No 6th ammendment rights for illegal immigrants

[Brainchild]

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.

[Boomboy007]

As I have said in other threads, I miss the days when my beloved USA led by example. We were a beacon of freedom because we practiced freedom. I believe that every person in this country, be they citizen, legal visitor, or illegal interloper, has the same basic human rights as we all enjoy under our blessed Constitution and glorious Bill of Rights.

In fact, I believe that we should recognize every person on the planet as having the rights that we enjoy, whether they are under our jurisdiction or not.

Taking away rights from anyone will result in the loss of those rights for everyone.

[usvet]

I agree that everyone should have basic rights. However, in this county if you were not born here why do you deserve the rights of the constitution? Don't you think the immigrant should at least EARN the rights? Hell I earned them. If they demonstrate basic knowledge, contribute to society (like pay taxes) then sure welcome to our country. If I went to some of these countries, I would be a political prisoner, or worse. So nothing should be given, but earned.

[FN1910]

One of the major things that led to the US Revolution was that England had a Bill of Rights so to speak but the colonies were not granted the protection of those rights. Our US Bill of Rights is based in part on those right included in the English version along with other sources.

The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and therefore that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations." Critics pointed out that earlier political documents had protected specific rights, but Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different:

Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was "Magna Charta", obtained by the Barons, swords in hand, from King John.[8]

Finally, Hamilton expressed the fear that protecting specific rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?[9]

Essentially, Hamilton and other Federalists believed in the British system of common law which did not define or quantify natural rights. They believed that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution would limit their rights to those listed in the Constitution. This is the primary reason the Ninth Amendment was included

If only citizens are protected by the BOR then we are the same as king George was to the colonies.

[ronwill]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I think it says it quite clearly, the Constitution is for the United States and it's people as well as those who follow the legal path of immigration. Illegal immigrants are not protected by it or any of its amendments. That doesn't mean that they should be treated inhumanely. It simply means they have no right to speak out against the government, to obtain free education or medical care (unless it's a true emergency), to collect welfare or anything else at the expense of the people of the United States. Should they want this protection then they should immigrate legally.

[Wolfling68]

I believe, legally, the Constitution applies to every human within the borders of the US. I believe morally, the Constitution applies to everyone inside the borders of the US. I believe illegal aliens are not criminals(just because they are here), but trasspassers to be removed immediately, costs of transportation to be recovered if possible.

I also believe the word "Rights" is grossly misunderstood and misused. Rights are special privilages leased from tyranny with the blood of Free Men. Implicit within the concept of a Right is the responsibility to protect it from repossesion, also the responsibility to use it wisely.

The right to Free Speach should be absolute, however the responsibility to not yell fire in a theater is inherent in the Right. This is a personal responsibility, to be enforced by the people (by punching the idiot in the mouth as many times as require to ensure he never even thinks about doing it again). Whenever we let a lawyer or law maker abridge this right by making it illegal to yell fire in a theater, we have lost the Right.

[Oregon Vet]

06/08/09 - U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder should not be extending 6th Amendment rights to people who are in the U.S. illegally. Instead, Congressman Kevin Brady says the focus should be on serious national security lapses and passing a troop funding bill that isn't larded up with spending like Cash for Clunkers when the highway trust fund is broke. (MP3 audio - 4MB download) 4 minutes 25 seconds long. Lots of good points.

http://www.house.gov/brady/av/20090608memo.mp3

* Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

When they wrote the 6th amendment I really don't think they were aware of what the future was going to be like and the role terrorists would be playing in it. OR, illegal immigrants (criminals by law) either.

We have to make a distinction here: All criminals are NOT created equal. I think Kevin Brady is bringing that fact to our attention, that IF you are here legally (nothing being said about being a citizen, but of being here LEGALLY) and allegedly done "something" wrong which you have been arrested for, THEN you are entitled to a "speedy" trial.

BUT, IF you are a criminal who is in the USA ILLEGALLY, then you get a trial when they have time to get around to it. All Kevin Brady said was; if they want to come here illegally (the INSTANT they step across the border, they do become a CRIMINAL, that is the law) then they take their chances on getting a "speedy" trial if/when they are caught.

I don't have a problem with that, but let the (criminals) illegals go back where they came from and come here legally if they want to be treated as the people who are here legally. (citizen or legal green card)

Like Kevin Brady, I don't believe someone should be able to come into the USA as a criminal and get the same rights as the people who are here legally.

IF they let that happen, (give illegals the same benefits as people who are here legally) then there is NO reason to be here legally.

I don't accept that. NO ONE should accept that who is here legally.

Just my opinion, of course.

Ken

[usvet]

Originally Posted by ronwill

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I think it says it quite clearly, the Constitution is for the United States and it's people as well as those who follow the legal path of immigration. Illegal immigrants are not protected by it or any of its amendments. That doesn't mean that they should be treated inhumanely. It simply means they have no right to speak out against the government, to obtain free education or medical care (unless it's a true emergency), to collect welfare or anything else at the expense of the people of the United States. Should they want this protection then they should immigrate legally.

Well said.

[utimmer43]

Originally Posted by ronwill

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I think it says it quite clearly, the Constitution is for the United States and it's people as well as those who follow the legal path of immigration. Illegal immigrants are not protected by it or any of its amendments. That doesn't mean that they should be treated inhumanely. It simply means they have no right to speak out against the government, to obtain free education or medical care (unless it's a true emergency), to collect welfare or anything else at the expense of the people of the United States. Should they want this protection then they should immigrate legally.

(SIGH)...Here we go...

First, where in the Constitution are education, medical care, or welfare mentioned? Apples and oranges.

Second, you can't say they are not protected by the Constitution, and then follow that with "they shouldn't be treated inhumanely". You can't have it both ways. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant anyone anything, God does. The BOR simply re-affirms that we are born with these rights, but not because we are American, because we are human. Weather or not any other country would recognize our God given rights is also irrelavent. We are a great nation because we recognize that all men are created equal, and we treat all men in our custody equally under the law.

Look, I don't like illegals any more than anyone else here does. In fact, I downright despise them (I hate cheaters/liars). But if you are going to strip one human right away, you may as well strip them all.

[Boomboy007]

Originally Posted by usvet

I agree that everyone should have basic rights. However, in this county if you were not born here why do you deserve the rights of the constitution? Don't you think the immigrant should at least EARN the rights? Hell I earned them. If they demonstrate basic knowledge, contribute to society (like pay taxes) then sure welcome to our country. If I went to some of these countries, I would be a political prisoner, or worse. So nothing should be given, but earned.

While I appreciate your service, you have done nothing to earn your rights. Regardless of military service, charitable giving, honor role grades, and whatever else you come up with, you got your rights simply by being born. Please see the example below:

Originally Posted by ronwill

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I think it says it quite clearly, the Constitution is for the United States and it's people as well as those who follow the legal path of immigration. Illegal immigrants are not protected by it or any of its amendments. That doesn't mean that they should be treated inhumanely. It simply means they have no right to speak out against the government, to obtain free education or medical care (unless it's a true emergency), to collect welfare or anything else at the expense of the people of the United States. Should they want this protection then they should immigrate legally.

Notice that nowhere does it mention withholding those rights from any group of people.

Read our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, and you will find the following:

"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."

I believe that the words and intent are both clear and precise: these rights are not to be withheld.

When it comes to the founding fathers, I am of the "all or nothing" school of thought. No cherry picking!