Announcement

**All-American** · 01-28-2013, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post

If our rights--endowed in us by our Creator--are unalienable, including Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, do non-citizens not share them?

Sure they do. What's your point?

**Jacob** · 01-28-2013, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post

That's a decent enough answer. However, the 14th Amendment and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) seem to indicate that anyone born here has parents who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, meaning, to me, if you are subject to the jurisdiction, then these unalienable rights (the Bill of Rights) should carry forward. How do we deny someone the 2nd, when I feel confident that most would object severely to violation of the 4th, even for a non-citizen?

At least one Massachusets court has ruled:

This case presents the question whether lawful permanent
resident aliens are among “the people” for whom the Second
Amendment the United States Constitution provides a right to bear
arms. I conclude they are.

Also, this from the Justice dept on who is prohibited from possessing a firearm:

Alien - (Includes illegal aliens and aliens lawfully admitted under non-immigrant visas, i.e., those
aliens not admitted for permanent residence. This provision does not prohibit aliens who lawfully
possess a so-called “green card” from possessing guns or ammunition.);

**Moliere** · 01-28-2013, 05:27 PM

I'd be out if polyandry was reinstated. I'd also not remarry in the temple if MJ passed away. I don't want to be a polygamist, at least not in this life. The chances are pretty high that I'd marry a nonmember, but one that would respect my choice to stay Mormon and live by most of its precepts.

**FN Phat** · 01-28-2013, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Moliere View Post

I'd be out if polyandry was reinstated. I'd also not remarry in the temple if MJ passed away. I don't want to be a polygamist, at least not in this life. The chances are pretty high that I'd marry a nonmember, but one that would respect my choice to stay Mormon and live by most of its precepts.

This is spot on. Exactly how I feel.

**cowboy** · 01-28-2013, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by nikuman View Post

Rights are a function of the morality. I can make a similar argument for (say) rights of immigrants. They simply aren't afforded constitutional rights in the same way that citizens are, at least not until they get citizenship. The ways in which this is true are not always meaningful, but sometimes they are. Why? Because we intrinsically put a value on citizenship and sameness more than we do humanness, most likely.

That's my entire point: what we think should be rights/not rights/constitutionally protected/not constitutionally protected is self fulfilling to a degree, unless there is an impetus to change it. You can go down the list if constitutionally protected things and find a hundred exceptions. Where are these exceptions? Not in the document, but in our hearts and mind, or, rather the hearts and mind of the hivemind at the time of decision.

I'm not saying I like this btw.

Although this is a little deep into theory for me, it makes sense. Still, it's not where I was going with my question. In short, it is this:

We've established that the laws of marriage are a function of the collective morals of the nation. Morals, by definition, are subjective, and molded by culture, background, and personal belief. Hence, if I think that it is morally acceptable to allow any two people who love each other to marry, but anyone who happens to love two people is shit out of luck, what makes me an enlightened progressive while the person or institution who morally believes it is best for society if marriage is confined to one man and one woman is a backward, hate mongering bigot?

**wuapinmon** · 01-28-2013, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by nikuman View Post

I can't remember the jurisprudence but there are a string of cases that say, no, that's not always the case.

I found these....but I'm a layman.

344 U.S. 590

73 S.Ct. 472

97 L.Ed. 576

KWONG HAI CHEW
v.
COLDING et al. THE SIR JOHN FRANKLIN.

No. 17.

Argued Oct. 17, 1952.

Decided Feb. 9, 1953.

It says this:

'* * * The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens. They extend their inalienable privileges to all 'persons' and guard against any encroachment on those rights by federal or state authority.' Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 161, 65 S.Ct. 1443, 1455, 89 L.Ed. 2103 (concurring opinion).

'The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society. Mere lawful presence in the country creates an implied assurance of safe conduct and gives him certain rights; they become more extensive and secure when he makes preliminary declaration of intention to become a citizen, and they expand to those of full citizenship upon naturalization. During his probationary residence, this Court has steadily enlarged his right against Executive deportation except upon full and fair hearing. * * * And, at least since 1886, we have extended to the person and property of resident aliens important constitutional guaranties—such as the due process of law of the Fourteenth Amendment.' Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 770—771, 70 S.Ct. 936, 940, 94 L.Ed. 1255.

The latter case also comments that 'in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien's presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act.' Id., 339 U.S. at page 771, 70 S.Ct. at page 940. That case related to nonresident enemy aliens who had never been in the United States, rather than to a lawful permanent resident in the position of petitioner. There is no lack of physical presence for jurisdictional purposes in the instant case.

This one carries it a bit further:

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982),

Despite Ann Coulter's hatred of it, a footnote in the majority decision contains this gem:

"No plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

I don't know what else is out there, but that last one's from during my lifetime.

Originally posted by Jacob View Post

Yes, they do have those rights as they are natural rights and all men should have them. And those rights should be secured for them by their own governments, and if they are not, then they have a good reason to break the bands that tie them to that government and overthrow it like the founders did. Form a new one that guarantees them their rights.

That's not the issue, though. When here, if they are unalienable (think about that word), then why do they not share them?

**Jacob** · 01-29-2013, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post

That's not the issue, though. When here, if they are unalienable (think about that word), then why do they not share them?

Are you saying the right to possess certain firearms is one of the unalienable rights? Maybe I've lost track of exactly what is being argued.

As I said before, no government should be allowed to take those natural or unalienable rights from its citizens. I think most of those unalienable rights ought to extend to otherwise law abiding unlawful residents, but certainly not all protections from government intrusion. Having entered the country criminally, they may be treated like criminals. Felons are prohibited from possessing firearms, as are certain other criminals (even if its a misdemeanor) like any sort of person guilty of minor domestic violence, and people who have crossed the border illegally.

**Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz** · 01-29-2013, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Moliere View Post

I'd be out if polyandry was reinstated. I'd also not remarry in the temple if MJ passed away. I don't want to be a polygamist, at least not in this life. The chances are pretty high that I'd marry a nonmember, but one that would respect my choice to stay Mormon and live by most of its precepts.