District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional

[Sigblitz]

Heriberto Carbajal-Flores is an illegal immigrant. Illegal immigrants were prohibited. Legal immigrants are not.

 

[maxipum]

Except for voting and holding certain offices, where does the Constitution deny rights to non-citizens?
Do not many of us argue that most rights are God given, that they are not granted by government?

There is a difference between a non-citizen and a criminal.

 

[Sigblitz]

Can a felon lose his God given rights?
Serious question.

 

[Sigblitz]

Do non citizens have the right to vote? No.

Can non citizens possess a firearm? Yes.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Route 45]

No I don't believe rights are god given, you have rights because you exist.

That view is incompatible with the denial of the right to anyone, regardless of immigration status.

That is a philosophical debate and not at all related to the pragmatism required to have a functioning country.

It's hardly a philisophical debate. The Founding Fathers wrote of inalienable rights, endowed by a creator. Our entire system of government is based on what they set up.

What an intellectually dishonest display of mental midgetry.

Must have touched a nerve.

 

[10mm]

Rights only for white people? Wow, ok. Haven't seen that on INGO for a while.



Is the right to bear arms God-given or not?

Alright, now I have a moment to continue.
Why is it that you are focusing on an illegals rights and not on the rights of your fellow countrymen? Mind you, race does not come into play here at all, simply a matter of nationality.
And what of my rights as a proper person residing in the country I am a citizen of?
Do I not also have a right to defend myself from foreign invaders?
Why are we so stuck on acknowledging the rights of the invader and ignoring the right to defense that you(the citizen) and I have?
Do we owe these barbarians at the gate something merely by virtue of them existing?
Are they somehow better than us for breaking our laws?
Are we to be cowed and extend more and more of our stolen tax dollars to waste on these cowards who will not fight for their rights in their own homeland?
Are they really equal to someone who would stand and fight against tyranny?
Are they really even fleeing a cartel controlled government or are they coming for the free stuff?
I have already said in this thread that people who come through legal channels should have protections, but not those of a true citizen. Anyone coming illegally from mexico should be recorded in some way and sent back across to the city furthest south in their country. If I had it my way, the second time they tried they would leave in an urn.

All of this is also to say that allowing all of these people in without citizenship creates a sub class that can be used as cheap and even slave labor on American soil once again. It's already being done and has for decades.

 

[Tombs]

Can a felon lose his God given rights?
Serious question.

Yes, at least when felonies were appropriately labeled.

The only way to commit those felonies would involve revoking the God given rights of another individual.

 

[10mm]

That view is incompatible with the denial of the right to anyone, regardless of immigration status.


It's hardly a philisophical debate. The Founding Fathers wrote of inalienable rights, endowed by a creator. Our entire system of government is based on what they set up.

Must have touched a nerve.

The views are not mutually exclusive, primarily because this is the Constitution of the United States of America. It reigns over citizens and not illegals. There's also this crazy clause that says something about protecting from enemies foreign and domestic our government has to follow. There are plenty of reasons I don't possibly have the time to explain why illegally entering the country makes you an enemy.
I'm afraid the only nerve you touched was my regrettable inability to let sophomoric takes go.

 

[Tombs]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I've seen it said on INGO that the right to bear arms and self-defense is God-given. If that is true, it cannot apply only to US citizens. If it is not true, then you must believe that the Constitution grants you the right as a citizen, instead of protecting a pre-existing right given by God to all people.

When your first act on US soil is to disregard the laws of the country, that's a you problem. If they believed in those God given rights, they would follow the laws we created through legislation that are responsible for the existence of this nation.

What you're stipulating is a gotcha of trying to get people to conflate God given rights with the context of this court case. This is not what the case is over.

 

[Sigblitz]

The constitution is a living document. These rulings affect our constitutional rights, just as the unconstitutional gun laws and agencies.
The GCA prohibited felons. The Brady bill put in background checks. Other than that, everything else they done was to limit rights of law abiding citizens.
This new ruling was wrongly ruled based on other rulings for citizens, but is a ruling in favor of illegal non citizens. And it's a democratic ruling, bought to you by the party that pushed the gun control acts.
Why do they want to arm illegals?

 

[Tombs]

The constitution is a living document. These rulings affect our constitutional rights, just as the unconstitutional gun laws and agencies.
The GCA prohibited felons. The Brady bill put in background checks. Other than that, everything else they done was to limit rights of law abiding citizens.
This new ruling was wrongly ruled based on other rulings for citizens, but is a ruling in favor of illegal non citizens. And it's a democratic ruling, bought to you by the party that pushed the gun control acts.
Why do they want to arm illegals?

For the same reason they want a path to citizenship through military service. To create a class of people who can be used to take away the rights of US citizens without objection.

This is why they love to push the othering of identity politics, as it lets them stoke the fires that will make these people cheer to be able to commit heinous acts.

 

[2tonic]

I believe part of this argument regarding rights extended to non-citizens, or illegals, hinges on the phrase "under the jurisdiction of the United States".
Non-citizens are not fully under the jurisdiction of the US.
If there were currently a military draft, could a citizen of, say, Australia, here on a student or work visa, be drafted into the U.S. military?
No, but if said non-citizen runs afoul of the law, he is accorded all the legal rights of a US citizen, concerning arrest, trial, self incrimination, bail, legal representation, imprisonment, etc. He may face the added threat of deportation, not applicable to a US citizen, but in matters of criminal procedure, he is an equal. Civil procedure, not so much.
Can't buy a gun, legally. Can't vote. Can't marry, without additional bureaucratic burden.
So, some parts of the Constitution's protections extend to non-citizens, and some parts don't.
Concerning illegal invaders, all bets should be off.
Notice I said illegal. Legal visitors, migrants, and asylum seekers should be accorded the same rights as a non-citizen.

This phrase is also the crux of the birthright citizenship argument.

 

[Sigblitz]

I think she went way outside the lines to overturn his conviction simply because he's an illegal immigrant and she is a Democrat. She ruled on her personal beliefs, not on what she cited for citizens in her opinion.
Is it good for gun owners? Maybe.
Is it good for national security? No.
Should it be overturned?

 

[Shadow01]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I've seen it said on INGO that the right to bear arms and self-defense is God-given. If that is true, it cannot apply only to US citizens. If it is not true, then you must believe that the Constitution grants you the right as a citizen, instead of protecting a pre-existing right given by God to all people.

Then why are rights allowed to be suspended or permanently taken away for felons? God make an exception for felons? What is given by God can not be removed by man.

 

[MCgrease08]

We were talking about the original thoughts of the founders. No I don't believe rights are god given, you have rights because you exist.

The founders did believe rights are God-given, so it would seem you've managed to undercut your own argument.

 

[Route 45]

Then why are rights allowed to be suspended or permanently taken away for felons? God make an exception for felons? What is given by God can not be removed by man.

What is allegedly given by God is taken by man ever waking minute of the day, here in the US and all over the world. Felon or not. And God is not an ICE agent.

In fact...

The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:34

‘Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.’ Then all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’
Deuteronomy 27:19

 

[Route 45]

Alright, now I have a moment to continue.
Why is it that you are focusing on an illegals rights and not on the rights of your fellow countrymen? Mind you, race does not come into play here at all, simply a matter of nationality.
And what of my rights as a proper person residing in the country I am a citizen of?
Do I not also have a right to defend myself from foreign invaders?
Why are we so stuck on acknowledging the rights of the invader and ignoring the right to defense that you(the citizen) and I have?
Do we owe these barbarians at the gate something merely by virtue of them existing?
Are they somehow better than us for breaking our laws?
Are we to be cowed and extend more and more of our stolen tax dollars to waste on these cowards who will not fight for their rights in their own homeland?
Are they really equal to someone who would stand and fight against tyranny?
Are they really even fleeing a cartel controlled government or are they coming for the free stuff?
I have already said in this thread that people who come through legal channels should have protections, but not those of a true citizen. Anyone coming illegally from mexico should be recorded in some way and sent back across to the city furthest south in their country. If I had it my way, the second time they tried they would leave in an urn.

All of this is also to say that allowing all of these people in without citizenship creates a sub class that can be used as cheap and even slave labor on American soil once again. It's already being done and has for decades.

You've already established that you do not believe that rights are God-given, as the Founding Fathers intended. No further discussion with you is necessary on the matter. This wall of text is simply chaff, I said nothing about favoring illegals over citizens. I was making one single and solitary point about 2nd Amendment "absolutists." Maybe a meme will help.

 

[10mm]

You've already established that you do not believe that rights are God-given, as the Founding Fathers intended. No further discussion with you is necessary on the matter. This wall of text is simply chaff, I said nothing about favoring illegals over citizens. I was making one single and solitary point about 2nd Amendment "absolutists." Maybe a meme will help.

View attachment 341096

You're unfortunately missing the point of the wall of text, but I agree that further discussion is unnecessary and is unlikely to be productive in any way.

 

[MCgrease08]

I personally believe anyone walking around free has the God-given right to keep and bare arms, so I look at gun control issues through that lens, no matter the situation. It helps me be consistent in how I apply my thinking. Many people on INGO and otherwise, say they believe man has the right to keep and bare arms, but are up in arms about this court ruling (pun intended).

Either everyone has rights or no one does. Because if you believe we can pick and choose who has rights based on some arbitrary measure, then it's only a matter of time before an arbitrary measure is used to decide whether YOU have rights.

 

[cosermann]

And this comes as we learn today of the conviction of a man who plotted to assassinate Pres. Bush by using killers brought in through Mexico, i.e. "illegal immigrants." So, there you go.

Iraqi immigrant plotted to smuggle assassins through Mexico to kill former US president: docs

An Iraqi immigrant living in Ohio planned to smuggle assassins into the U.S. through Mexico to assassinate former president, but his plot was foiled.

www.foxnews.com

Judge appointed by the "common sense" gun control crowd BTW.