As it turns out, illegal immigrants DO have rights!

[Pressure]

Well...it's relatively easy to travel to Mexico from the U.S. For the longest time you didn't even need a passport to enter Mexico from the U.S. (I think 9/11 changed that). But traveling to other countries in Latin America at least requires a Passport (and always has to my knowledge).

Truth be told I never found travel from the U.S. to either Canada or Mexico a hassle. Having a Passport isn't a hassle to me anyway...

Now immigrating to any country is always a hassle.

For example, London, they don't let you stay there at all...you will get deported if you overstay (at least you can get deported because you are breaking the law). Again, they track you by making you register with the police with your work visa.

I know in Japan same thing. I was there for travel not to long ago and it was pretty easy for me to fly around from city to city (I was going to layover in South Korea but didn't...I regret that ). But it's not at all easy to live in Japan without proper papers.

I'm confused as to why people are equating travel with living in a country. ..Most countries have huge barriers preventing people from setting up shop without immigrating properly.

What about U.S. immigration laws don't make sense to you?

I personally didn't find much wrong with the current laws and feel like they're pretty well written and have done a good job protecting Americans from foreign threats. 40% of our illegal immigrants area result of people overstaying their travel visas. Walls don't prevent that. It will stop some, but I'm not sure if it's fiscally responsible or sustainable. I've thought an increase in ICE and BPA were always a good things. I've thought equipping border patrol with the modern tools they've requested also goes a long way in curbing illegal immigration as well.

I haven't seen anything so far to suggest that our extreme vetting of refugees and legal immigrants is anything other than beyond sufficient for protecting the US from threats.

 

[Fillerguy]

It's very telling that people arguing only certain people should have rights don't know the end game of that argument taken to it's logical conclusion.

They know what's what.

 

[cheek100]

"Why don't these liberals understand that Jesus died for the American flag so we have the right to an all-white country?"

is this true

 

[CHL]

I don't believe in the assertion of positive rights

Why not?

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

is this true

If you think about it.

 

[theworldismine13]

Expedited removal circumvents immigration courts. It's legal, but it goes against your statement that illegal immigrants cannot be deported without an immigration judge. Your initial statement was false.

Expedited removal does not only apply to Mexicans. Again, you're spouting a falsehood

Expedited removal applies for people who do not have proper documentation and have come to the US in under 2 years.

You have no defense to stop an expedited removal beyond being an asylum seeker or not giving them your identity. An appeal will not stop you from being deported. Again, another falsehood you're attempting to perpetuate and is not in line with the current policy.

I have at no point said that expedited removals are illegal nor do they violate due process. What I did say is that under expedited removals you are not guaranteed a day in front of a judge in immigration court. A straw man you attempted to slip in.

What's your goal here? You can search through my post, but you're not going to find me complaining about people being deported, illegal immigrants being denied entry, or any prosecution that comes as a result of their illegal status.

my goal was to clarify that the due process rights of illegal immigrants are not being violated, not even under expedited removal

the question still stands, why are you caping for illegal immigrants and suggesting that their rights are being violated

 

[Pressure]

my goal was to clarify that the due process rights of illegal immigrants are not being violated, not even under expedited removal

the question still stands, why are you caping for illegal immigrants and suggesting that their rights are being violated

I don't have an issue with illegal immigrants being deported under expedited removed. And that wasn't your initial position.

 

[cheek100]

If you think about it.

But did tucker carson say it

 

[Outlaw]

that you think my post was about proving how smart I am or whatever belief you projected on to me, instead of say simply affirming the original articles contention that rights of immigrants are actually protected by the constitution of the US, says so much about you than you would believe.

Insert juelz gif

 

[David_TheMan]

Why not?

Positive rights go against the principle of individual liberty and freedom first off.

 

[David_TheMan]

Insert juelz gif

When you have poor reading comp, my post might seem confusing.

 

[Black Panther]

I don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" I don't think nature or a creator endows rights.
Thats why I put it in quotations.

That may not be your belief, but that is the belief presented in the Declaration of Independence and continued in the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and subsequent amendments. Not to mention Supreme court cases Zadvydas v. Davis and Plyler v. Doe.

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.

...that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage.

Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, that is the US's current interpretation.

 

[David_TheMan]

That may not be your belief, but that is the belief presented in the Declaration of Independence and continued in the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and subsequent amendments. Not to mention Supreme court cases Zadvydas v. Davis and Plyler v. Doe.





Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, that is the US's current interpretation.

What the writers of the constitution believed regarding the origin or rights, has doesn't matter to me, they could have beleived whatever they wanted, I was arguing that. It was asked why I wrote why I did.
Try to read a little bit and keep up with the conversation.

 

[Black Panther]

What the writers of the constitution believed regarding the origin or rights, has doesn't matter to me, they could have beleived whatever they wanted, I was arguing that. It was asked why I wrote why I did.
Try to read a little bit and keep up with the conversation.

I'm up on the convo.

Just making sure everyone's on the same page, in case you see anyone using their disagreement with the concept of "unalienable rights" as an argument against the OP.

 

[David_TheMan]

I'm up on the convo.

Just making sure everyone's on the same page, in case you see anyone using their disagreement with the concept of "unalienable rights" as an argument against the OP.

You aren't up at all, because what you said was quoted was someone asking me a personal question about why I put quotes around natural rights. My initial post in the thread quite clearly said from the perspective of the Constitution rights are given by nature or a creator and the BoR protects those rights from the government usurption, which means citizens and non citizens alike are protected. So try to take your time and read with a bit more concentration next time, because its obvious you didn't understand at all what you were posting on when you quoted me.