Border agent indicted for violating illegal alien's rights [civil rights violation??!!]

Examiner.com ^ | April 20, 2012 | Jim Kouri

[Lurking Libertarian]

Clearly such legislation would be immoral and unlawful.

How can legislation be "unlawful" unless it violates the Constitution?

[Lurking Libertarian]

giving illegal aliens constitutional rights is clearly destructive to this country.

To quote Justice Scalia, "it is a truism that constitutional rights have costs."

[Ajnin]

To quote me, “The founders never intended the constitution to be a suicide pact.”

[Ajnin]

How can legislation be "unlawful" unless it violates the Constitution?

Perhaps I misspoke. Maybe it isn't unlawful.

[Ajnin]

But the Citizenship Clause is not the only clause in the 14th Amendment. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, by distinction, protects not "citizens" but "any person." Aren't illegal aliens "persons"? Or are they vegetables? Or animals?

Illegal aliens are person's of other countries unprotected by our constitution. Illegal aliens are criminals that have no allegiance to this country, therefore it makes no senses to give them constitutional rights so they can shit all over us and destroy our nation.

Perhaps you could explain why it is you like the idea of illegal aliens having Constitutional rights.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Perhaps you could explain why it is you like the idea of illegal aliens having Constitutional rights.

Because I believe in the Constitution and I believe it should be enforced as written.

The Framers of the Constitution knew how to use the word "citizen" when they intended to talk about citizens. E.g., Article I, section 2 (a member of the House of Representatives must have "been seven Years a Citizen of the United States.") They also knew how to use broader words when they wished to include people who weren't citizens. E.g., the Fifth Amendment ("nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law") or the Sixth Amendment ("In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...").

If the Fifth and Sixth Amendment only apply to citizens, why did they use the words "any person" or "the accused" and not "any citizen" or "the accused citizen"? Why did the Sixth Amendment talk about "all criminal prosecutions" if, according to you, it only means "some criminal prosecutions" (the ones where the defendant is a citizen)?

I thought it was liberals who pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they want to enforce. For my part, I'd like to see all of it enforced the way the Framers wrote it.