CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
There exist multiple Supreme Court precedents in which the court finds that the U.S. Constitution protects non-citizens (which I assume to be equivalent to the phrase "someone on the other side of the border").
One example is BOUMEDIENE et al. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., argued December 5, 2007—decided June 12, 2008. In this recent case, the petitioners, who are not U.S. citizens, have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus.
This is just one of many precedents in which the Supreme Court has found in favor of the Constitution protecting someone on the other side of the border.
Your error is in using the word "someone". Someone means if we can find a single example of a person protected then your claim is disproven.
A US citizen who is outside the borders of the USA still has constitutional rights. The US government doesn't gain the ability to do anything and everything it wants to a US citizen simply because s/he isn't standing on US soil.
"Annoyingly illegals within our borders are given some rights" So are the illegals within the Mexico border given rights ? If your answer is no they why should it be done in the US ?
I'm not saying it should. Fact of the matter is illegals within this country are given protections under the Constitution. I don't agree with this, but that's how it is.
Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
1: 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.
Though it does not specifically use the terminology "illegal" it does use both "citizen" and "any person" and because of this it has been interpreted that any person - citizen or not - within the US are given "equal protection of the laws".
Let's start with what you said -"Annoyingly illegals within our borders are given some rights"
Then we will go here -"Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
1: 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.
Now we are to the 14th that says nothing about illegals within our borders are given some rights. It's a good Progressive tactic to use the 14th Amendment because that is what the Progressives do !
You don't seem to be understanding me. I agree they should not have rights, but they do and have been granted such rights. It seems you keep arguing my points, but I'm not suggesting they should be granted rights. I already specified it does not use the actual term, "illegal", but when it uses the phrase, "any person", it has been interpreted, even by courts, that this covers anyone; not just citizens.
1: 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.
If one is legally in the US they are not covered under the 14th Amendment.
IT'S NOT MY POINT! IT HAS NEVER BEEN MY POINT! I KEEP SAYING I DON'T AGREE WITH IT!
The reality is that through the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, illegals within our borders are granted rights. I don't agree with it, and frankly I don't give a crap what your interpretation is.
Plyler v. Doe
Zadvydas v. Davis
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Wong Win v. United States
Those are just a few examples. FFS do your homework
Illegal immigration is not illegal? We weren't even talking about that, but if it isn't illegal, the term "illegal" wouldn't preface immigration. I'm not arguing it, fact is the Supreme Court (you can Google them if you don't know what that is) says they are protected. Hate to break it to you, but it's what the Supreme Court says that goes, not your personal opinion.
Okay, illegal immigration is illegal hence the use of the word illegal. Legal immigration is simply called immigration. THE US Supreme Court has given rights to people, citizen or not, within our borders. You can keep whining to me about it, but I'm done arguing with you; especially given the fact the term "illegal" is too confusing for you, and that you want to argue with me about what the SC has done. Take it to your congress person.
Perhaps it is just my interpretation of the unique grammatical constructions DevinSeay employs, but, for disputation, I would posit that DevinSeay's two statements contradict themselves.
Of course not. If US gave rights to everyone worldwide, then Trump wouldn't have gotten away with destroying EPA.
On the other hand, FBI is given the right to hack any computer in the world. Not to mention that NSA already monitors most of the world Internet traffic.
