d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Minneapolis Ice Capades 2026
Prev18485868788120Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 23,970
Joined: Feb 28 2007
Gold: 35,554.14
Warn: 10%
Jan 26 2026 09:33pm
A firing squad is literally the opposite of due process.

Your original claim was: “Illegal invaders are not entitled to due process or any amendments.”

That’s false in the U.S.

Due process = the government must follow legal steps before taking someone’s liberty (detaining/deporting): notice + a chance to respond + a lawful decision.

The Supreme Court has said the Due Process Clause applies to “all persons” in the U.S., including aliens whether their presence is lawful or unlawful.

So yes:
- No, they don’t get citizen-only rights (like voting).
- Yes, they do have person rights like due process while they’re here.

If you still think “illegal = no rights,” show where the Constitution says “citizens only.” It doesn’t - it says “person.”


So by this line of logic the only way to repel a invading force is by due process.
You dont really believe this foolishness???

P.S. Your attempts to appeal to modern Supreme Court rulings fall on deaf ears.
The Supreme Court hasn't been constitutional in a very long time.
Member
Posts: 9,093
Joined: May 11 2009
Gold: 5.01
Jan 26 2026 09:35pm
A firing squad is literally the opposite of due process.

Your original claim was: “Illegal invaders are not entitled to due process or any amendments.”

That’s false in the U.S.

Due process = the government must follow legal steps before taking someone’s liberty (detaining/deporting): notice + a chance to respond + a lawful decision.

The Supreme Court has said the Due Process Clause applies to “all persons” in the U.S., including aliens whether their presence is lawful or unlawful.

So yes:
- No, they don’t get citizen-only rights (like voting).
- Yes, they do have person rights like due process while they’re here.

If you still think “illegal = no rights,” show where the Constitution says “citizens only.” It doesn’t - it says “person.”




“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

Bit of the text from majority opinion in DC vs Heller. It's a good read, especially the free state definition in relation to 2A and militias. Lefties Learing about these rights

This post was edited by RedFromWinter on Jan 26 2026 09:37pm
Member
Posts: 33,629
Joined: Feb 21 2007
Gold: 428.33
Jan 26 2026 09:40pm
So by this line of logic the only way to repel a invading force is by due process.
You dont really believe this foolishness???

P.S. Your attempts to appeal to modern Supreme Court rulings fall on deaf ears.
The Supreme Court hasn't been constitutional in a very long time.


Due process doesn’t stop removal - it stops arbitrary detention/punishment. “Invasion” is war; immigration is law enforcement.

Do you want a government bound by law, or one that does whatever it wants?
Member
Posts: 33,629
Joined: Feb 21 2007
Gold: 428.33
Jan 26 2026 09:44pm
“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

Bit of the text from majority opinion in DC vs Heller. It's a good read, especially the free state definition in relation to 2A and militias. Lefties Learing about these rights


Heller’s “the people” discussion is about amendments that use the phrase the people (1A/2A/4A).
I’m talking about the 5th Amendment, which says “person,” not “citizen.”
SCOTUS explicitly says due process applies to all persons in the U.S., including aliens, lawful or unlawful (Zadvydas).
Member
Posts: 23,970
Joined: Feb 28 2007
Gold: 35,554.14
Warn: 10%
Jan 26 2026 09:50pm
Due process doesn’t stop removal - it stops arbitrary detention/punishment. “Invasion” is war; immigration is law enforcement.

Do you want a government bound by law, or one that does whatever it wants?


If our government was still bound by law, they wouldn't have let the illegal invaders in, in the first place.
Member
Posts: 46,792
Joined: Sep 5 2016
Gold: 100.00
Jan 26 2026 09:50pm
no police for the hotel tim walz clown show

How the f*ck did they let this happen?
Member
Posts: 9,093
Joined: May 11 2009
Gold: 5.01
Jan 26 2026 09:52pm
Heller’s “the people” discussion is about amendments that use the phrase the people (1A/2A/4A).
I’m talking about the 5th Amendment, which says “person,” not “citizen.”
SCOTUS explicitly says due process applies to all persons in the U.S., including aliens, lawful or unlawful (Zadvydas).


The justices were describing the historical context of the era the definitions were written into Constitution. It was context before the deeper opinions around 1A/2A/4A. And the definition there would align with your assertion.

This post was edited by RedFromWinter on Jan 26 2026 09:53pm
Member
Posts: 21,544
Joined: May 22 2014
Gold: 0.00
Jan 26 2026 09:58pm
Illegal invaders are not entitled to due process or any amendments as they are not now and have never been citizens of The United States of America.


reframing the constitution as a racial/national contract is just your bigoted fantasy, it's not a legal interpretation merely an ideological rewrite
Member
Posts: 23,970
Joined: Feb 28 2007
Gold: 35,554.14
Warn: 10%
Jan 26 2026 10:16pm
reframing the constitution as a racial/national contract is just your bigoted fantasy, it's not a legal interpretation merely an ideological rewrite


You think the constitution for The United States of America isnt a national contract?
I dont even know how respond to such a ridiculous viewpoint.
Member
Posts: 6,465
Joined: Nov 16 2008
Gold: 63.70
Jan 26 2026 10:48pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev18485868788120Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll