Will Temporarily “Reprieved” Illegal Immigrants Have Gun Rights?

 

“Obama announced a temporary, two-year reprieve for young immigrants who came to this country before age 16, who have lived here at least five years and who have clean records,” bostonherald.com reports. “The reprieve, which is renewable—” Wait. A renewable temporary reprieve? Anyone remember the executive order establishing the unconstitutional long gun registry for 8500 border state-dwelling gun dealers? Emergency > temporary > pilot > automatically renewed > you can’t kill it with a lawsuit. Under Emperor Obama’s unconstitutional edict, the newly reprieved illegals will not be citizens nor on a path to citizenship (nudge nudge wink wink). But will they have gun rights? If they get a U.S. alien or admission number they can get a driver’s license and, thus, buy a gun. Is this a problem? And what happens to their guns and gun rights when the reprieve expires, theoretically speaking?

 

comments

  1. avatar GS650G says:

    Once they are reclassified and issued documents good luck rescinding the anointment. Drivers license means voting in many states too, just in time for November.

    1. avatar Curzen says:

      it doesn’t, it’s still illegal for them to vote just as for anyone else who is a legal resident but not a citizen.

      1. avatar Qajaqon says:

        Exactly. Legal RESIDENT not a CITIZEN. Some Rights are not afforded to Residents. Citizens have all rights.

        This presents a question of sorts. If 2a is a protector of rights as a living person then should it not be a protector of 2a rights for all? or do you have to qualify: be a citizen(I understand in order to purchase a gun you have meet the standards already set)? Or like most actions/ideals, you cannot have _____ rights unless you are one of ______(us). And, it all speaks of the granting of rights to me. Does this go against the “ideal” of TTAG? Is TTAG a granter/’you must earn/qualify for these rights. Or does TTAG truly believe in “inaliaenable rights”?

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          In the Real World they end up on voters rolls and the DoJ tells a state not to purge them or disenfranchise this essential democrat voting bloc.
          Sure they are ineligible. Do they vote? sure do.

        2. avatar Curzen says:

          problem with that is, the timing in Florida is making it illegal, there is no indication that those purged are actually ineligible to vote and there is little evidence that a significant number of ineligible persons does vote.

          The state is doing this by comparing voter registration lists to citizenship information available in the drivers’ license database. In practice, this means that people who were not citizens when they applied for a driver’s license but who later became citizens are not going to be allowed to vote.

          Federal law prohibits purging people from the voting rolls within 90 days of a federal election, in order to give people time to challenge their removal. Florida’s August 14 primary counts as a federal election and is only 71 days away, so even if the purge were not discriminatory, the timing violates federal law.

          thanks Rick, your inept policies made it likely that another election will be decided by the Supreme Court.

        3. avatar Totenglocke says:

          And, it all speaks of the granting of rights to me.

          No, you simply do not get the protection of said rights by the US government unless you’re a US citizen and in the United States. You’re forgetting that the Bill of Rights merely states what the US government can’t do against US citizens.

      2. avatar Anon in CT says:

        Yeah, but it is damned easy. Seriously, I am a permanent resident alien, but if you look at my drivers license there’s nothing there to show I’m not a citizen. Unless you ask for a birth cert or passport, there’s no way to know I’m not a citizen. It wold be incredibly easy to register and vote, and very unlikely that I’d be caught. I don’t do it out of respect for the laws of the US, and because I am a big chicken, but I have no doubt it happens all the time.

        1. avatar Curzen says:

          why would an illegal immigrant who will have an even bigger incentive to lie low stick out his neck like that? Makes no sense to me to assume it happens all the time.

        2. avatar Anon in CT says:

          Well, since he’s likely already guilty of some sort of identity theft or fraud, why worry? And he’ll be voting in a nice “safe” precinct in a Sanctuary City, so no real worries about getting busted.

          Sorry, but the irrational lengths that Dems/lefties go to to fight even the most minimal safeguards on voting integrity only convince me further that they have something to hide.

        3. avatar Curzen says:

          A similar argument can and is being made by proponents for more gun control.

        4. avatar GS650G says:

          “why would an illegal immigrant who will have an even bigger incentive to lie low stick out his neck like that? Makes no sense to me to assume it happens all the time.”

          Illegal voting involves hiring people to vote multiple times under assumed names. Do a small amount of research on the problem.

        5. avatar Curzen says:

          while I still dispute the scope of the problem, how do you want to solve the problem without violating the rights of citizens in the process?

        6. avatar Anon in CT says:

          Require voting rolls to be periodically updated (not so close to the election as in FL).

          Mark all drivers licenses of non-citizens to indicate that the holder is not a citizen (my NY license had this, but not in NJ or CT).

          Require state issued picture ID to vote – drivers license, passport or a state ID (basically a DL without actual driving privileges, which the state shall be required to issue to you free of charge if you don’t have a DL). Contrary to what limousine liberals think, minorities are not actually stupid, they do drive and do other activities requiring ID (entering courts and government buildings, cash checks, going into bars) that require ID, just like white people.

          Now if your concern is that it will be harder to get hobos to vote after bribing them with a gallon of cooking wine, then I guess there might be a porblem.

        7. avatar Curzen says:

          but again, you say yourself illegal immigrants do things that require ID and actually do have IDs. How? because there are ways to obtain a SSN/birth cert in illegal ways which tends to be the prerequisite for a DL in many (most?) states. You haven’t solved the problem by requiring someone to show a DL.

  2. avatar Levi B says:

    I think if Obama thinks all these other countries are so great, he would likely be welcomed with open arms.

  3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Those people are ILLEGAL immigrants and thus I fail to understand how they are entitled to much of anything.

    I really wish people would stop changing the label. They are not young immigrants. They are not undocumented immigrants. They are illegal immigrants. And granting them special privileges is a slap in the face to the millions who did wait their turn in line and go through the legal process to be resident aliens or even better naturalized citizens.

    I am happy to have legal immigrants from any country. Legal immigrants have “skin in the game” since they will pay taxes and actually stay here permanently. Thus it is in their best interest to participate in everything United States. But an illegal immigrant could be here to commit crimes. They could leave the country at any moment. They don’t pay taxes. They don’t care what happens in the U.S.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Amen to this. This short circuits the legal immigration process for political means and brazenly caters to a group Mr. Wonderful needs to win.
      Next will come helicopters dropping Visa cash cards over metropolitan areas with his smiling face printed on the front.

    2. avatar gej88 says:

      the BoR apply to all who are on our soil for whatever reason including tourists. If some Canadian snowbird wants to buy a gun, I have no problem with that. Taking it home next spring is his problem. If the 2A is an individual right in the BoR, then it should be treated like the rest, yours regardless of your immigration status as long as you are here. Being illegal or undocumented isn’t actually a crime in the US, but hiring one is.

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        Being illegal or undocumented isn’t actually a crime in the US

        Yes, it is. You might want to read the Constitution and immigration laws before saying more uninformed things.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          “Being illegal or undocumented isn’t actually a crime in the US”

          And here we have a product of the media’s campaign to convince America that being an illegal immigrant isn’t illegal.

        2. avatar Curzen says:

          from my reading crossing the border illegally is a civil offense, not a criminal one. the act of that person staying within the country is apparently not a crime at all. a previously deported person illegally entering again is committing a felony which is a criminal offense.

        3. avatar DaveL says:

          Curzen, I don’t believe that is correct. “Entering without inspection” is a misdemeanor on the first offense, although I think aggravating factors like drug smuggling might change that. Any subsequent entry without inspection is a felony, IIRC.

          On the other hand, overstaying a visa – which accounts for about half of illegal immigrants, is a civil violation.

  4. avatar BlinkyPete says:

    Oh no! Illegals!! Living, working and producing in this country! The horror! The horror!

    Seriously… I love hearing so called ‘small government’ advocates bitch and moan about how the government won’t do anything to save them from cheap labor. Want to end illegal immigration? End quotas and terminate the ridiculously complicated and drawn out process and give work visas to anyone who wants them. Frankly, I don’t blame them for doing what they do – if tomorrow the government decided it’s only giving driver’s licenses to a quarter of the people who wanted them, would you drive illegally if you had to? I sure as hell would.

    Illegal immigration is a symptom, not the problem, and the violence in Mexico and along the border can be attributed to an idiotic, un-winnable war on drugs. Oh, and just FYI – illegal immigrants tend to commit fewer violent crimes per capita than natural born citizens and tend to use social systems a whole lot less than the same, as far as I’m concerned most of the argument can be attributed to ‘I don’t like brown people that don’t speak American!’

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Dollars and sense, man. And it sounds like you don’t have the latter. Do you realize the economic reality of an illegal working a sub-minimum wage job? The children get a free education, and everyone gets free health care. Spend time in SoCal and you can see for yourself. It is not a sustainable economic situation for a state or for the country, even before you factor in the economic cost of the crimes committed.

      I love in when libtards actually think illegal immigration is economically feasible.

    2. avatar Parthenon says:

      Or you could get rid of the laws regarding employment so that illegals don’t have an advantages over others.

      1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

        Oh Accurwhatever, if your argument made any sense you wouldn’t have to name call. Presumably the children are getting ‘free’ educations in the same towns their parents live and, either directly or indirectly, pay property taxes in. Free healthcare? What country do you live in? The only thing they have access to is free emergency room visits – just like any other deadbeat. That’s not a problem with immigration, that’s a loophole that invites abuse from anyone, and a damn shoddy argument since I already pointed out that illegals, and immigrants in general take advantage of social programs at a much lower rate than born citizens.

        Parthenon has it right – remove protectionist employment and payment policies and let the market sort it out – you know, the argument neocons use whenever it happens to suit them. Only about 3% of workers today are at or below minimum wage, so I’m guessing eliminating it isn’t going to hurt the working man too much. Or, we could just go with your idea and turn the entire country into Georgia – you know, where 10 percent of the natural born population sits on their asses collecting unemployment while Georgia peaches rot in the fields because no one feels like picking them. I guess hunting illegals down like German Jews worked swell there, huh?

        1. avatar caca says:

          Screw you

  5. avatar Curzen says:

    I’m not sure, if you don’t have citizenship don’t you need to have a greencard proving permanent residence to purchase a gun at a store? temporary and renewable sounds as if it would legally be more similar to an H1B visa, a status not granting you permission to buy guns legally.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Drivers license does the trick. Nobody asked me for my passport or birth cert when i bought.

      1. avatar Curzen says:

        form 4473 has questions pertaining to that, so in fact you were asked. People can lie on the form, which is a felony. I’m currently unsure what triggers the longer more in depth crosscheck with DHS during an NICS lookup for non citizens, if it is due to your answers to the form or an automatism. Either way, the question in the end is: in order to alleviate your concerns do you want to be burdened with having to prove that you are a citizen/legal permanent resident beyond the current checks?

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          The right against self incrimination has already called into question the requests on the 4473. We can debate all day the ins and outs of background checks and all that jazz but the real issue is illegals getting state issued government ID they can pursue other activities with.

        2. avatar Curzen says:

          they will need to engage in illegal activity to be issued that ID though. You are pushing the problem around without solving it. Do you want to require SSN or birth certificate as documentation? That’s what you’ll have to supply to get that government issued ID, meaning those are usually forged or bought. Do you want to check that SSN and BC are valid? Then you’ll have to put up a huge gov administered database to track all those. I don’t see that happening. So what’s your solution to that perceived problem of yours?

  6. avatar Joseph says:

    This dude is going to be hard to beat in November with the voting block he is establishing, and he’s not done yet. Better start studying up on how to live under a King’s rule.

    1. avatar Silver says:

      I prefer studying the late 18th century colonial response to monarchy as a refresher course.

  7. avatar Anon in CT says:

    Typical lefty strategy: If you don’t like your electorate, import a new one.

    It worked in the UK

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

  8. avatar Bob says:

    There are states (like WA) where having (owning, not carrying) a gun as an alien (no GC) is a felony unless you get an alien firearm permit.
    And I’ve seen stores verifying the GC before a gun purchase by noncitizens.
    As for the voting, if you vote when you should not (while not being a citizen) you can kiss any plan of becoming one goodbye.
    And the last thing – this law applies to those who did not choose to break the law by illegaly immigrating, but were ‘forced’ by their status as minors.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      Assuming you get caught, and the chances of that are minimal.

      It’s not a law – those have to pass Congress. It’s not even a full-blown Executive Order. It’s a directive.

  9. avatar Charlie says:

    Why not just annex Mexico at this point?Redistributing the poverty will bring social justice for all. Real, lasting equality will bless the land.

  10. avatar IdahoPete says:

    “And what happens to their guns and gun rights when the reprieve expires, theoretically speaking?”

    Would they take their guns back to their country of origin, where they will be arrested for having a gun?

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    The Supreme Court has said that alienage is a suspect classification, and state laws that discriminate against legal aliens are subject to strict scrutiny based on the Equal Protection Clause. As we know, the strict scrutiny test is a very high bar.

    So, under recent federal court decisions applying Supreme Court precedent, legal resident aliens have the same gun rights as citizens. They enter the country the “right way,” pay their taxes and keep their noses clean, and they get the benefit of the entire Bill of Rights. That’s part of their “contract” with the government.

    Just last week, ATF was forced to rescind it’s rule imposing a 90-day residency requirement on legal aliens for gun ownership. ATF was advised by the Justice Department that the requirement was unconstitutional because it imposed a greater requirement on aliens than on citizens — once again, an Equal Protection violation.

    Under federal law, a legal nonresident — like a student on a visa — is denied gun rights under most circumstances even though they may be legally in the country for several years. The Court hasn’t found such federal restrictions against visitors to be violative of Equal Protection, applying a rational basis test instead of strict scrutiny.

    On the other hand, illegal aliens, resident or otherwise, have no gun rights. Illegals are treated differently not because they are aliens, but because they are illegal. They have no “contract.”

    The “reprieve” legalizes these aliens. But the real question is whether this “reprieve” makes the alien a legal resident or a legal visitor. If the former, then gun rights might apply. If the latter, then they get no gun rights.

    1. avatar Curzen says:

      I’m surprised, is that 90 day rule being overturned in effect already? I tend to mostly go with purchasing C&R guns as providing the paperwork for the 90 days each purchase is a bit of a hassle especially given that most of my papertrail has shifted to being online.

      1. avatar Curzen says:

        to answer my own question

        http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2011/12/122211-atf-open-letter-state-of-residence.pdf

        the form appears to not have been changed yet though

  12. avatar bontai Joe says:

    My wife came here as a permanent resident alien, and after she was here, she studied the citizenship test questions and earned her US citizenship. No one is angrier than her at seeing illegal aliens getting special breaks in any area that she didn’t get. Her feeling is she earned her status by following the rules, and so should everyone else. I gotta side with her in this issue, that illegal aliens are here illegally, and should not be granted the protections under the constitution that citizens have. Their mere presence in this country is against the law, they are criminals, and as such, should be sent back to where ever they came from. I really don’t care if they came here at the age of 2 on momma’s hip, momma made them a criminal. If they voluntarily go home of their own accord, then I’d be ok with them applying for legal entry to the country with no penalties, but if caught here illegally, I would send them home with severe penalties against them coming back. I am TOTALLY against the President’s idea of a “temporary” reprieve, or of selective enforcement of immigration law, ESPECIALLY since neither I nor my elected representative got to vote on this. We need to topple this “king” in November.

    1. avatar Curzen says:

      A minor who without consent was brought here, effectively made subject of human trafficking, is the victim of a crime and not the criminal.

      A child who grew up and went to the school in the US is arguably more American than your wife who moved here at a later date. Yet your wife and I will continue to enjoy benefits above and beyond what those who are eligible for a reprieve will be granted.

      Not to mention that the requirements for the reprieve are for the immigrant to be well integrated and productive members of society.

      Directives like that are hardly without precedent, appears you must have lived in a “monarchy” your whole life without realizing it.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Cirzon, blaming a child who was brought here at, say, two years of age illegally by the parents would clearly be wrong.

        However, does POTUS really expect me to believe that he will “legalize” a 16 year old kid but kick the parents out of the country? Is he really going to break up families? I don’t think so, and I think his reprieve is just a backdoor amnesty and total bullshit.

        1. avatar Curzen says:

          no idea, it certainly is an election year ploy and previous inaction on immigration reform made it possible. Nevertheless I agree with the reprieve as it is intended. Beyond that all I can go on is the numbers which appear to peg Obama as being more aggressive in kicking illegal immigrants out with an emphasize on felons having me doubt that another general amnesty is in the works. Beyond that it’s up to all of congress to finally get a move on and find a solution (I’m ever the delusional optimist in that respect).

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Good point bontai Joe.

      My mom immigrated to the U.S. when she was 12 years old. The process to get here was difficult and arduous. She has been a resident alien for 60 years. She has worked (legally) and paid taxes her whole life. She has no accent. (In fact she doesn’t even remember most of her first language.) She is as American as you can get. Sadly she never had enough confidence to take the citizenship test although often wishes she did.

      Our fabulous leader’s move here is an insult. Why not give preferential treatment to resident aliens who meet the same criteria? At least they went through the LEGAL process.

  13. As a matter of law, they are not legal and fall under the definition of illegal alien and therefore cannot possess firearms.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email