If only his name was Pete Williams instead of Abdul Artan, eh?

cheese-eaters?

Quote:

The constitution doesn't give any civil rights to people who are citizens of, and living in, foreign countries.

The rights the Constitution speaks of are for everybody. There's no mention of citizenship.

There's no mention of citizenship.

of course the USA can't protect the rights of people living in foreign countries, but those rights still exist, and when they're violated there's a recognition of that violation. Foreigners on US soil have the same rights as citizens.

Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

In 1952's Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists. It held that "...the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court."

Here's kinda how it works:

Right now, immigration and naturalization laws provide that any child born in the US is a "citizen."

So, in theory, a pregnant Mexican woman could slip 1 foot over the border, plop out a kid, and, voila, we have a new citizen.

Is it her, or a, constitutional right to turn her kids into US Citizens this way?

No, she don't and it aint. There's nothing in the bill of rights which grants her this. The constitution gives congress the unrestricted right to make whatever rules they deem desirable, "fair" or not.

So congress could amend that law at anytime. It could, for example, make an amendment saying that only children of citizens automatically became citizens.

What if somebody didn't like that? Could they go to the Supreme Court and complain that their constitutional rights had been violated?

Fraid not.

Sorry, cheese-eaters.

The 14th amendment is as much a part of the constitution as Article 1, or anything else. No amendment can be changed except by another amendment.

For now I'll just note that Article 1 is not an "amendment to" the constitution. It IS (part of) the constitution.

But, I repeat myself.

So, what do you all propose, a ban on Muslim immigrants?


I would be down for that, my own damn self, sho nuff.

Quote:

So, what do you all propose, a ban on Muslim immigrants?


I would be down for that, my own damn self, sho nuff.

"No baby it's too late to change your mind and stay
Please don't drag it out much longer
Leave before the hurt gets stronger, ciao

I should have known
You would be the very first to cast a stone"

Are you aware of anything, anywhere in the constitution, which gives a Mexican woman the right to "create" citizens by slipping across the border?

All amendments are part of the constitution. They can be changed by amendment only. Indeed, some amendments have been amended already.

Are you saying that a tourist or an immigrant doesn't have the right of free speech?

The First Amendment gives citizens the right to hold communist beliefs without punishment. It does NOT give immigrants that same right, according to the Supreme Court.

The Somali-born Ohio State University student accused of committing a car-and-knife attack on campus Monday reportedly came with his family as a refugee, but it is unclear what precisely the family was fleeing....

NBC News, citing law enforcement sources, reported that Artan left his native country in 2007 for Pakistan and came to America seven years later.

Federal law and international treaties set out specific criteria for qualifying as refugees. “To be a refugee, one should be fleeing an area that is under duress,” said Kyle Shideler, director of threat assessment for the Washington-based Center for Security Policy. “What program permitted his entry into the United States?” he asked.