[trip286]

Originally Posted by rjd3282

Threatening to kill someone is not free speech, it's a threat and last I heard it was illegal to threaten people.

That's the thing, this guy in the picture didn't threaten anyone. That part was photo shopped in. He's guilty of nothing but being a total asshat. Well, he's probably an illegal too.

I SAW the original a couple weeks ago, sent to me by a friend. Now, admittedly, the shooting part could have been shopped out, and this could be the original instead, but that dog don't hunt.

[TankTop]

Originally Posted by Chainfire

Me too.

But even if true, would you remove the rights of free speech to anyone you disagree with? What do you think your constitution would say about that? If you can not protect the first ammendment, don't expect anyone else to respect the second.

Nope, every CITIZEN is protected by the constitution and bill of rights. They have no freedom of assembly or freedom of speech inside the United States.

[trip286]

Y'all, a lot of this arguing is moot. The constitution applies to citizens. This guy likely isn't one.
Death threats are a punishable crime (yet I don't know what the penalty is...), but THE PHOTO IS SHOPPED.

The only thing to see here is a man who likely should be deported. And I only give him the benefit of the doubt because I can't tell by looking if he's illegal or not.

[Vikingdad]

Originally Posted by TankTop

Nope, every CITIZEN is protected by the constitution and bill of rights. They have no freedom of assembly or freedom of speech inside the United States.

Not true. The Constitution makes no specific distinction between citizens and non-citizens in regards to the application of some rights. While it is true that it is a crime for a foreign national to illegally enter the United States, these illegals are protected by the 14th Amendment:

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.

I am no more a Constitutional expert than the next guy, but I do know that the wording was very carefully crafted and I have every expectation that the Founders intended the 14th Amendment to read exactly the way it does. They did not intend that "citizen" and "any person" should be interchangeable.

So, in short, that alleged ******* has every right to protest as he wishes. If he gives some credible reason for law enforcement to check his papers and they are not in order he should be expected to be detained and deported. Innocent till proven guilty, search and seizure, all that stuff.

It is not ambiguous and that has been established many times over.

As a matter of fact, Joe Arpaio was very careful to have a justifiable reason to check for legal residency, even if it was something so small as a minor traffic violation. He did so to cover his ass for the above stated reasons.

[TankTop]

Originally Posted by Vikingdad

Not true. The Constitution makes no specific distinction between citizens and non-citizens in regards to the application of some rights. While it is true that it is a crime for a foreign national to illegally enter the United States, these illegals are protected by the 14th Amendment:

I am no more a Constitutional expert than the next guy, but I do know that the wording was very carefully crafted and I have every expectation that the Founders intended the 14th Amendment to read exactly the way it does. They did not intend that "citizen" and "any person" should be interchangeable.

So, in short, that alleged ******* has every right to protest as he wishes. If he gives some credible reason for law enforcement to check his papers and they are not in order he should be expected to be detained and deported. Innocent till proven guilty, search and seizure, all that stuff.

It is not ambiguous and that has been established many times over.

As a matter of fact, Joe Arpaio was very careful to have a justifiable reason to check for legal residency, even if it was something so small as a minor traffic violation. He did so to cover his ass for the above stated reasons.

I stand corrected, thank you sir.