No 6th ammendment rights for illegal immigrants

[ronwill]

Are you seriously going to grab this one little part of a statement and try to use it to discredit my entire point? You're fishing dude. You are again arguing apples and oranges.

I don't try to discredit anyone. I discuss different opinions and beliefs. Just because I may not agree with your opinion on a subject doesn't mean you're wrong and just because you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean I'm wrong. The problem comes when people become upset because someone disagrees with them.

[ronwill]

Freedom and liberty is the right of every man and woman on this planet.This does not absolve anyone of the responsibility to follow the just laws and rules of whichever society there are a part. If people decide to come here illegally, let us treat them as the law breakers that they are. However, they are still entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity, and those are codified in our founding documents.

Sorry for the rant. Flame away.

No flame here. The question is does the Constitution protect the rights of illegal immigrants not should they be treated fairly and humanely. I think we all agree that all humans have a right to fair treatment under the law, however, the differences come concerning the Constitutional protections. I believe the Constitution protects the citizens and legal residents not those breaking the law from the start by being here illegally. Should they be tried if they commit a crime? Yes by all means and then deported in most cases. This falls under protection of the law. Do they have the same rights as citizens? That's a no. It was said once before, if you're going to grant the same benefits and protections to those here illegally why should they go through the long immigration process? You said it, it's an emotional area. It needs to be looked at as unemotionally as possible.

[FN1910]

We all want to walk down the street with out guns without being hassled by the police or "papers please" when we travel. We claim to be innocent citizens who are innocent until proven guilty. The 6th amendment grants us great protection in the "innocent until proven guilty" judicial process. If someone is charged with a crime do they not get the same rights because wew think they are not a citizen. Do we have to prove that they are not a citizen before removing their rights. If you were stopped on the street and asked to prove you are a citizen not only would you start screaming at the LEO who stopped you but start claiming all kinds of violations of your rights. Then could you prove that you are a citizen and would you even try or start immediately filing lawsuits.

How do LEO or immigration officials know who is not a citizen? Think about how if you were standing on a street corner in a part of town that was known for illegal aliens and someone walked up to you and ased you to prove that you are a citizen. The rights guaranteed in the Constitution are there to protect everyone and until we go through the entire process then they cannot be removed from a person. I am not talking the right to health care, social security, welfare etc. but before we make a blanket statement about rights only apply to citizens we need to make sure they are citizens. Just how does a LEO tell the illegal aliens from the illegal aliens from the natural born citizens?

[tattedupboy]

OK then, does that mean that we may punish said lawbreakers by shoving a broadsword up their rectum? Boil them in oil? How about we dip 'em in brown gravey and lock 'em in a room with a wolverine that's high on angle dust?

Maybe I should have worded that a little differently. Of course I would never condone anything like what you're mentioning here. What I should have said is that they're not entitled to ALL the same rights of US citizens, such as habea corpus, right to an attorney, etc., etc.

[Boomboy007]

I do find it quite amusing to see your post:

"What I should have said is that they're not entitled to ALL the same rights of US citizens, such as habea corpus, right to an attorney, etc., etc."

And then, directly under, your signature:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Franklin

Do you not see the antithetical nature of those two statements? Again, the rights that we enjoy should be our number one export. We need to encourage more respect for our constitutional rights to be adopted abroad, not diluting those rights here at home.

YES, it is more expensive. YES, it is more trouble.

Since when was standing up for what is right, standing on principle, doing things the hard way because it was the right thing to do; basically, when did principle become TOO HARD?

Our grandfathers did not beat the evil dictators trying to conquer the world by taking the easy way out. Why are we?

[ronwill]

Let's look at some views from the founding fathers concerning immigration. Especially look at the following excerpt:

Hamilton opposed granting citizenship immediately put to new immigrants: "To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty."

Over-all they were opposed to granting the "rights" of citizens immediately to immigrants. There's more reading here:

Center for Immigration Studies

[utimmer43]

Before we go any further, let's clarify...

I just heard of a news story about an issue where US Representative Kevin Brady (R-Texas) commented that
6th Ammendment right should not be extended to ILLEGAL immigrants.I am sorry,but I don't have a link to th e story and I don't remember where I heard it.He stated something to the effect of the 6th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S citizens,not those who enter the U.S. illegally.What do you guys think. (I would have made it a poll but I couldn't figure out how.)
Those who know me know how I feel.I plan to envite Rep. Brady to my next barbeque.

Brady's statement is in referance specifically to deportation hearings.

Holder Reverses Mukasey Ruling on Aliens' "Right" to Counsel in Removal Cases - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online

Need we go further? (We can if we wish.)

[ronwill]

Before we go any further, let's clarify...
Brady's statement is in referance specifically to deportation hearings.

Holder Reverses Mukasey Ruling on Aliens' "Right" to Counsel in Removal Cases - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online

Need we go further? (We can if we wish.)

If they're in this country illegally, they have no right to an attorney for deportation. They should be treated humanely but sent back to their home country without fail.

[utimmer43]

If they're in this country illegally, they have no right to an attorney for deportation. They should be treated humanely but sent back to their home country without fail.

Right, which is what Brady and Mukasey were talking about, specifically deportation hearings. Unfortunatley, this was never clarified in the O.P., which may have led to some confusion as to what we were even arguing about.

Now that that is clear, we can still debate (if need be) weather or not the BOR pertains to illegal aliens who commit a crime while here illegally. (which is what I mistakenly thought this topic was about in the first place).

[ronwill]

Right, which is what Brady and Mukasey were talking about, specifically deportation hearings. Unfortunatley, this was never clarified in the O.P., which may have led to some confusion as to what we were even arguing about.

Now that that is clear, we can still debate (if need be) weather or not the BOR pertains to illegal aliens who commit a crime while here illegally. (which is what I mistakenly thought this topic was about in the first place).

No debate but I did think I'd get more of a rise out of you.