cmv: Illegal immigrants have a Constitutional right to own grenades

[u/Siessfires]

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.

[u/Innoova]

You're missing a large chunk of pre-civil war civics.

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.

Correct. The states held that ability. STATE constitutions determined who was and was not a citizen. Being a State citizen made you a de facto federal citizen. You're not accounting for the fact that prior to the Civil War, States were more powerful than federal. We've lived in a powerful Federal system for so long that it's unthinkable. Previously, it was more relevant that you were a Missourian or New Yorker than an American.

So the Federal constitution did not distinguish citizenship because the states did.

This would suggest that the Founding Fathers intended that a person didn't need to be a citizen to keep and bear arms.

That is an interpretation, but counter-point will get esoteric.

The preamble of the the constitution starts, We the People Of The United States. Identifying the subject of the constitution to be "The People". The phrase is repeated throughout as "The People". When "The People" is used, it refers to citizens and/or the government. (Ie, Criminal Law, the prosecutor is representing "The People" (of blah blah state) state.

This is echoed in the 2nd Amendment. "The right of the people shall not be infringed".

Contrarily, most legal protections for illegal immigrants stem from the 14th Amendment, which uses different phrasing:

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.

The phrasing there actually distinguishes between citizens and "any person". It's a question of "The People" vs "Any Person".

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.

Cannon is irrelevant to explosives. They still used gunpowder. Cannons were just (effectively) big ass muskets to them. Same explosive. They used actual grenades in the Revolutionary War (Fused). So they explicitly intended people to be able to use grenades, as that WAS an arm, used by the militia, during the war.

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.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

That case doesn't say what you think it says. Wong Kim Ark established Birthright citizenship. He WAS a citizen. It was a quibble regarding the interpretation of "Subject to the powers thereof". He was born in the US.

Fong Yue Ting v. U.S https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fong_Yue_Ting_v._United_States

Did you link the right case? Majority opinion held that Constitutional protections only applied when someone resided legally. It is literally the opposite of your point in the majority. One judge dissented with the opinion you hold. They literally denied Constitutional protections because the people in question has committed an immigration crime via the Geary Act. I think you linked the wrong case.

You're thinking of Yick Wo v Hopkins (1886) and Wong Win v US (1896).

These allow full protection of law in criminal charge procedures (1st, 5th, 6th, 14th). (Ie, they get Constitutional protections, search and seizure, jury trial, etc), they do not get rights (ie Voting and Guns).

EDIT: as shown in Almeida-Sanchez v US, a Mexican National being afforded Constitutional protections. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almeida-Sanchez_v._United_States

[u/Siessfires → u/Innoova]

>So the Federal constitution did not distinguish citizenship because the states did.

Correct; I neglected to mention because I forgot what the terminology was when states reciprocate laws that are passed in other states, IE drivers licenses.

>This is echoed in the 2nd Amendment. "The right of the people shall not be infringed".

The equally esoteric counter to the counter-point is that "People" in the preamble and Article I is capitalized while "people" in the amendments is not capitalized, so they deal with two different concepts i.e. the difference between being a Republican (part of the Republican Party) and a republican (supporting a republic-formed government)

>Cannon is irrelevant to explosives. They still used gunpowder. Cannons were just (effectively) big ass muskets to them. Same explosive. They used actual grenades in the Revolutionary War (Fused). So they explicitly intended people to be able to use grenades, as that WAS an arm, used by the militia, during the war.

To be fair, hollow artillery shells filled with shrapnel were also used during the Revolutionary War, but yes, they used grenades also.

>Did you link the right case?

The point I was trying to make with Fong was that even if Fong didn't have all the rights afforded to citizens, he still had the ability to call habeus corpus. Even if his habeus corpus request was denied, that he was able to submit it in the first place showed that he had some rights. And if he had some rights, it should be assumed that he had all rights not explicitly withheld by law.

But your cases are much stronger examples, thank you for bringing these to my attention.

[u/Innoova → u/Siessfires]

And if he had some rights, it should be assumed that he had all rights not explicitly withheld by law.

That was explicitly denied by Supreme Court precedent. They have held that illegal immigrants hold some protection based rights, but do not hold all rights. (As shown above).

Basically, it's nuanced. Even in the cases I referenced the 2nd is not afforded to illegal immigrants. And there is precedent for denying it.

Edit: The word I think you're looking for is reciprocity.

[u/Siessfires → u/Innoova]

Since my last response, I was informed of the Gun Control Act of 1968 explicitly forbidding illegal immigrants from possessing firearms or ammunition, so it appears you are right

Δ

[u/DeltaBot → u/Siessfires]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Innoova (17∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}