Lawyers - does this make sense?

[wheresmy50]

I guess my question about the judge was improperly stated. What I really meant was, isn't the judge via his opinion implying that they have a right to be in the US? Otherwise wouldn't their rights or lack thereof to be in a given apartment building be moot since they have no legal right to be anywhere in this country? Isn't the only question whether or not they're here illegally?

By this logic, couldn't someone who is on the run from the law sue to maintain a particular residence since by being evicted, and thus sent to jail, bad things could happen? Meaning, by violating the law, don't you necessariy forfeit your right to live in free society?

I don't ususally have trouble understanding the ways of the world, but this recent nonsense about the rights of illegal aliens has me completely confused.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by wheresmy50

isn't the judge via his opinion implying that they have a right to be in the US?
Isn't the only question whether or not they're here illegally?
.

The only thing that he is implyign is that the provisions of the law may violate the illegal's consitutional rights. As the othr Mike pointed out, eveyone in this country has the rights granted by the constitution ( which is tha main reason Bush sends all the "detainees" to Cuba) IOW whether they are here legally or not they still have rights.

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

The only thing that he is implyign is that the provisions of the law may violate the illegal's consitutional rights. As the othr Mike pointed out, eveyone in this country has the rights granted by the constitution ( which is tha main reason Bush sends all the "detainees" to Cuba) IOW whether they are here legally or not they still have rights.

Actually, the naval base at Gitmo is a US territory, under lease from Cuba. The fact that Castro doesn't accept it as such doesn't change its legal status for the courts here. The detainees there do have the protection of US law in some respects, at least. A couple have been granted legal relief by the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by the most conservative Justice on the Court, Scalia.

Here's an example of how the Constitution says "citizens" when it means citizens, and "persons" when it means anyone, even illegals:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state 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.

[Redsoxticket]

I'm no lawyer but I interpet it as follows.
The first sentenced equates "person" that are born or naturalized .... as "citizens". Therefore, the mention of the word "persons" in the following sentences of the same paragraph is the same as referring to "citizens".

[wheresmy50]

This is insane. It blows my mind that someone who is traspassing on our soil can sue to receive legal protection to do anything. They should be arrested on the spot when they file the papers.

Secondly, how do these people exist in society? Don't at least some of them drive, have bank accounts, sign leases, etc? I'm guessing they do it with forged documents - again, fraud.

If you were a fugitive from justice for any other crime, this would never happen.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Redsoxticket

I'm no lawyer but I interpet it as follows.
The first sentenced equates "person" that are born or naturalized .... as "citizens". Therefore, the mention of the word "persons" in the following sentences of the same paragraph is the same as referring to "citizens".

Sorry, no go. The first sentence define citizens as persons that are born or naturalized, the second sentence extends due process to all persons, citizens or not.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Mike P

Actually, the naval base at Gitmo is a US territory, under lease from Cuba. The fact that Castro doesn't accept it as such doesn't change its legal status for the courts here. The detainees there do have the protection of US law in some respects, at least. A couple have been granted legal relief by the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by the most conservative Justice on the Court, Scalia.
s.

Just to pick nits, it is not a U.S. "territory." It is a location subject to U.S. juristiction and the applicability of consitutional right ot persons in that area is subject to legal debate. The Marshall Islands are a territory.