Sure it can. Are you familiar with this: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." As you are likely unaware of the source of that quote, it's in that thing called the Constitution of the United States. Another thing that conservatives claim to be passionate about but completely trample when it comes to anything they don't like. Most of the time, they seem to be unaware of the contents, with only a slight bit of knowledge of the 2nd amendment. Still it's the supreme law of the land and anyone accused of committing a crime is protected by that 6th amendment. Maybe you should work on getting the Constitution overturned. I'm sure that Trump would be amenable.
if their only civil infraction is residence in the USA without proper paperwork, and they are crime free in every other way, sure why not.
And when you wrote "that can be fixed" in response to my pointing out that it's civil and not criminal law, you meant something other than that it can be changed to a criminal matter? Oh, I see. What you meant is that your plain ignorance of the laws you claim to be passionate about can be fixed. I suppose that's true, though I"m skeptical. You now agree that they aren't criminals for being unlawfully present.
What, then, about the right to vote? The phrase appears for the first time in the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that states shall lose congressional representation "when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.
How would you prosecute someone for violating that statute without violating their 5th amendment right to not incriminate themselves? It's easier just to deport them. That's probably no one has brought it to the SCOTUS, as no one has actually been prosecuted for it.
No, the deportation is an administrative matter. By fixed, I mean they won't be here in the first place.
So the way you figure it, a murderer retains the RKBA when he's arrested and throughout his detention, if bail is denied, until he's convicted. Right?
Right. That would tell you they were here illegally. Would it tell you if they had a murder conviction in Mexico?
Mexico is so corrupt actual murderers never see the inside of a court room, the running joke among Mexicans is; Only the innocent are sent to prison, the guilty are free to commit more crimes for their employers.
My point is that, by the nature of allowing illegal aliens into the country, you are allowing people in but you don't know if they are murderers or not UNTIL they kill someone here. Illegal immigration has zero positive points.
Well, they get in illegally, they were not allowed in. I have studied this issue, interviewed immigrants both legal and illegal, not all are criminals, most are hard working decent people trying to make a better life than what is possible now in Mexico right now.
Most people everywhere aren't criminals, but there are more criminals in the illegal alien population than there is in the legal immigrant population.
Perhaps by breaking the law in illegally crossing the border. Then all illegal aliens are technicaly criminals as they broke the law entering illegally.
