That article didn’t say they aren’t people as in human beings, but rather The People, as in citizens of the US.
"The Second Amendment protects the right of ‘the people’ to keep and bear arms. Our court has held that the term ‘the people’ under the Second Amendment does not include illegal aliens" therefore the argument can be made that illegal aliens are not the people who are granted any of the other protections such as due process and the rest. Which is what i was implying, but I guess i wasn't clear on that.
Quote:
It’s kinda weird tho. Defendant essentially saying I don’t respect your country’s laws but I demand its protections
it's called irony
My support for illegal alien rights exists mostly to avoid abuse of Latin Americans who are in our country legally. I don’t know of any reason why, for example, we’d be schooling children who are not here legally. Being here legally changes everything for me, but I’m not at all sure why that distinction is even political. I’ve always found it a bit weird, if I’m honest. It’s certainly one of the places where I disagree with Democrats. If there were a way, without disadvantaging actual American citizens (and that’s really hard to do), I would be in favor of much stricter laws.
I think it goes back to the founding and slavery and then the 14th amendment's equal protection clause "“deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
I'm honestly not sure on how I feel about this issue. I think what I'd be happier with is the system getting the funding and hiring or judges it needs and other parts that causing the backlog.
This newshour article goes into some the laws and they came to be understood in reference to illegal aliens
Login
Register
Card Search
NGAWiki
Search
