Total Motorcycle Community Forums

No, it shouldn't.

The supreme courts rulings are not absolute law. They're a precedent, sure. But that precedent can be overturned as well.


If it couldn't we'd have no problems with evolution, abortion, and we'd still be using segregated bathrooms.

oldnslo wrote:If I understand what you are saying correctly, then what people refer to as "illegal" has been declared "legal' at some point by the court case you refer to, so everybody here is a "legal" now. If so, the whole question is much ado about nothing, and there is no such thing as illegal status. The whole argument would be rendered moot.

Not exactly. You may be getting hung up on the literal definitions of the words illegal immigrant & legal immigrant. What I am trying to say concerning illegal immigrants is that they have rights under the Constitution & the Supreme Court has already upheld that. An illegal immigrant can still be deported regardless of these rights.

As an example, lets say in illegal immigrant gets caught stealing a car. He gets arrested. As an arrestee he gets all the rights that a legal immigrant would get such as, the right to remain silent, the right to a lawyer, the right to a speedy trial, etc.
He can also be convicted just like a legal immgrant could too. Most likely if convicted of a crime while in the United States he'll be deported. I have actually seen this happen in court. Plus if deported most likely he'll be banned from entering the United States permenately. (Altho that doesn't mean he won't try to get back in)

Problem is that he never had any intentions to become a legal citizen in the first place.

So re-hopping the border is no problem for him. The worst that can happen is he gets sent back to Mexico and he has to try again. And again, and again until he gets it right....again.


We have too many people in our own prisons to be inprisoning border hoppers. Which is why the 'virtual wall' thing should have passed. Would have allowed for the wall but without the man power needed to man a physical walll.

Just need some people on 4x4s to go out and capture them after the video camera/motion detector/whatever picks them up.

Shiv wrote:No, it shouldn't.
The supreme courts rulings are not absolute law. They're a precedent, sure. But that precedent can be overturned as well.
If it couldn't we'd have no problems with evolution, abortion, and we'd still be using segregated bathrooms.

The rulings of The Supreme Court are indeed absolute. However, those absolute rulings of the Supreme Court can only be overturned by themselves. In order for that to happen a similar case that the Court has previously ruled on would have to come before the Court again.

This has happened many times thru out history & is one of the ways our laws get tweaked. A prime example of this is the recent Supreme Court ruling on emminent domain. KELO V. NEW LONDON (04-108)
268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed (2005)

In this case the Court affirmed that the govt can sieze property thru emminent domain for the benefit of private industry. Previously, the Court held that property siezure thru emminent domain can only be done for the benefit of the public good i.e. a public highway or park.

As you can see the Court overturned its previous ruling here. With George W Bush's appointees I'm sure we'll be seeing many more rulings overturned in the near future as well.

Shiv wrote:Problem is that he never had any intentions to become a legal citizen in the first place.

So re-hopping the border is no problem for him. The worst that can happen is he gets sent back to Mexico and he has to try again. And again, and again until he gets it right....again.

It's interesting that you assume the person being deported is Mexican. I have personally witnessed people being deported and they weren't Mexican.

We have too many people in our own prisons to be inprisoning border hoppers.

Which is exactly why they are being deported & I agree we don't need that additional cost.