Amicus Curiae

 I recently made a posting to Facebook concerning the "constitutional" rights of illegal aliens. My opinion is that they do not have any constitutional rights at all. I was quickly informed about the 14th amendment. I was aware of that amendment and somewhat familiar with exactly what it says. I did go reread it and am including it here for clarity. "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."  Notice the opening statement. "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens" seems pretty clear to me. The "any person" portion I believe implies that "any person" must also be a citizen. The protections of the constitution as it applies to citizens cannot be abridged by any state law or the denial of due process. And that is what I believe, my opinion on that situation. 

 I understand the constitutional scholars disagree with my interpretation of that. That is, after all, what lawyers argue about every day. This is what it says but what does it mean? The logic of it doesn't say I can't therefore I can, or in this case "anyone" means anyone in the world. My understanding is different, as I said, I think it only applies to citizens. I do think everyone should be extended basic human rights. I just don't believe those basic human rights includes all the protections, privileges and benefits under the constitution of the United States of America. Does every country in the world, or at least in Nato, grant all those same protections should I enter their country illegally? The answer is no, I am subject to their laws. 

 I have been informed, by more than one, that I am wrong. Okay. I can accept that the "decision" at the moment is that I am wrong about the meaning of those words. I feel completely justified in saying I disagree with those scholars, attorneys, justices or whoever. I understand what the "correct" answer is supposed to be according to that majority. If I were taking a test, the answer would be graded as incorrect, I fail the test. The only issue I have with that is I feel it is simply a matter of opinion. The constitution doesn't explicitly say "we the people" are citizens either. Does that mean we aren't? Does that mean that anyone can come into the country and vote for whoever they like? I don't think so.

 I will stand by my statement that as far as I'm concerned illegals have no rights under my constitution. I agree they should be extended basic human rights. What was written in the preamble to that constitution? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." In my opinion that is clear enough. We the people, citizens of this nation, ordained it for "ourselves" not for anyone else and the 14th amendment didn't change that at all. All that amendment did was clarify that the individual states could not "abridge" any of those rights on a state level. Think the supremacy cause. The constitution applies to the citizens! I would argue that point before the supreme court! I'm not intimidated by any of that. My opinion is as valid as anyone's'. 

 I'll start working on my Amicus brief any day now. Amicus Curiae. That's who I am.