I know some people don't believe that illegals and terrorists in Guantanamo have rights. However, according to the Declaration of Independence: 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. The only reason I'm bringing this up is because I was watching Fox News and the hosts seem incredulous at the idea that illegals and terrorists have rights.
Our country was founded upon the idea that unalienable Rights were bestowed upon us by a Creator, a God (whomever we deem that to be) and that no mortal man can deny to any person those Rights. Today we like to hang labels on people because we are offended (and sometimes justly) by individuals, but labels cannot detract from realities. Our first reality is that when the Declaration of Independence was penned, the colonists were the immigrants and that there were no citizens of the U.S. as no such country existed. Our second reality is to acknowledge that the Declaration of Independence has been referred to in the following way: "The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams Wells, 1819. ME 15:200 "On the distinctive principles of the Government ... of the United States, the best guides are to be found in... The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States". -- James Madison, letter to Thomas Jefferson, February 8, 1825 Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence has been used as standing precedent in court cases all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. Couple that with the fact that, under our system of jurisprudence, all persons are presumed guilty until proven guilty in a court of law. Undocumented foreigners, suspected terrorists, etc. do have Rights... the same Rights afforded to every man. What's the alternative? Do you want to hand over Rights to a popularity contest wherein YOUR rights may be subject to a popularity vote? What if your religion or some Right you currently have were at stake? One of our forefathers summed up our dilemma very succinctly: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
People in the Guantánamo concentration camp (Cuba) have not been charged or proved guilty of any crimes and cannot be properly called "terrorists".
Granny says, "Dat's right - dat's a no-no... Appeals Court: The Law Does Not Allow Obama to Legalize 4.3 Million Illegals November 10, 2015 | A two-judge majority of a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion on Monday ruling that an injunction issued by a U.S. District Court in Texas against President Barack Obamas plan to amnesty approximately 4.3 million illegal aliens should stand.
There is some divide over this historically. It comes in the form of whether rights are procedural or substantive. Illegals for instance have "rights" but prior court decisions have drawn them down procedural lines i.e. their rights are limited to the rights they have under the procedures established by the legislature in relation to removing them. As long as the procedure is followed, their rights have been honored. This attitude however, IMHO, has moved from there into the criminal justice system and from illegals to all people. Rights in relation to criminal law as delineated in case law is more like an explosion in a confetti factory. Who the hell knows what they are on any given day in any given court in front of any given judge on any given charge at any given hour. The desire to keep bad guys from getting away with a crime because of a technical violation of their rights has eroded any notion of rights even existing for everybody. Gitmo is quite simply a travesty. It is either unConstitutional or a human rights violation, and possibly both. I used to think that Lincoln was the closest we ever came to a dictatorship. I now think that George W. Bush's war on terror may have been worse and most people just do not have the foresight to see it, including the current President who continues these policies.
You're mixing oranges with apples, unfortunately. With immigration, the individual has the intent to become a permanent resident. Being present in the U.S. without papers is not a crime; it is a civil violation of the "immigration" laws. In many different legal forums, the courts and those who are involved in procedural law attempt to treat undocumented foreigners as if they were dealing with criminals; however, the highest ranking immigration official in the United States (at the time) ruled that we were dealing with civil not criminal law with respect to Title 8 USC 1325 actions. There are immigration related criminal offenses that can be pursued IF the undocumented foreigner attempts them. These may include, but not be limited to: lying to the authorities, using false ID, marriage fraud, and eluding authorities in immediate pursuit of someone attempting an improper entry. By the wording of the 14th Amendment, the unalienable Rights available to you are guaranteed to the undocumented foreigner as well. For me, the issue is that 98 percent of the American population (especially the legal system and the Secure the border lobby) fails to understand the difference between Rights and privileges. Citizenship has certain privileges and, in a de jure (lawful) constitutional Republic, no branch of government has the authority to bestow upon any non-citizen the privileges of citizenship (i.e. the privilege of voting, receiving welfare, a taxpayer supported education, etc.) It is unfortunate, but many think that one must be a citizen in order to have Rights and that nobody ought to be within the borders of the United States unless they are seeking citizenship. Well, when the left succeeds in making them citizens and those people vote the posterity of the founding fathers out of power, this will no longer be a debate.
No the courts have mixed apples with oranges. It is what happens with law. As was stated in my post " This attitude however, IMHO, has moved from there into the criminal justice system." I did not say that immigration violations were criminal in nature. Courts routinely import cases across the civil and criminal barrier. Another place where it is evident has to do with the non-existent "right to privacy".
Illegals and terrorists rights are limited, they have very few Constitutional protections. Both have civil rights, neither have political rights.
The DoI has been mentioned in SCOTUS opinion over 100 times, each time as dicta and not precedent. There is not a single case that was "specifically decided on the Declaration of Independence or its provisions." No decision has ever turned/can turn on the Declaration of Independence itself. Their rights are limited, they may have civil rights, but they do not have political rights. The US Constitution states and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, A "right" by its very nature is limiting.
or a citizen. And he was discussing a visa overstay and not an EWI, which the EWI can be charged under 8USC1325(a) and found guilty of a Federal Misdemeanor; and for a second offense found guilty of a Federal Felony. Immediate pursuit of someone attempting an improper entry? EWI can be charged at any time to someone found within the US without authorization. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th is directed at the state, not the individual. Everybody has rights, those rights are however limited. What they have few of are Constitutional protections, they are only protected via the 5th and 6th Due Process Clauses if they are charged with a capitol or infamous crime, and the 14th Equal Protection Clause under the individual state they are in. Who claims nobody ought to be within the borders of the United States unless they are seeking citizenship? Why then do we have numerous non-immigrant visas?
