Not quite, it's up to the States to decide who can own firearms unless SCOTUS is called in to decide whether there's a constitutional matter. Virginia (and other States) allows non-citizens to possess and transport firearms:

Actually, federal law prohibits those that are not permanent residents from owning firearms.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose
of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable
cause to believe that such person--
<sic>
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC922

So again, another example of how the constitution does not apply always equally to everyone.

There's more there, I don't feel like digging through it because you'll just say it isn't there Bobby.

If the above applied to all non-citizens there would be no need to specify "and not lawfully present", i.e. those non-citizens that are lawfully present in the US may be permitted to knowingly posses a firearm in Virginia.

Doesn't matter. For example, in the state of Texas, it is legal for convicted felons to own firearms upon completion of sentence. All this determines is the body which would prosecute the convicted felon, which in Texas (for example), would have to be the federal government.

Wrong again. The question was whether non-citizens have protection under the 5th Amendment.

Then you haven't read this thread.

That's "everyone", no equivocation on legal status, everyone.

I have already stated that non-citizens do get some protections but only as a byproduct to the limitation of government power. Specific rights granted to citizens are another matter. I'm not going to rewrite all of it. It's there for you to read.

On voting, the 15th, 19th, 24th Amendments say citizens have the right to vote, they do not state that non-citizens cannot vote, that is up to the States to decide. The 26th Amendment says that only certain citizens (those over 18) have the right to vote, though it doesn't stipulate that States cannot allow under 18s to vote. Gary has shown that at least one state allows non-citizens to vote, I'm not sure there are any States that allow under-18s to vote, but if there were it would not be in contradiction of the 26th Amendment.

I have already shown, with federal .gov websites that outline a requirement for US citizenship to vote in federal elections. That has already been shown. Scroll up.

But, I've shown links to you before Bobby and you just ignore them.

Gary has shown that at least one state allows non-citizens to vote

Gary showed a link to requirements for voting in a state runoff. We're talking about the US constitutional right to vote for senators as described in amendment 17.

Not quite, it's up to the States to decide who can own firearms unless SCOTUS is called in to decide whether there's a constitutional matter. Virginia (and other States) allows non-citizens to possess and transport firearms:

Actually, federal law prohibits those that are not permanent residents from owning firearms.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose
of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable
cause to believe that such person--
<sic>
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC922

There's more there, I don't feel like digging through it because you'll just say it isn't there Bobby.

Moving the goal posts, you said "non-citizens", as you found federal law and as I found state law both permit non-citizens to own firearms. I did not argue that illegal immigrants had the right.

If the above applied to all non-citizens there would be no need to specify "and not lawfully present", i.e. those non-citizens that are lawfully present in the US may be permitted to knowingly posses a firearm in Virginia.

Doesn't matter. For example, in the state of Texas, it is legal for convicted felons to own firearms upon completion of sentence. All this determines is the body which would prosecute the convicted felon, which in Texas (for example), would have to be the federal government.

It does if you're arguing "non-citizens cannot own firearms". What Texas does is it's own business and has no bearing on the topic at hand.

Wrong again. The question was whether non-citizens have protection under the 5th Amendment.

Then you haven't read this thread.

LOL

That's "everyone", no equivocation on legal status, everyone.

I have already stated that non-citizens do get some protections but only as a byproduct to the limitation of government power. Specific rights granted to citizens are another matter. I'm not going to rewrite all of it. It's there for you to read.

Good, then you agree with Gary and me that illegal immigrants have 5th Amendment protections, we all agree, yay us.

On voting, the 15th, 19th, 24th Amendments say citizens have the right to vote, they do not state that non-citizens cannot vote, that is up to the States to decide. The 26th Amendment says that only certain citizens (those over 18) have the right to vote, though it doesn't stipulate that States cannot allow under 18s to vote. Gary has shown that at least one state allows non-citizens to vote, I'm not sure there are any States that allow under-18s to vote, but if there were it would not be in contradiction of the 26th Amendment.

I have already shown, with federal .gov websites that outline a requirement for US citizenship to vote in federal elections. That has already been shown. Scroll up.

But, I've shown links to you before Bobby and you just ignore them.

Not at all, see below.

Gary has shown that at least one state allows non-citizens to vote

Gary showed a link to requirements for voting in a state runoff. We're talking about the US constitutional right to vote for senators as described in amendment 17.

Amendment 17 stipulated "people", as noted this is typically interpreted as "people of the United States", it's citizenry. I don't believe Gary or anybody else has argued that the 17th grants non-citizens the right to vote in Senatorial elections. As you found though "All States require that you be a United States citizen by birth or naturalization to register to vote in federal and State elections.", i.e. it's up to the States to decide who can vote, not the USC.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Gary has shown that at least one state allows non-citizens to vote

Gary showed a link to requirements for voting in a state runoff. We're talking about the US constitutional right to vote for senators as described in amendment 17.

Then please dig through Georgia codes and show that they did in fact have different requirements to vote in a federal election and a state election. I say did because they recently revised they voting acts to reflect changes in the Federal Voting rights act, requiring a picture ID, and now require US Citizenship. But remember the Federal Voting rights act is a legislative mandate, not a constitutional one.

---

Moving the goal posts, you said "non-citizens", as you found federal law and as I found state law both permit non-citizens to own firearms. I did not argue that illegal immigrants had the right.

You're right, my mistake. Some non-citizens can own firearms. But illegal aliens may not. My point was to outline that the constitution doesn't apply equally to all people regardless of status.

It does if you're arguing "non-citizens cannot own firearms". What Texas does is it's own business and has no bearing on the topic at hand.

I can say the same thing about your example with the state of Virginia. States all have their own laws regarding the issue. However, the point of this thread over the last couple of days is the discussion of whom the US constitution applies to. My point about Texas is that in many cases, state statutes are irrelevant in regard to constitutional law. We're not talking about state laws here. If you want that, start a new thread.

Good, then you agree with Gary and me that illegal immigrants have 5th Amendment protections, we all agree, yay us.

It's obvious that you haven't read the details of this thread, so other than to just troll, I don't know what you're doing here. Having said that, I don't expect you to read all of that stuff (I wouldn't if I had just gotten here), but if you're going to make an argument here, you should at least know what has been said, out of courtesy at bare minimum. Gary was trying to say that because people have protection under the 5th amendment, that the constitution in full applies to everyone regardless of legal status. THAT is the point I'm arguing, and it has been falsified.

Amendment 17 stipulated "people", as noted this is typically interpreted as "people of the United States", it's citizenry. I don't believe Gary or anybody else has argued that the 17th grants non-citizens the right to vote in Senatorial elections. As you found though "All States require that you be a United States citizen by birth or naturalization to register to vote in federal and State elections.", i.e. it's up to the States to decide who can vote, not the USC.

States can determine registration requirements and who is eligible to vote in state elections. The USC, in accordance with constitutional law, most certainly determines who may vote in federal elections. It is illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections, as already shown.

And this goes back to the example of gun ownership by felons in Texas. It doesn't matter if Texas allows it, it's still illegal to own firearms by felons.

You must be a US citizen to vote in federal elections, and that is a constitutionally afforded right. Ergo, the constitution does not afford rights to all people regardless of their status. THAT'S the argument.

Gary has shown that at least one state allows non-citizens to vote

Gary showed a link to requirements for voting in a state runoff. We're talking about the US constitutional right to vote for senators as described in amendment 17.

Then please dig through Georgia codes and show that they did in fact have different requirements to vote in a federal election and a state election. I say did because they recently revised they voting acts to reflect changes in the Federal Voting rights act, requiring a picture ID, and now require US Citizenship. But remember the Federal Voting rights act is a legislative mandate, not a constitutional one.

NO, you just need to look at the proof that I posted that explains that voting in federal elections is reserved for US citizens ONLY.

If on the other hand your argument is that federal mandates are overriding constitutional rights, then scroll up and see what I said when you and I first started this exchange; practice is more profound than ideology.

Moving the goal posts, you said "non-citizens", as you found federal law and as I found state law both permit non-citizens to own firearms. I did not argue that illegal immigrants had the right.

You're right, my mistake. Some non-citizens can own firearms. But illegal aliens may not. My point was to outline that the constitution doesn't apply equally to all people regardless of status.

It does if you're arguing "non-citizens cannot own firearms". What Texas does is it's own business and has no bearing on the topic at hand.

I can say the same thing about your example with the state of Virginia. States all have their own laws regarding the issue. However, the point of this thread over the last couple of days is the discussion of whom the US constitution applies to. My point about Texas is that in many cases, state statutes are irrelevant in regard to constitutional law. We're not talking about state laws here. If you want that, start a new thread.

Good, then you agree with Gary and me that illegal immigrants have 5th Amendment protections, we all agree, yay us.

It's obvious that you haven't read the details of this thread, so other than to just troll, I don't know what you're doing here. Having said that, I don't expect you to read all of that stuff (I wouldn't if I had just gotten here), but if you're going to make an argument here, you should at least know what has been said, out of courtesy at bare minimum. Gary was trying to say that because people have protection under the 5th amendment, that the constitution in full applies to everyone regardless of legal status. THAT is the point I'm arguing, and it has been falsified.

Sorry, must've missed the bit where anyone other than you posting here said that. Gary posted a distinction between people (indicating that it meant citizens) and person (indicating that it meant everyone). If you're making that (strawman?) point, great, we all agree on that too, yay us. As for trolling (ad hom?), I actively joined this thread when the subject of 5th amendment protections was raised, highlighting that a similar discussion had been held on these fora previously, prior to that I'd been reading it.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Gary's argument is that the constitution applies to everyone because one part of it applies to everyone.

I gave examples of where constitutional rights are afforded to citizens only, to falsify that.

I argue that the constitution does not apply to everyone regardless of status. There are parts that do, but not as a whole.

I have already proven that non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections (a constitutional right).

I have already proven that non-citizens can be deported for speech that is protected under the first amendment for US citizens.

Therefore, I have already proven that the US constitution does not unequivocally and equally apply to all persons regardless of status. If a federal mandate prevents the exercising of a constitutional right, I have addressed that in my practice vs. ideology argument.

I have stated my case with links from reputable and government websites, and relevant reference to the constitutional amendments in question.

If you still think that it's all wrong, then that's your first amendment right. But I have laid the facts out there, and there is no reason for me to continue on explaining the fundamentals because if you haven't gotten it by now, you never will.

Gary's argument is that the constitution applies to everyone because one part of it applies to everyone.

I missed where he said that, can you tell me which post that was?

I gave examples of where constitutional rights are afforded to citizens only, to falsify that.

I argue that the constitution does not apply to everyone regardless of status. There are parts that do, but not as a whole.

I have already proven that non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections (a constitutional right).

A minor quibble. You have proven that State and Federal law states this is the case, not the USC. Until this is tested by SCOTUS the question of whether it is a right for all people is unknown. These laws may change, the federal law may well be unconsitutional, as Gary has noted for the most part the USC leaves it to the States to decide who, outside of those noted in the Amendments I referenced, can vote.

I have already proven that non-citizens can be deported for speech that is protected under the first amendment for US citizens.

Therefore, I have already proven that the US constitution does not unequivocally and equally apply to all persons regardless of status. If a federal mandate prevents the exercising of a constitutional right, I have addressed that in my practice vs. ideology argument.

I have stated my case with links from reputable and government websites, and relevant reference to the constitutional amendments in question.

If you still think that it's all wrong, then that's your first amendment right. But I have laid the facts out there, and there is no reason for me to continue on explaining the fundamentals because if you haven't gotten it by now, you never will.

More strawmen. I haven't said that all USC rights apply to everyone in the US, and I don't think Gary has either. We have argued that 5th Amendment protections do apply to everyone subject to US jurisdiction (illegal immigrants and Gitmo prisoners alike), and it was a reference to these that started the ball rolling. Can we get back to whether "They can't use the IRS for such enforcement. There is the Fifth Amendment which bars it. This because the income tax is just that, a voluntary tax.", that is, US law enforcement cannot use IRS records for tracking illegal immigrants via their income tax records?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I missed where he said that, can you tell me which post that was?

You can start with post 934432 and then read the responses and the following posts.

A minor quibble. You have proven that State and Federal law states this is the case, not the USC. Until this is tested by SCOTUS the question of whether it is a right for all people is unknown.

Read my previous post, I've already addressed that issue in my practice vs. ideology argument. I put that in there because I knew you'd say that.

More strawmen. I haven't said that all USC rights apply to everyone in the US, and I don't think Gary has either.

Actually, Gary has implied it, and has attempted to defend it. He even stated that Indians were excluded from constitutional rights, citing that those excluded are listed as excluded, and then referenced a part of the constitution regarding census of non-tax paying natives for the purpose of determining house of representative numbers. He then went on to construe that states have authority over handling elections to determine that all people are eligible (depending upon state) to vote in federal elections.

When I posted links to government web sites outlining that you must be a US citizen to vote in federal elections, I was talking to Gary. He seems to think otherwise.

Bobby, it would take a part time job to continue on with your trolling. The fact that the questions you ask and the points already brought up means that you haven't even bothered to read the thread, and as such really aren't worth me wasting any more time with. You're trolling. I've seen you do this with other people to, where you are shown links in black and white, with empirical facts and you sit there and deny that they exist or play dumb. I've learned my lesson and shall avoid further discussion with you on any level. Last word is all yours, I'm sure it's important to you.

I missed where he said that, can you tell me which post that was?

You can start with post 934432 and then read the responses and the following posts.

Oh jeez, this is where Gary is talking specifically about the 5th Amendment. No claim about the USC in general, it's a clarification on a comment about protections under the 5th.

Actually, Gary has implied it, and has attempted to defend it. He even stated that Indians were excluded from constitutional rights, citing that those excluded are listed as excluded, and then referenced a part of the constitution regarding census of non-tax paying natives for the purpose of determining house of representative numbers. He then went on to construe that states have authority over handling elections to determine that all people are eligible (depending upon state) to vote in federal elections.

Ahh, an implication, I missed that too, silly me, I can't read things the way you can. Indians did not have rights under the USC for quite some time. The Congressional Globe shows this to be the case when the 14th Amendment was under discussion:

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I presume the honorable Senator from Michigan does not intend by this amendment to include Indians. I move, therefore, to amend the amendment - I presume he will have no objection to it - by inserting after the word "thereof" the words "excluding Indians not taxed". The amendment would then read:

All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.

Mr. HOWARD. I hope that amendment to the amendment will not be adopted. Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and have always been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations.

It wasn't until 1884 that Indians were considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and thus qualifying for USC protections, and 1924 when they were granted full citizenship.

According to the USC the States do have authority over handling of elections, that Federal law has constrained the States may be unconstitutional, but that's for SCOTUS to decide, not any of us.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Putting illegals in prison would not do much good and would cost the country much more than it would save. The people that need to be punished severaly are the people and companies that hire the illegals. If the penalty for employing illegals far out weaighs the savings made by hiring them, the jobs would cease.
I know we have laws on thwe books now, but they should actually be enforced, and in my opinion, made harsher.

---

And after the spanking comes...



Ni !

Putting illegals in prison would not do much good and would cost the country much more than it would save. The people that need to be punished severaly are the people and companies that hire the illegals. If the penalty for employing illegals far out weaighs the savings made by hiring them, the jobs would cease.
I know we have laws on thwe books now, but they should actually be enforced, and in my opinion, made harsher.

Imprisoning illegals perhaps does not do much good, but they are detained:

In a sinking economy, immigration detention is a rare growth industry. Congress has doubled annual spending on it in the last four years, to $2.4 billion approved in October as part of $5.9 billion allotted for immigration enforcement through next September — even more than the Bush administration had requested.

As for harsh:

Federal immigration officials investigating the death of a New York computer engineer from China who died in their custody last summer said Thursday that supervisors at a Rhode Island detention center had denied the ailing man appropriate medical treatment on multiple occasions and that employees had dragged him from his cell to a van as he screamed in pain.

Sounds a little over harsh to me. While I think you're talking about harsh treatment of employers rather than illegals, some laws are enforced ...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Putting illegals in prison would not do much good and would cost the country much more than it would save.

Instead of limiting illegal immigration, perhaps Obama plans to give potential immigrants another incentive to come to the US; free healthcare!

We cannot kick out 12 million people and we also cannot go on without meaningfull immigration reform. Yes, we are already treating illegal aliens for free at emergency rooms. When they are no longer labeled 'illegals' they will most likey consume more healthcare because they would no longer fear being deported. In addition, it is possible that countless families will be allowed to immigrate because they are directly related to a US citizen.

Like I said, we need meaningfull immigration reform and meaningfull enforcement.

In his speech to a joint session of Congress, Obama denied that the plan he envisioned—but conveniently has yet to set to paper—would not allow illegal immigrants to participate, meaning the American people wouldn't have to pay for their healthcare. Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina called the president out on it—and was admonished for doing so by the House, generally along party lines. To the television networks that have covered the story, this makes Obama the hero and Wilson the goat.

Not so fast.

It may be that Obama's eventual plan for healthcare reform won't pay the medical expenses of immigrants here in the United States illegally—but that's because he may also have a not-so-secret plan to make them all citizens.

As Stephen Dinan writes in Friday's Washington Times, the president is saying the healthcare crisis among illegal immigrants is so severe that it constitutes a compelling reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually can have access to healthcare. "Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute in a speech on Wednesday. "That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else."

"If anything," Obama said of the need to reform healthcare in America, "this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

So it turns out that Obama's explanation to Congress and the country about illegal immigrants and healthcare reform isn't quite the same as what he tells his friends when he thinks America isn't watching. As a matter of parsing words and splitting hairs, the distinctions are positively Clintonian in their brilliance. As a matter of public policy they are almost certain to inflame an electorate that is already highly skeptical of his effort to change American healthcare.

Would Obama Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants Mean Free Healthcare?
September 18, 2009 03:40 PM ET
By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Why put illegals in prison? - Just send them back and tell them to try again LEGALLY! If I do something ILLEGAL I AM PENALIZED in some form.
To not send them back is to admit our laws are free to be ignored - THIS is what needs to be reformed, not just say Since you broke the law and there are so many of you WE FORGIVE YOU!

---

Classic WU= 7,237 Classic Hours= 42,079

Why put illegals in prison? - Just send them back and tell them to try again LEGALLY! If I do something ILLEGAL I AM PENALIZED in some form.
To not send them back is to admit our laws are free to be ignored - THIS is what needs to be reformed, not just say Since you broke the law and there are so many of you WE FORGIVE YOU!

Exactly! 12 million wrongs does not make a right! Although, times have changed. Prisons are full so many prisoners are let out early or given a reduced sentence.

Example: Locally a drunk was arrested for assult on a police officer (punched an officer) and vandalism (kicked out a police car window) on police property (felonies). This was reduced to public intox and he was required to take anger management and seek help for alcoholism.

Putting illegals in prison would not do much good and would cost the country much more than it would save. The people that need to be punished severely are the people and companies that hire the illegals. If the penalty for employing illegals far out weighs the savings made by hiring them, the jobs would cease.
I know we have laws on the books now, but they should actually be enforced, and in my opinion, made harsher.

Amen!

I find it amusing that so much anger is being directed at the "illegal" immigrants at the bottom of the economic ladder while American companies are exploiting the immigration laws to bring in skilled foreign workers under H-1B visas when there is 10% unemployment.

---

Join the PACK!

Putting illegals in prison would not do much good and would cost the country much more than it would save. The people that need to be punished severely are the people and companies that hire the illegals. If the penalty for employing illegals far out weighs the savings made by hiring them, the jobs would cease.
I know we have laws on the books now, but they should actually be enforced, and in my opinion, made harsher.

Amen!

I find it amusing that so much anger is being directed at the "illegal" immigrants at the bottom of the economic ladder while American companies are exploiting the immigration laws to bring in skilled foreign workers under H-1B visas when there is 10% unemployment.

So which is worse, the companies that exploit illegal immigrants or those that exploit the non-immigrant visa laws? I should note that I have an interest, I entered the US as a non-immigrant just over 10 years ago (on an L-1B visa), and am now proud to say I'm a citizen. I became a permanent resident while working for the same employer that sponsored my visa, but had left before naturalizing.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

So which is worse, the companies that exploit illegal immigrants or those that exploit the non-immigrant visa laws? I should note that I have an interest, I entered the US as a non-immigrant just over 10 years ago (on an L-1B visa), and am now proud to say I'm a citizen. I became a permanent resident while working for the same employer that sponsored my visa, but had left before naturalizing.

First, my compliments on becoming a citizen. One look at the demographics of the aging US population shows that this country needs many more immigrants, not fewer. Unfortunately, this fact tends to get lost in the immigration debate.

I would note that 10 years ago, the US was enjoying an economic boom. College graduates were going straight into the workforce and there was a genuine need to permit "specialized knowledge" visas. It was during this time that companies found that they could bring in younger workers from overseas with advanced degrees and still pay them less than their American counterparts.

As the economy soured after 2001, companies continued the practice; not because of a shortage of workers, but to cut costs. In the current economic environment with 10% unemployment, this visa program should have been suspended. The beat goes on. There is now a full-court press being put on by industry to keep these visa programs going.

After all, why would a company hire a 50-year-old engineer with 25 years of experience who was laid off with dependents and health issues when they can bring in a 30-year-old engineer from India with an advanced degree for a lower salary (and lower benefit costs, too)? All they have to do is claim he has "specialized knowledge" and sponsor the visa.

Which is worse? Depends on your point of view. For those of us with 10-15-20-25 years of working behind us, who are doing a good job and maybe went back to school for that advanced degree, the current work visa program is a real threat.

---

Join the PACK!

Border Enforcement

---

Classic WU= 7,237 Classic Hours= 42,079

Gary's argument is that the constitution applies to everyone because one part of it applies to everyone.

Stop putting words into my mouth. Never said that. Never would.

I said the Fifth Amendment applies to all persons who are on US soil. That says nothing about anyone else or any other part of the Constitution or any other place.

Any thing else is a figment of your imagination.
<plonk>

---