You think I'm the only one considering you a greater danger to the US than a terrorist?
Look around at all the people starting to hammer you on your skewed views, and your totalitarian notions.
I bet that if Hillary Clinton would have said the exact same words you said, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs about "your rights".
(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.U.S. Supreme Court
PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
457 U.S. 202PLYLER, SUPERINTENDENT, TYLER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
v. DOE, GUARDIAN, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 80-1538.
Argued December 1, 1981
Decided June 15, 1982 *
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[n]o State shall . . . 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." (Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976). 9 [457 U.S. 202, 211] "
I hope you will forgive me for misquoting you. That quote was a distillation of what you believe, though. Is it not? I don't think it misrepresented what you believe.
Let's cool the flames off for a while.
There are serious questions that have to be considered, in this police action on foreign terrorists, which presents legal questions the country hasn't faced since the War between the States, or ever.
In Phyler vs. Doe, the judges answer the obvious - that a person is a person. That is so obvious, that it's ludicrous to even say it. The question is - was the Constitution established to secure the blessings of liberty to everyone in the world who might be inside the United States' borders, or was it established to secure those blessings to people of the United States? You know what I think. The court hasn't had to directly face this argument, from what it looks like. Those lawyers hung their hopes on the text "within its jurisdiction", and argued a different case than me. My basis is more widespread.
Throughout the Constitution, it is implied that "persons" are only those who are "of the United States."
Take the clause on Treason for example.
"No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses..."
Well, a foreigner "is a person", and you can hardly convict a foreigner inside the United States of Treason. There's no question that this "person" mentioned has to be attached to the United States in some meaningful way. Clearly this use of the word "person" has the implication that he is "of the United States" behind it. Why then does the "person" in the fifth, or "people" in the 4th, not have to only be "of the United States"?
By what you're (and these judges) interpretation of "person" is, a foreigner could be convicted of Treason, by the language in Article III section 3, and this is ridiculous. You can't commit treason against a country that is not your own. Article III S.3 only makes sense if the word "person" is a citizen, or legal immigrant whose citizenship is pending, who is "of the United States". The "people" and the "persons" the Constitution mentions throughout its text, are all people "of the United States". Others are refered to as "citizens or subjects of ...foreign state[s]". BTW, I'm wondering if the Judges in the Phyler vs. Doe case didn't violate the 11th Amendment. The Fed courts have no authority in cases brought by foreigners against States like Texas. Looks like somebody has dropped the ball.
How did this case even get heard by the Supreme Court if the litigants were foreigners? I don't think they should be able to hide behind a guardianship. The guardian is not the one who is damaged. This farthest this case should have gotten is the Texas Supreme Court.
Yeah just look! :)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/738376/posts
Your silence is golden.