Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: State restrictions on concealed carry by noncitizens are unconstitutional.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150

    State restrictions on concealed carry by noncitizens are unconstitutional.

    "A federal district court in North Carolina held Friday that North Carolina may not discriminate against permanent resident noncitizens in issuing licenses to carry concealed guns. (Messmer v. Harrison.)
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...04/messmer.pdf
    [ ... ]
    A possibly surprising fact: The South Dakota and Kentucky cases were brought by the local ACLU chapters; though the ACLU generally views the Second Amendment as not securing an individual right to own guns (and thus disagrees with the Supreme Court), local chapters are apparently willing to challenge some discriminatory gun laws. (The New Mexico case was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, which deserves to be acknowledged, but that’s not as surprising a fact. The North Carolina case was won by Camden Webb at Williams Mullen.)"

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...onstitutional/

    I am pleased that EV addresses the internal function of the ACLU. He echoes my experience with my local Charleston, SC chapter, now disestablished for their support of the Second Amendment. Their director of legislative action held the same title in GRGRSC scfirearms.org
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647
    IMHO, Constitutional rights apply only to U.S. Citizens, period. If these non U.S. Citizens want to enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, then they can apply for Citizenship.
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  3. #3
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck View Post
    IMHO, Constitutional rights apply only to U.S. Citizens, period. If these non U.S. Citizens want to enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, then they can apply for Citizenship.
    Your opinion is very bad. Government does not give us rights. The right to bear arms is a fundamental and natural human right.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  4. #4
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    Your opinion is very bad. Government does not give us rights. The right to bear arms is a fundamental and natural human right.
    +1 Indeed.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    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 and not limited to these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Our Founding Fathers were literate and learned men, writing with a good knowledge of philosophy and natural rights. Their oeuvre is not accessible or amenable to semi-literates.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    I concur. Our Constitution does not grant rights. It recognizes and protects them. Furthermore, it established our government, gave it very few powers, gave the states more, and reserved the rest to you and I.

    Our government, that which our Constitution created, often gets that backwards.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    SCOTUS and COTUS does try to grant some rights, particularly those labelled with "penumbra."
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    Your opinion is very bad. Government does not give us rights. The right to bear arms is a fundamental and natural human right.
    Teach 'em if you can, Zach, it's up to him to learn.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 04-28-2015 at 01:06 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    The BOR does not protect rights of citizens, it clearly protects rights of people. All people have the same rights, but the US should only enforce those rights within it's own jurisdiction.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The BOR does not protect rights of citizens, it clearly protects rights of people. All people have the same rights, but the US should only enforce those rights within it's own jurisdiction.
    There are fundamental rights that we and our government must respect regardless of national origin, political/national loyalties, and citizenship.

    However, as you've so powerfully argued, the 2nd amendment protects a right to bear arms against the government. I recognize and support the right of citizens to so bear arms.

    I am not convinced that we, the citizens, nor our government, are obliged to recognize nor protect any supposed "right" of foreign citizens to bear arms against our government.

    Put another way, I do not recognize any right for non-citizens to enter our national territory. A fundamental characteristic of sovereign nations is to have and control borders. So, can the nation / government / citizens / body politic, impose as a condition of entrance, the temporary surrender of the natural right to bear arms just as I might require visitors to my homes to remove muddy shoes, or refrain from engaging in religious practices or speech that I would find offensive?

    Or, if we must recognize and protect the right of every individual within our national borders to bear arms, that might greatly influence who we admit, for how long, and on what other terms.

    Just thinking out loud here.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  11. #11
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    Non citizens have the same right to self preservation as citizens. It has nothing to do with the second amendment, the second amendment is for providing a free state. The right to self defense, IMO is not what the 2A was intended for. That is those rights not enumerated we have discussed in the past.

    Are you saying the US Army was justified in disarming Native Americans, who were not considered citizens at the time? Did they not deserve the right to self defense? A free state?
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Non citizens have the same right to self preservation as citizens. It has nothing to do with the second amendment, the second amendment is for providing a free state. The right to self defense, IMO is not what the 2A was intended for. That is those rights not enumerated we have discussed in the past.
    That is one take. I think the 2nd incorporates both the right to bear arms against the state as well as for self defense. But that minor distinction is not the point here.

    Either way, if we are obliged to respect a natural right to bear arms of all those allowed to freely walk our streets, we probably ought to be a bit more careful about who we invite into our nation.

    Alternatively, are foreign nationals really allowed to walk our streets freely? They are required to carry their papers, and are admitted under certain conditions, often for a limited time.

    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Are you saying the US Army was justified in disarming Native Americans, who were not considered citizens at the time? Did they not deserve the right to self defense? A free state?
    All things related to the treatment of American Indians (I personally reject the term "Native" as both Eurocentric--they are "native" only relative to when Europeans arrived, otherwise they are merely "earlier immigrants"-- and as politically motivated to imply some position of superiority) are highly emotionally charged and as such are potential landmines to discuss.

    Let me say that the treatment of the American Indians was horrific.

    In every case of war, the conquerors have the rights of war to disarm those conquered nations and military powers. In many cases this applies to various American Indian tribes who were/are sovereign nations and who were military powers.

    In similar ways, whatever the underlying issues, justifications, and/or crimes committed by either side during the War Between the States, the Union Army was justified in disarming the Confederate Troops following the Confederate surrender. It was a notable and magnanimous gesture that Confederate officers were permitted to keep their side arms and that confederate soldiers were permitted to keep their horses.

    Whatever the moral correctness of a war, it is the right of the winner to disarm their opponent, lest the war not really end. How the conquered army/nation/people are treated after that speaks to the morality of the conquerors and their respect for human rights, coupled with how the defeated nation and its people respond.

    Those who accept defeat and move on peacefully might well expect to have their rights for personal defensive arms respected much sooner than those who continue to engage in armed conflict against their opponents.

    As you know, I've frequently said that any man who is allowed to walk our streets unsupervised must have all of his rights respected. I've left room in this for the exception for those who are under supervision such as parole or probation.

    The question I have is whether a guest in our nation--someone with no inherent right to be here--can claim a right to go about our society armed. Is such a guest truly free in our nation?

    Is there a difference between permanent residences without citizenship and those who are here temporarily on student or tourist visas?

    Practically, it would be foolish for us to admit anyone we didn't trust with a gun since anyone who wants one can obtain a firearm in our nation one way or another.

    But on the principled side, I'm wondering about what rights we must respect for invited guests, vs what rights we can require them to temporarily surrender while on our soil. I have no problem if citizenship confers more than voting and the ability to enter the nation at will.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Can your store refuse service to blacks if you know they are visitors from another country? How about Jews if you know they are only visiting here from Israel? Now make it a permanent resident instead of a visitor, someone with a green card that lives and works here, and the answer is even more clear. Why should their right as a resident to keep and bear arms be any different than their civil rights? I'm asking these questions morally, not legally.

    Purely, the 2A's "right of the people" could arguably refer to "We the people of the United States."
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I concur. Our Constitution does not grant rights. It recognizes and protects them. Furthermore, it established our government, gave it very few powers, gave the states more, and reserved the rest to you and I.

    Our government, that which our Constitution created, often gets that backwards.
    In light of recent comments, I'd like to clarify:

    The right to keep an bear arms is primarily derived from self-defense and preservation of life, limb, and property. It's a dovetail into the leading clause from our Declaration of Independence.

    However, no rational examination of our Second Amendment could conclude it's "the right of the people" was ever intended to to apply to anyone else but U.S. citizens. Indeed, it's the same "the people" as found in our Constitution's "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union" as well as "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." It's also found in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments.

    The 14th Amendment changed that.

    The Equal Protection Clause took effect in 1868 and provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws." This validated the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens. This was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against people belonging to various groups.

    While the Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state governments, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that equal protection requirements apply to the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

    So, where we stand today is that technically, even illegal aliens have a SCOTUS-mandated right to keep and bear arms.

    The question is, "Did SCOTUS make a mistake?" They certainly have in the past, and I believe they have in this case, not with respect to race or creed, but most certainly with respect to the fact our Founding Fathers never intended the full range of citizen rights to be extended to everyone in the country.

    Historically, legal aliens are here in a provisional status. As such, they are indeed afforded similar rights as citizens, such as being able to enter into contracts (rental cars, apartments, employment), but those rights have limitations. Student and work visas, for example, have expiration dates. Illegal aliens, on the other hand, do not have any sort of Constitutional right to vote, even as California and a few other uber-liberal states are bending over backwards to let them do so anyway.

    In summary, to whom does the right to keep and bear arms apply?

    • U.S. citizens: Yes
    • Legal aliens: Yes
    • Illegal aliens: No


    Similarly, but not quite the same, to whom does the right to vote apply?

    • U.S. citizens: Yes
    • Legal aliens: No
    • Illegal aliens: No
    Last edited by since9; 04-29-2015 at 08:05 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    In light of recent comments, I'd like to clarify:The right to keep an bear arms is primarily derived from self-defense and preservation of life, limb, and property. It's a dovetail into the leading clause from our Declaration of Independence.However, no rational examination of our Second Amendment could conclude it's "the right of the people" was ever intended to to apply to anyone else but U.S. citizens. Indeed, it's the same "the people" as found in our Constitution's "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union" as well as "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." It's also found in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments.The 14th Amendment changed that.The Equal Protection Clause took effect in 1868 and provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws." This validated the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens. This was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against people belonging to various groups.While the Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state governments, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that equal protection requirements apply to the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.So, where we stand today is that technically, even illegal aliens have a SCOTUS-mandated right to keep and bear arms.The question is, "Did SCOTUS make a mistake?" They certainly have in the past, and I believe they have in this case, not with respect to race or creed, but most certainly with respect to the fact our Founding Fathers never intended the full range of citizen rights to be extended to everyone in the country.Historically, legal aliens are here in a provisional status. As such, they are indeed afforded similar rights as citizens, such as being able to enter into contracts (rental cars, apartments, employment), but those rights have limitations. Student and work visas, for example, have expiration dates. Illegal aliens, on the other hand, do not have any sort of Constitutional right to vote, even as California and a few other uber-liberal states are bending over backwards to let them do so anyway.In summary, to whom does the right to keep and bear arms apply?
    • U.S. citizens: Yes
    • Legal aliens: Yes
    • Illegal aliens: No

    Similarly, but not quite the same, to whom does the right to vote apply?
    • U.S. citizens: Yes
    • Legal aliens: No
    • Illegal aliens: No
    I conclude rationally that the amendment stating the Feds won't infringe upon that right doesn't mean just infringe on US citizens.Also the 2A was a specific purpose to keep the feds in check by the individuals and the states. Arming for self defense was already the right and mentioned in Blackstones commentaries on common law.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Oh and the government doesn't have rights, not even the "right" to disarm. People have rights governments do not. There's that belief in magic again that when the government invades a foreign land and murders people its different than when individuals do it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Oh and the government doesn't have rights, not even the "right" to disarm. People have rights governments do not. There's that belief in magic again that when the government invades a foreign land and murders people its different than when individuals do it.
    +1
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I conclude rationally that the amendment stating the Feds won't infringe upon that right doesn't mean just infringe on US citizens.Also the 2A was a specific purpose to keep the feds in check by the individuals and the states. Arming for self defense was already the right and mentioned in Blackstones commentaries on common law.
    According to the Founding Fathers themselves, our Bill of Rights, of which our Second Amendment remains an integral part, was indeed crafted as stoppage against the rising tide of Federalism between the June 21, 1788 ratification of the U.S. Constitution and the December 15, 1791 ratification of the subject. Some founders called this imperialist tide "worse than King George."

    While that was indeed one reason, there remained many more, including a reflection of the century-long law on the books in Virginia requiring every able-bodied citizen to carry arms to and from church. Our Founders truly believed that if every law-abiding citizen were armed, no force could ever triumph over such.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    ...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...
    Give'em a gat, if they break a law with it, take the gat back. Either we respect life, liberty, and property, or we do not.

    Unfortunately, government violates this tenet regularly and does not discriminate based on national origin.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Give'em a gat, if they break a law with it, take the gat back. Either we respect life, liberty, and property, or we do not.

    Unfortunately, government violates this tenet regularly and does not discriminate based on national origin.
    Yep. All we have to do is look at how they treat "foreigners" when they disarm them to know how they will treat us.
    I stated in a speech a few years ago, that if they are trying to disarm us they are at war with with us.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck View Post
    IMHO
    Ignore List...Add a Member to Your List...Huck

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Can your store refuse service to blacks if you know they are visitors from another country? How about Jews if you know they are only visiting here from Israel? Now make it a permanent resident instead of a visitor, someone with a green card that lives and works here, and the answer is even more clear. Why should their right as a resident to keep and bear arms be any different than their civil rights? I'm asking these questions morally, not legally.
    From a legal perspective, what actual constitutional authority does congress have to force unwanted associations on privately owned businesses?

    The 14th amendment clearly prohibits the government from discriminating. I don't see how it properly applies to privately owned businesses. If someone wants to open a business catering only to atheist women of Jewish descent, I can't see how his not doing business with me hurts me. He wasn't doing business with me before he started his business. I don't see how him starting his business and choosing not to do business with me causes me any harm.

    Now morally? Whose morals?

    I find generally racial discrimination distasteful and ignorant. On the other hand, if a Jewish business owner prefers not to hire Palestinians, or vice versa, I can't much fault either side. All black dorms are colleges are fairly common and cause me no heartburn. Ditto all female. If the white boys want to live together without women or blacks present, what makes that offensive in this day and age?

    I also recognize that many consider me the worst kind of bigot for simply desiring not to engage in any business that might involve me any homosexual "marriage." I consider my position to be one of peaceful disassociation from conduct I find offensive. Many are quite sure it nothing but animus towards those whose inborn sexual orientation or identity offends my prudish and bigoted religious sensitivities.

    As for RKBA for foreign nationals, I'd suggest two thoughts:

    1-We ought not admit anyone we are not comfortable with carrying a gun (just like convicts who can't be trusted with a gun shouldn't be released) because if they want a gun they can certainly get one.

    2-If we do recognize that we must respect an inherent right to self-defense, then we are obliged to allow foreign nationals to carry arms suitable for self-defense. However, that doesn't compel us to allow them to carry arms suitable for militia or military service. Whatever the answer may be with regard to self defense, we most certainly are not required to allow foreign nationals to bear arms against our government.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    SNIP
    In summary, to whom does the right to keep and bear arms apply?

    • U.S. citizens: Yes
    • Legal aliens: Yes
    • Illegal aliens: No


    Similarly, but not quite the same, to whom does the right to vote apply?

    • U.S. citizens: Yes
    • Legal aliens: No
    • Illegal aliens: No
    As little as nine years ago, I believed the same.

    Today, no.

    I've met tons of aliens up-close. In fact, in my neighborhood, as a Caucasian, I am a minority. Mostly Hispanic, with a strong representation of Pakis and Afghans.

    Honest to god, every one I've met is hard-working as hell, at low-paying jobs: I've seen them at their jobs because I shop in the community too!

    These are decent people, many with kids.

    And, it would be unlikely that every single one was a legal alien. While I am sure most are legal; it just defies probability that none are illegal.

    I simply could not deny their humanity, their right to defend themselves, their loved-ones, their kids.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •