain age and haven't self deported to a place you're not familiar with makes you a criminal.
Our government believes it can register and track every gun in this country, and that is an inanimate object smaller than a bread box. If they can do that then they are capable of devising a system to track visa's and the people that they issued them to. We know they can, but it requires them to own up to the fact that expired or no visa equals "here illegally". I don't know of any evidence that our government believes this, but that's besides the point.
If you are here illegally then you will keep that status until you go through proper channels to make your status legal. If this country insists that illegal's be allowed to stay, fine, but you will not have access to every service we citizens have. If you want those services that is your reward for becoming a legal occupant of this country. The entire problem stems from the fact that there are no consequences for being in this country illegally. And no reward for being here legally. That's what "fix the system" means, we must discourage illegal actions and reward proper behavior.
The last paragraph is perfectly reasonable and realistic. If you move here from Hawaii when you're five, and oh yeah your parents changed your name when you were a baby, but never updated your birth certificate, it wouldn't make sense to have to move back to Hawaii to fix your birth certificate. Nor would that change who you are, how you were raised, how you fit in with society, your willingness to be a contributing member to society, your willingness to get into bar fights, or raise or lower your likeliness to commit crimes ranging from speeding to murder.
We can't even begin to pretend to talk about immigration issues until people can get past the knee jerk reaction of "Jus' deport 'em all back to Mex-e-co!"
Maybe a better example is if you were born into a crazy cult and you didn't find out until you were 18 that you were home birthed and there is no record of you anywhere in the country. That doesn't make you a criminal, but now that you're a legal adult, the responsibility falls to you to get yourself documented if you want to have a chance at making your way in this country. It'd make just as much sense to deport a crazy cult baby to Mexico though.
My point is that we need to close the door. Then you can go about figuring out what to do with the ones already here.
Otherwise, let's not fix the hole in the boat and just keep bailing. That'll solve the problem.
There are multiple holes and as we have both stated, there is no political will to truly address the issue.
I wish it was not so, but it certainly seems to be the reality we are forced to deal with.
My point is that we need to close the door. Then you can go about figuring out what to do with the ones already here.
Otherwise, let's not fix the hole in the boat and just keep bailing. That'll solve the problem.
I think we're all pretty much in agreement here.
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/governmentdemotivator_1024x1024.jpeg?v=1430420134
Singlestack
08-28-2015, 19:05
Keep in mind that 60% of all illegal immigrants enter the country legally.
I think the number you are looking for is 40%
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jul/29/marco-rubio/rubio-says-40-percent-illegal-immigrants-are-overs/
I think the number you are looking for is 40%
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jul/29/marco-rubio/rubio-says-40-percent-illegal-immigrants-are-overs/
40% or 60%...? The federal government estimates range between 27% and 57%. so I won't quibble on the numbers. All of this tells me that our government doesn't have any clue as to how people are getting into the country. It seems clear to me that while border security is important, it is not the only problem that needs to be addressed. Whether they come legally and then remain and become illegal immigrants or come illegally, the problem still remains. Will the federal government address the problem?
Some light reading:
http://cis.org/us_visas_still_easy_to_get.html
http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf
Singlestack
08-29-2015, 06:44
FWIW, I agree 100%. Not only are the overstayed Visa's a huge part of the illegal immigration problem, they are a big problem with national security as well. Many of the 911 hijackers were overstayed, for example.
68Charger
08-29-2015, 07:50
We can't even begin to pretend to talk about immigration issues until people can get past the knee jerk reaction of "Jus' deport 'em all back to Mex-e-co!"
Maybe a better example is if you were born into a crazy cult and you didn't find out until you were 18 that you were home birthed and there is no record of you anywhere in the country. That doesn't make you a criminal, but now that you're a legal adult, the responsibility falls to you to get yourself documented if you want to have a chance at making your way in this country. It'd make just as much sense to deport a crazy cult baby to Mexico though.
You're falling for the left's narrative/brainwashing that it's not REALLY a crime and if you want illegal immigrants deported you're just a racist redneck. I don't buy the "crazy cult baby" analogy- What crime was committed there? and that person would have no tie to Mexico, where the illegal immigrant has parents that were citizens there. I see it more as the punishment fits the crime.
If there's no punishment for a crime, is it really a crime? What do you think the penalty should be for remaining in this country after you become an adult and you know full damn well you're here illegally? Because a crime is being committed... and if they're willing to ignore that law, what other laws are they willing to ignore?
For what it's worth, I believe in immigration reform... but full amnesty seems like there's a political party buying their votes.
I don't think the powers in charge really want to change it, since it perpetuates a serf population (cheap/free labor).
I'm not falling for anything. If you brought here by someone else when you were a kid, you haven't committed a crime, your parents did. How do you justify punishing an adult for the crimes of another adult? Even if we decided as a country to just whole sale deport any person who isn't a citizen, none of the countries they came from would care enough to do anything about it and just let them filter back through. It's just not as simple as removing people. So many other factors have to be changed in order to get any where. Otherwise we're just wasting resources to temporarily displace a problem that will come back worse each time.
68Charger
08-29-2015, 14:47
So you're for full amnesty for anchor babies?
Even if they can't be bothered to apply for citizenship?
Why even have the process, if there's no punishment for not doing it? What does it even matter being a citizen, then?
The way I see it, they're ok with being a fugutive...
"Anchor babies" are US citizens. Family relatives of these US citizens are much less likely to be deported because current federal immigration policy favors family members of US citizens. "Anchor babies" are citizens because of the 14th Amendment and how it has been interpreted by the the US Supreme Court. Short of an amendment to the Constitution, I don't see any change to this issue despite the current rhetoric from some political candidates.
Minor children, born outside the US, who were brought here or stayed here illegally are not treated like criminals and they are not even treated like adults who immigrated here illegally. Minor children, like the numerous unaccompanied children crossing the border in larger numbers for the past few years are dealt with by the Department of Health and Human Services. They are given immigration court dates for hearings but many never appear. Even if they did appear, it is unlikely they would be deported as long as they have a family member (doesn't matter whether that family member is a legal resident or not) who will care for the minor child. The Department of Health and Human Services does not deport people.
It would be hard for anyone to untangle the intentional mess our federal government has made of immigration in our country.
IMO this is not an issue of capability but lack of national will to address the issue.
Even if we had the will as a nation, it wouldn't matter if the nations where people are coming from don't also have that same will. Tough situation to be in, but not impossible.
IMO this is not an issue of capability but lack of national will to address the issue.
Exactly correct. Securing our national borders is one of the few things the Federal government is charged with doing in the Constitution...and they're not doing it. We don't need cooperation from any other nation to have enforceable laws and the responsibility is clearly that of the Feds.
KevDen2005
09-08-2015, 09:08
As do all of the other amendments. This opens up the path to felons owning guns though, as many of us believe they should be allowed.
I agree that non-violent felons should be able to earn their rights back. Many who stay in the system will never earn that right so the majority will never be able to own firearms if the law were to change. But I have met several in my life and my line of work that should have earned that right back several times over.
i also think this ruling is a second amendment win. I think it's a dangerous game to start selecting which constitutional rights apply to who at different times within our nation. I know it's already been said but government doesn't give or grant rights. The bill of rights were written to show which rights were God-given and could not be removed by government
HoneyBadger
09-08-2015, 12:41
IMO this is not an issue of capability but lack of national POLITICAL will to address the issue.
I think this^ is the true root of the problem. Politicians and parties are trying to buy votes and everyone knows it's a bad thing for the future of our country, but whichever party caves first to give amnesty to all illegals will effectively guarantee that they win every future election with millions of additional votes (which have been conveniently distributed to many conservative, rural areas around the country).
I personally would not be worried about life long devotion to a party, let alone spanning over generations.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.