Sidebar

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The burning legal question that must be asked and that is begging for a constitutional answer is: Was it the Framer's intention that every jot and tittle in all the U.S. Constitution apply equally to all the peoples of the world, regardless of their legal residence or citizen status, or was the Constitution primarily drafted for the benefits, protection and rights of the people who came here to settle?

We shouldn't forget that when the first British settlers came here, there was no such thing as immigration law. The natives of this land knew of no such thing, as we have today in our modern society.

Or when the Declaration of Independence was drawn up, did the drafters mean by "We the People" everyone or anyone in the world who sets foot on our land, or was that phrase used in a more restrictive sense?

I noticed in the judge's ruling that she appealed to the 14th Amendment, if I recall correctly, to justify her decision. Liberal judges often like to do this to extend the privileges of this one amendment to the Bill or Rights.

I hope this case makes it to SCOTUS.

Whatever the framers' intentions were, what matters now is that it, apparently, doesn't matter:

Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes

Chinese immigrants challenging the arbitrary seizure of their property, have established the rights of non-citizens under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments including due process and the right to a jury.

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws.