Ranchers Sued by Civil Rights Group

Associated Press ^ | Dec 10, 2003 | Arthur H. Rotstein

[Cultural Jihad]

Wouldn't illegal entry into the US by a non-citizen meet the standard of a crime?

If a citizen actually witnesses the crime, which is illegal entry, then yes, but stopping people 3 miles North of the town of Douglas for being brown-skinned does not constitute witnessing a crime.

[JustPiper]

For some reason I cannot vote on CNN's polls...I click and nothing happens.

[calawah98]

I do not know if you have to vote between the hours of 3 and 4 here on the west coast, so maybe it is the time line. If you are in a different time zone, try your time and see if it works. I see it ended up yes 48% and 52% no. I believe the no votes were over 1000, I would have to recheck and see what the final number was.

[Fledermaus]

But you ignore how they define "person" as I clearly pointed out. Geez.

[TigersEye]

They didn't define person. The first paragraph defines 'citizen' the second defines who is protected by law. For crying out loud!

[TigersEye]

My bad. They aren't separate paragraphs just separate sentences of the first Section.

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 defines what constitutes a citizen. Which was only necessary because of slavery.

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 second sentence has three distinct part. The first addresses Federal protection of citizens by virtue of their privileges and immunities. The second and third address the more general protections afforded to any person, within its jurisdiction, by the Federal government. If they had meant 'citizens' in the second and third part they would have continued to use the word 'citizen' in order to carry the continuity of their meaning and preserve the clarity of it.

To try to impose the definition of citizen given in the first sentence upon the definitions of protections and who is protected given in the second is 'interpreting into' the straightforward meaning of the Section something clearly not intended. Are you bucking for a spot on the 9th Circus Court? LOL

[Fledermaus]

I knew you'd see it my way. LOL

But I still disagree with your interpretation of person in the second paragraph. Being "within it's jurisdiction" is a legal term, not a geographic one. And the only jurisdiction allowed illegal aliens is that of being deported.

But since you continue to see it otherwise, I just e-mailed the most immanent constitutional scholars in the country, Jonathan Turley of the George Washington Law School.

If he agrees with you, I'll defer. I would expect the same if he agrees with me.

Regards

[Fledermaus]

P.S. Assuming he replies.

[TigersEye]

Cool! I hope he does. I don't have access to one. Obviously non-citizens don't have the privileges and immunities that citizens do. However my most basic example would be; can you just walk up and shoot a foreigner with impunity? If they have no rights then why not? Can you steal from a non-citizen with impunity?

FReegards to you.