Pelosi, Schumer To Trump: "Let's Debate Border Funds in Private"

[fredtoast]

(03-22-2019, 03:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Those providing pro Bobo Government 101 classes, go back and read exactly what I wrote and answer this question:

Do non-citizens have the same rights/protections under the Constitution as citizens?

Since you are the expert why play the question game?  Instead tell us exactly what Constitutional rights Citizens have that non-citizens do not.

**waits while Bfine googles to find where "deportation" is listed in the US Constitution.**

BTW here is "exactly what you wrote"

(03-19-2019, 09:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Are the Libs trying to claim that The rights of citizens granted by the US Constitution should apply to noncitizens and those here illegally?

And the answer to "exactly what you wrote" is "yes".  We have even quoted the exact language from the case you cited where the judge says that these immigrants could challenge their detention based on Constitutional grounds.  

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2019, 04:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Since you are the expert why play the question game?  Instead tell us exactly what Constitutional rights Citizens have that non-citizens do not.

**waits while Bfine googles to find where "deportation" is listed in the US Constitution.**

BTW here is "exactly what you wrote"




And the answer to "exactly what you wrote" is "yes".  We have even quoted the exact language from the case you cited where the judge says that these immigrants could challenge their detention based on Constitutional grounds.  

So a non citizen can vote for POTUS? I cannot wait until we elect our 1st non-citizen POTUS.

Fred's government class is great fun. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-22-2019, 07:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So a non citizen can vote for POTUS? I cannot wait until we elect our 1st non-citizen POTUS.

Fred's government class is great fun. 

Being a citizen isn't a constitutional requirement for voting. It was quite common in the 1800's for states to allow it, particularly western states looking to attract more residents. States began to set citizenship as a requirement in the late 1800's/early 1900's when we went through our big ant-immigration phase. 

Being a citizen is a requirement for being POTUS, though. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2019, 07:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Being a citizen isn't a constitutional requirement for voting. It was quite common in the 1800's for states to allow it, particularly western states looking to attract more residents. States began to set citizenship as a requirement in the late 1800's/early 1900's when we went through our big ant-immigration phase. 

Being a citizen is a requirement for being POTUS, though. 

The 15th Amendment uses the term US citizen. 

I truly don't expect anyone in this debate to admit that the answer to the question I originally posed:

"Are the Libs trying to claim that The rights of citizens granted by the US Constitution should apply to noncitizens and those here illegally?"


is no. But the answer is no. 


Noncitizens do not enjoy the rights and protections of citizens. They do however, receive limited rights and protections. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-22-2019, 08:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The 15th Amendment uses the term US citizen. 

I truly don't expect anyone in this debate to admit that the answer to the question I originally posed:

"Are the Libs trying to claim that The rights of citizens granted by the US Constitution should apply to noncitizens and those here illegally?"


is no. But the answer is no. 


Noncitizens do not enjoy the rights and protections of citizens. They do however, receive limited rights and protections. 

The 15th amendment didn't establish the right to vote, it merely protects citizens' right to vote on the basis of race. I get that you think it proves it is a right that can only belong to citizens, but that's incorrect and it didn't stop non citizens from legally voting for decades after it was ratified. 

Also your question was addressed by explaining to you that the premise was false, both in your suggestion of what people were arguing here and of who is protected by the Constitution.

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2019, 08:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The 15th amendment didn't establish the right to vote, it merely protects citizens' right to vote on the basis of race. I get that you think it proves it is a right that can only belong to citizens, but that's incorrect and it didn't stop non citizens from legally voting for decades after it was ratified. 

Also your question was addressed by explaining to you that the premise was false, both in your suggestion of what people were arguing here and of who is protected by the Constitution.

So only white non-citizens can vote? Hell the 19th mentioned Citizen also, so no female non-citizens voting. Or we can recognize the fact.

Must be cool to have the Constitution all figured out like you and Fred. 

My question has been addressed but never answered. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-22-2019, 09:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So only white non-citizens can vote? Hell the 19th mentioned Citizen also, so no female non-citizens voting. Or we can recognize the fact.

Must be cool to have the Constitution all figured out like you and Fred. 

You should be embarrassed at how stupid of a post this is.

Quote:My question has been addressed but never answered. 

Dino literally said "No." to that question 3 days ago. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2019, 09:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You should be embarrassed at how stupid of a post this is.



Dino literally said "No." to that question 3 days ago. 

It was framed to appear "stupid" as it entertains ideals suggested by you, Fred, and others. I suppose non-citizens can vote under 18 years old because the 26th only addresses age of citizens. See who "stupid" that sounds; yet, I'm the one that should be embarrassed.


So the answer is no. Non-citizens don't have the same rights and citizens as citizens under the Constitution. It's like pulling teeth, but at least we agree. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-22-2019, 09:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It was framed to appear "stupid" as it entertains ideals suggested by you, Fred, and others. I suppose non-citizens can vote under 18 years old because the 26th only addresses age of citizens. See who "stupid" that sounds; yet, I'm the one that should be embarrassed.


So the answer is no. Non-citizens don't have the same rights and citizens as citizens under the Constitution. It's like pulling teeth, but at least we agree. 

Oh man, you're doubling down on this. I'm embarrassed for you now.

Seriously, man, I thought you were done with the childish lying about what other board members post.

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2019, 09:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Oh man, you're doubling down on this. I'm embarrassed for you now.

Seriously, man, I thought you were done with the childish lying about what other board members post.

But I knew you weren't done with the slurs.

Enjoy your weekend. 

[Dill]

(03-22-2019, 08:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The 15th Amendment uses the term US citizen. 

I truly don't expect anyone in this debate to admit that the answer to the question I originally posed:

"Are the Libs trying to claim that The rights of citizens granted by the US Constitution should apply to noncitizens and those here illegally?"


is no. But the answer is no. 


Noncitizens do not enjoy the rights and protections of citizens. They do however, receive limited rights and protections. 

Non- citizens can't vote. That is one right they don't get. And they can't run for Congress or for president, even if born here. Is that what you mean by "limited"?

They can serve in the military though.

But what other rights don't they enjoy? Is their speech or freedom to associate "limited"? What about the right to worship the religion of their choice? or to due process and equal protection under the law?

What protections do citizens get that non-citizens don't?

To me it seems non-citizens cannot participate directly in governance by voting or holding federal office; but other ways they have the same rights and protections.  

[GMDino]

(03-22-2019, 09:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Dino literally said "No." to that question 3 days ago. 

Indeed.  For those who missed those two posts:

(03-19-2019, 09:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Figured this could go here:
https://news.yahoo.com/scotus-rules-feds-detain-alien-192838679.html;_ylt=A0geK9qjhJFcKacAHDBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEycWNsbGxlBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjY4OThfMQRzZWMDc2M-


Are the Libs trying to claim that The rights of citizens granted by the US Constitution should apply to noncitizens and those here illegally?

(03-19-2019, 09:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: No.

The Constitution says it.

Not ALL rights...but many.

However I actually agree with this decision.  If someone is released and their records show up a day or week or whatever later they should be re-detained.  Lack of speed in getting the records should not be the determining factor.

However I also agree with what Alito and Bryer said:



So long as individuals have the chance to challenge and to at least have the opportunity to get bail I'm good with it.

"Not ALL rights..."


That seems to have been ignored in favor of arguing that non-citizens don't share all rights.  

But bfine disagrees with the statements of the Justice that wrote the majority opinion too while agreeing with the ruling (as I also agreed with it).

Weird world.

[fredtoast]

(03-22-2019, 08:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The 15th Amendment uses the term US citizen. 

I truly don't expect anyone in this debate to admit that the answer to the question I originally posed:

"Are the Libs trying to claim that The rights of citizens granted by the US Constitution should apply to noncitizens and those here illegally?"


is no. But the answer is no. 


Noncitizens do not enjoy the rights and protections of citizens. They do however, receive limited rights and protections. 

What a spinmaster.

Posts a link to a Supreme Court decision saying that non-citizens have Constitutional protection, and then argues that he was talking about some totally different rights.

So just too clear up mu comments.  Since Bfine was posted a ruling about non-citizens where the Supreme Court said that non-citizens had Constitutional protection I said that Non-citizens have Constitutional protection.  I had no idea we were going to go off in some other random direction.  It is just another one of his little semantic games.  That is why he never makes statements and instead just ask questions.  That way he can always back track and claim he meant something else.