Rights of Immigrants in your Country, State or Province

[tando]

@Marco

lots to go through parse and organise

How is this going?

Are you making a report analyzing each countries situation, or just combining their laws to print-out?

[Marco]

I have been a bit busy with some stuff lately and still compiling the list to make it look as good as possible.

[finley]

Your question is hard to answer as phrased because, as Taiwan_Luthiers said, most immigrants are “discriminated against” in some way, in every country, at least for a certain number of years, or until they gain citizenship. What matters in this case, presumably, is that you want counterarguments against specific types of discrimination as they’re implemented in Taiwan? What are you complaining to your MP about?

[Marco]

Me?

[bluejasn]

@Taiwan_Luthiers

I know numerous states, including Texas has their own version of Dream Act where at least as far as schooling is concerned, even illegal immigrants may claim in state tuition if they fulfill other residency requirements.

In California Illegal Immigrants can get a California Drivers license at the DMV no questions asked no problem.

Thats equivalent to an illegal Vietnamnese ex factory worker run away getting a hassle free Taiwan Drivers License at the Shilin DMV office LOL

[Explant]

How does that work?

[nz]

I mean, the US Constitution applies to anyone on US soil. Allegedly. << funny jokes that aren’t funny.

If you’re legally able to work in the US and qualified, you can’t be discriminated against for not being a citizen. Fact Sheet: Immigrants' Employment Rights under Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

But that’s grown to include sex, gender, ethnicity, citizenship, sexual orientation, religion, health condition, marital status, political affiliation, immigration status, mental health status, and probably more.

Obviously there are other ways to discriminate against people you don’t like. A friend of mine in the good old American South was fired in August for being “chronically late and irresponsible” (punched in 3-6 minutes late four times in six months). Of course her termination had NOTHING to do with the BLM protests she attended or the fact that she “freaked people out” by wearing a mask starting in February. Good luck fighting your employer on that one. It’s mostly their words against yours…

Oh, and we also have the “Christian” nutters who use “religious freedom” as an excuse for blanket discrimination against all but male WASPs, but, again, the laws on the books say you can’t. We’ll see how long that lasts with the radical right wing super-minority-special-interest-group-created Supreme Court.

[Taiwan_Luthiers]

Yea, US Constitution is supposed to apply to anyone on US soil…

Get caught with a gun if you are illegally in the country, or legally in the country but on a nonimmigrant visa, and you can do up to 10 years in the Federal prison.

They don’t even apply the US Constitution consistently to citizens, let alone non citizens.

[yyy]

@nz

I mean, the US Constitution applies to anyone on US soil. Allegedly

Except at points of entry.

[Taiwan_Luthiers]

The US Constitution doesn’t apply whenever the Federal government says it doesn’t apply. Regardless of where you are at.

SCOTUS is just a formality.

[Explant]

Ya, i gotta say…bullshit on that one. Sorry @nz. Or if that was sarcasm, gotcha.

[RBE]

@Taiwan_Luthiers

Get caught with a gun if you are illegally in the country, or legally in the country but on a nonimmigrant visa, and you can do up to 10 years in the Federal prison.

Huh?

18 U. S. C. § 922(g) forbids illegal immigrants from possessing firearms. The right to possess a firearm is not unlimited and absolute, and there is substantial case law on this subject. Even certain classes of citizens, such as felons, can be prohibited from having guns.

What exactly do you think is unconstitutional about a person who is in the US illegally going to prison for unlawfully possessing a firearm?

[Taiwan_Luthiers]

Second amendment says “shall not be infringed”.

It means the government is forbidden from infringing on that right. Those case laws basically says that certain people (aliens, felons, etc.) don’t have those rights.

But no amendment in the constitution expressly gave anyone any rights. It forbade governments from infringing on preexisting rights.

So in effect, if the government has enough consensus, they can decide rights don’t apply to certain people.

That means any gun control laws, from 1934 and on, are completely unconstitutional. But since the law has been in effect for so long, and has not met any substantial challenge for so long (after all, the laws only hurt those who are specifically disenfranchised or never had voting rights to begin with), it is therefore not only unconstitutional, but unjust.

Just like jailing someone for 20 years for marijuana possession is unjust.

But let’s not use America as an example for rights for immigrants, because certain enlightened EU countries seem to do much better in that regard. I think EU has guidelines on rights of refugees. So if you wanted examples of rights for immigrants, look to the EU.

If you really want to pick on things, even Britain and Czech Republic allows firearms license for felons (in the American definition of the word) as long as said felon has not been sentenced for more than 12 years for crimes. You have to commit pretty serious crimes to get 12 years over there. Whereas simple possession of pot makes you a felon in America and permanently barred from owning firearms. So public safety is not even a good excuse for the prohibition. The law it discriminatory in itself.

[Taiwan_Luthiers]

Here is this website for rights of refugees and immigrants in the EU

Fundamental rights of refugees and migrants at European borders

It should contain a lot of information for contacting MP’s regarding rights for immigrants.

This one is of interest:

Article 21 - Non-discrimination

1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
2. Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

[yyy]

@Taiwan_Luthiers

But no amendment in the constitution expressly gave anyone any rights. It forbade governments from infringing on preexisting rights.

So in effect, if the government has enough consensus, they can decide rights don’t apply to certain people.

That means any gun control laws, from 1934 and on, are completely unconstitutional.

That’s not how it works. Even Scalia, the arch-originalist, said that’s not how it works.

07-290.pdf

@DC v. Heller (2008)

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The longer version of that part:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts rou­tinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For exam­ple, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws impos­ing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradi­tion of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indict­able Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F.Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim­ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

——————

26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

The same principle, the limited (or if you prefer, not unlimited) nature of rights, is spelled out in the ROC Constitution, Art. 23.

以上各條列舉之自由權利，除為防止妨礙他人自由、避免緊急危難、維持社會秩序，或增進公共利益所必要者外，不得以法律限制之。

All the freedoms and rights enumerated in the preceding Articles shall not be restricted by law except by such as may be necessary to prevent infringement upon the freedoms of other persons, to avert an imminent crisis, to maintain social order or to advance public welfare.

[Taiwan_Luthiers]

SCOTUS, regardless of who or what is serving in it, is politicized. They will not buck longstanding laws, especially something so politically charged. If any major gun control laws (all of which is unconstitutional by nature, and were not passed as “reasonable gun control legislation”) were overturned the Democrats would have a civil war over this. Even in 1985 when attempts were made to overturn Gun Control Act of 1968 Democrats fought tooth and nail. Just like why even Trump couldn’t pass Hearing Protection Act. A Columbine/Las Vegas style shooting is always around the corner to remind Americans why unconstitutional restrictions are necessary.

The way America treats “felons”, foreigners, are already by nature unconstitutional. “Felons” are essentially untermenschen according to American society, where they face numerous discrimination in employment, housing, even government benefit. Worst part is, they are all legal. And if the felon made any attempt to avoid discrimination (by for example, not telling people about felonies committed 20 years ago), there are legal consequences for this. None of this is acceptable according to EU laws. They, even the UK, have clear laws regarding criminal records, such as after a period of time, relatively minor offenses (such as something most felons in America got probation for) is completely omitted from record, and it is illegal for anyone to discriminate the person on the basis of that record, or even compel disclosure. Only serious crimes like murder or aggravated assault/rape/sex crimes stay on the record forever. I believe the EU made a statement sometime in the past (I do not know off hand where), saying that they want to prevent summary exclusion or deportation based on minor offense committed years ago, or even the accusation of a crime committed years ago. I believe this statement was directed towards USA and Canada because both of those countries do in fact deport and bar people for offenses committed or accused of years ago, even very minor ones.

The fact that it’s so easy to become a felon in the USA is troubling at the very least. Especially with their massive prison industrial complex who would like to see everything criminalized, or long time residents deported at the slightest error. After all deportation takes time, and that’s time the alien would spend in immigration prison.

[yyy]

I’ll agree to disagree with you about the constitutional question here.