...not to mention that you have denied them the right to due process, and in the process have violated the 1st,4th and probobly the 6th amendment rights
From wikipedia:
First Amendment: addresses the rights of
freedom of religion (prohibiting Congressional
establishment of a religion over another religion through Law and protecting the right to
free exercise of religion),
freedom of speech,
freedom of the press,
freedom of assembly, and
freedom of petition.
Fourth Amendment: guards against
searches, arrests, and seizures of
property without a specific warrant or a "
probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. Some rights to privacy have been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court.
Sixth Amendment: guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a
jury, guarantees the right to
legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require
witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him. The Sixth Amendment has several court cases associated with it, including
Powell v. Alabama,
United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
Gideon v. Wainwright, and
Crawford v. Washington. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth amendment prohibition on forced self-incrimination and the sixth amendment clause on right to counsel were to be made known to all persons placed under arrest, and these clauses have become known as the
Miranda rights.
So, Mr. Webster, how does the first amendment apply to illegal immigrants?
As to the Fourth Amendment, if a person has violated the borders of this country by committing the crime of illegal entry, probable cause for search, seizure, and arrest has been clearly proven.
And for the Sixth Amendment, this is the teat from which all defense attorneys suckle...especially in a cut-and-dried case such as illegal immigration. If a person cannot prove his or her citizenship, then he or she should get exactly what the Sixth Amendment calls for: A speedy public trial.
If you are indeed a lawyer, you should have mentioned the Fourteenth Amendment, which I think is the ammo that you were searching for in your rebuttal to fogtender.
The Fourteenth Amendment:
...stated, in part, that: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.
The question that you and I are likely to disagree upon is the clause in the middle of that passage. I believe that it applies to citizens of the United States, as such that it is in the same Amendment, and follows the stated delineation (...of citizens of the United States;...) in the first part.
Your thoughts?
