You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] Donbuster 4 points 48 points (+52|-4) ago 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

They do have rights, under the 14th amendment, since they are within the boundaries of the US.


[–] KingofKong [S] 1 points 47 points (+48|-1) ago 

But I thought driving falls under the category of privilege rather than inalienable rights.


[–] Donbuster 2 points 27 points (+29|-2) ago 

I never said that they had the right to drive (which I hold that provided you are capable of doing so in a manner that is reasonably safe to other drivers, and any passengers you might carry, should be a right, and that the easiest way of managing this is a drivers license for whoever meets these requirements, no other questions asked), just that they had rights in general, something that the top level commenter seems to have forgotten; For instance, they have a right to freedom of religion still, and a right to due process, and their labor is still subject to things such as minimum wage, laws that are not explicitly listed in the constitution as rights. Provided they meet all other requirements for the license, I see no problems with them holding one. That being said, since most states require proof of citizenship, they do NOT meet these requirements, even though I disagree with the concept of requiring proof of citizenship to drive.


[–] InyourfaceNancyGrace 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

They have the right to sue for discrimination. No one has the right to a driver's license (hence the testing and such).


[–] OhBlindOne 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

I have to disagree. I believe you are taking this amendment to mean that anyone who is inside of the United States borders is protected by these laws. This is not true.

Here is how to become a naturalized citizen of the U.S. (Source)

A person can become a naturalized citizen of the United States individually or as part of a group. Generally any person who has come into the United States as an immigrant may become a naturalized citizen. To do so, a person must be over 18 years old and must have lived in the United States for five years, without leaving for more than a total of 30 months (and not more than twelve consecutive months) throughout that five-year period.

People who wish to become U.S. citizens must file a petition for naturalization and take an examination that shows that they can read, speak, and write simple English and have a fair knowledge of American history, government, and the Constitution.

If someone comes into this country illegally, they are not protected under the constitution. Think of how insane that would be. That would mean, anyone coming to the U.S. regardless of their intentions and background, are automatically protected under these laws. That means the following: a spy comes into the U.S. from the country Imagionationia, to steal information from the U.S. government. The moment they crossed the border, they are now protected under the constitution and the laws therein.

One is only a protected citizen of the United States if they are born in the U.S. or have become a naturalized citizen. Not if there come illegally.


[–] Spheal357 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Unfortunately, I think the far left politicians like our current POTUS appoint Supreme Court Justices that they know will interpret the 14th amendment as a reason to give illegals equal rights... Doing this devalues being born in the US and it's adding up. I grew up in Florida, but I attend a very liberal university in the North and before a track meet when they played the national anthem I was made fun of for standing at attention... One name they called me "The colonel's kid" (because my father is a Colonel in the US Marines) just struck me as odd. I'm proud to be the son of a Marine, meanwhile they think it's a joke to respect the flag, our armed forces, and someone who disagrees with them.


[–] 4547888? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Wouldn't that also mean that since the spy isn't American, it wouldn't be illegal for him or her to obtain the information they were sent to "steal"? After all, being a non-American, he or she isn't subject to the law. Unless what you're saying is they they're still subject to it, but can't be protected by it. In which case, doesn't that create a slave class where a non-American citizen could enslave another non-American citizen and everything would be legally okie-dokie as long as they were within the jurisdiction of US law? Can't be a victim of a crime if you're not protected by the law.


[–] shakin_my_head 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Born or naturalized


[–] Chiefpacman 4 points 1 points (+5|-4) ago 

Within it's jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction doesn't mean within US borders. It's an extent of power, and it doesn't really answer the question. They are illegal.

If what you're saying were true, an illegal immigrant could re enter the country simply on the grounds that his miranda rights were not read appropriately.

Personally- I'd say the answer lies with congress ignoring this.


[–] Donbuster 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

take a look at Yick Wo v. Hopkins.

These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

Plyler v. Doe

The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. ... It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, *and to all person who may happen to be within their jurisdiction. *