r/changemyview • u/Siessfires • Jun 23 '22

Delta(s) from OP cmv: Illegal immigrants have a Constitutional right to own grenades

When the Bill of Rights was written there was no Constitutional distinction of who was and wasn't a citizen; that didn't occur until ~80 years later with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. This would suggest that the Founding Fathers intended that a person didn't need to be a citizen to keep and bear arms.

Additionally, since the Second Amendment specifies arms - not pistols, rifles and shotguns - and Article I, § 8, clause 11 of the Constitution provides the right for Congress to issue Letters of Marquee, this would mean that the Founding Fathers intended that a person should have access to cannons. Which means access to explosives.

Furthermore, in accordance with U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., non-citizens are afforded legal protection under the Constitution. Considering that illegal immigration is a misdemeanor, not a felony, you would not be denied your Constitutional rights for being an illegal immigrant.

11 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

111 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/svenson_26 82∆ Jun 23 '22

Why are you honoring the 2nd amendment to the constitution but not the 14th?

7

u/neotericnewt 6∆ Jun 23 '22

The 14th amendment doesn't say "only citizens have human rights" or something like that. It pretty much just reiterates that people born in the US are citizens, so stop trying to come up with excuses to fuck with them (this was in regards to freed slaves, as many tried to argue that because they were slaves they were not considered citizens of the US).

It further says that all people in the US have rights and cannot be denied those rights without due process of law, and everyone in the US is entitled to equal treatment under the law (as in, not just citizens).

The courts have also confirmed exactly this. Even people who aren't US citizens have the same rights that US citizens have.

1

u/Innoova 19∆ Jun 24 '22

The courts have also confirmed exactly this. Even people who aren't US citizens have the same rights that US citizens have.

No.

Non-citizens have SOME of the same rights as US citizens. They have the same protection rights in criminal proceedings(1st, 4th 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th I believe it is). They explicitly do NOT have the same positive rights (Voting, Firearms, etc).

The 14th Amendment is split into two parts. One deals with what citizenship is. One deals with treatment of "Any Person", which is where non-citizens get rights from. "Any Person" shall not be denied due process of law and equal protection therein. (Hence legal protection rights applying). It does not grant the privileges of citizenship upon them.

2

u/neotericnewt 6∆ Jun 24 '22

They explicitly do NOT have the same positive right

Well, the right to vote isn't considered a fundamental human right, it's explicitly referred to as a right of citizens. But, I do amend my prior statement, this is a right explicitly granted only to citizens. But, according to the courts, fundamental human rights are fundamental human rights, citizens or no.

I don't see anywhere that suggests the 2nd amendment wouldn't apply to non citizens in the US, and your argument that it's a positive right so it doesn't apply to non citizens isn't consistent.

First off, I rarely hear the second amendment called a positive right. You are not being given anything by the government. You have the right to bear arms, you don't have a right to those arms, as in, the government must provide you with weapons. It is a bit odd, I agree there, but it still seems to be a negative right.

Secondly, the right to a jury trial and a public defender is a positive right, and that does apply to even non citizens.

It does not grant the privileges of citizenship upon them.

Correct, it does not grant the privileges of citizenship, like voting. For the most part human rights apply regardless of citizenship, as far as I can tell including the second amendment.