动不动就来一句“你都没入籍，凭什么要求美国法律保护你的权利” 须知：宪法的主语是we the people。宪法的equal protection条款禁止任何法律基于国籍，种族，宗教信仰，性别，性取向等等，剥夺任何人的宪法权利。这些属性叫做宪法下的protected status。这都是白纸黑字毫无争议的法律常识。 而宪法中“we the people”的定义，在1990年的UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ案子中，早就由第九巡回法庭确认过了：他是一个生活状态，跟国籍没有一毛钱关系。 “ we the people,” for the purposes of protection under the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” ： 私有财产权，是最基本的宪法权利之一。德州禁止某些特定国籍的人买房买地，是明确无误的违宪恶法。 ------------------ 然后发现很多宪法盲又自作聪明的给我讲解“宪法只禁止nation of origin歧视，不禁止国籍歧视blabla” 但是事实上呢，Alienage属于suspect classification, 凡是涉及国籍歧视的州法，都要经过高院的strict scrutiny。这是equal protection clause规定的 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification Suspect class The Supreme Court established the judicial precedent for suspect classifications in the cases of Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 [5] and Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).[6] The Supreme Court recognizes race, national origin, religion and alienage as suspect classes; it therefore analyzes any government action that discriminates against these classes under strict scrutiny. 因为国会有外交权，所以涉及外国公民的联邦法只需要rational scrutiny。 而没有外交权的州立法，必须通过strict scrutiny Alienage Alienage, or the state of being an alien, i.e. a non-citizen of the United States, is a unique category. For purposes of state law, legal aliens are a suspect class (Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971)). As such, state actions are analyzed according to strict scrutiny. In contrast, because the United States Congress has the power to regulate immigration, federal government action that discriminates based on alienage will receive rational basis scrutiny.
动不动就来一句“你都没入籍，凭什么要求美国法律保护你的权利” 须知：宪法的主语是we the people。宪法的equal protection条款禁止任何法律基于国籍，种族，宗教信仰，性别，性取向等等，剥夺任何人的宪法权利。这些属性叫做宪法下的protected status。这都是白纸黑字毫无争议的法律常识。 而宪法中“we the people”的定义，在1990年的UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ案子中，早就由第九巡回法庭确认过了：他是一个生活状态，跟国籍没有一毛钱关系。 “ we the people,” for the purposes of protection under the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” ： 私有财产权，是最基本的宪法权利之一。德州禁止某些特定国籍的人买房买地，是明确无误的违宪恶法。 BTW 再给大家扫盲一下，UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ争论的焦点，是VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ这位非法移民黑帮大佬是否拥有宪法第四和第十四修正案规定的权利。 最终的结论我也告诉大家：有。
helloterran3 发表于 2023-01-15 22:02
UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ 你是看不懂英语么？ 这个案子，最高法院告诉你，那个黑帮老大不受第四修正案的保护。。。。
动不动就来一句“你都没入籍，凭什么要求美国法律保护你的权利” 须知：宪法的主语是we the people。宪法的equal protection条款禁止任何法律基于国籍，种族，宗教信仰，性别，性取向等等，剥夺任何人的宪法权利。这些属性叫做宪法下的protected status。这都是白纸黑字毫无争议的法律常识。 而宪法中“we the people”的定义，在1990年的UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ案子中，早就由第九巡回法庭确认过了：他是一个生活状态，跟国籍没有一毛钱关系。 “ we the people,” for the purposes of protection under the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” ： 私有财产权，是最基本的宪法权利之一。德州禁止某些特定国籍的人买房买地，是明确无误的违宪恶法。 BTW 再给大家扫盲一下，UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ争论的焦点，是VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ这位非法移民黑帮大佬是否拥有宪法第四和第十四修正案规定的权利。 最终的结论我也告诉大家：有。
helloterran3 发表于 2023-01-15 22:02
我记得学过这个案子，但你的说法和我的记忆有偏差。刚翻了一下这个案子，你是不是理解错了？ Chief Justice Rehnquist authored the opinion for the Court, joined by Justices White, Scalia, Kennedy and O''Connor, contending that "the people" intended to be protected by the Fourth Amendment were the people of the United States, and that the defendant''s legal but involuntary presence" on U.S. soil (a direct result of his arrest) failed to create a sufficient relationship with the U.S. to allow him to call upon the Constitution for protection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez from wiki Facts Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez, a Mexican citizen reputed to be a drug-lord involved in the torture and murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena Salazar, was arrested and brought to the United States. The DEA decided that it would be a good idea to search the defendant''s home, so agents received authorization from the Mexican government to conduct the search. The agents found documents believed to be the defendant''s records of his marijuana shipments. When the government sought to introduce the documents as evidence in court, the defendant objected, asserting that they were obtained without a warrant, and therefore could not constitutionally be used at trial. The United States District Court agreed, and invoked the exclusionary rule to suppress the documents (i.e., to prevent them from being used as evidence). The government appealed this ruling, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[2] The government then appealed to the Supreme Court. Opinion of the Court The Court held that the Fourth Amendment''s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply where United States agents searched and seized property located in a foreign country owned by a nonresident alien in the United States. Chief Justice Rehnquist authored the opinion for the Court, joined by Justices White, Scalia, Kennedy and O''Connor, contending that "the people" intended to be protected by the Fourth Amendment were the people of the United States, and that the defendant''s "legal but involuntary presence" on U.S. soil (a direct result of his arrest) failed to create a sufficient relationship with the U.S. to allow him to call upon the Constitution for protection.[3]
动不动就来一句“你都没入籍，凭什么要求美国法律保护你的权利” 须知：宪法的主语是we the people。宪法的equal protection条款禁止任何法律基于国籍，种族，宗教信仰，性别，性取向等等，剥夺任何人的宪法权利。这些属性叫做宪法下的protected status。这都是白纸黑字毫无争议的法律常识。 而宪法中“we the people”的定义，在1990年的UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ案子中，早就由第九巡回法庭确认过了：他是一个生活状态，跟国籍没有一毛钱关系。 “ we the people,” for the purposes of protection under the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” ： 私有财产权，是最基本的宪法权利之一。德州禁止某些特定国籍的人买房买地，是明确无误的违宪恶法。 BTW 再给大家扫盲一下，UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ争论的焦点，是VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ这位非法移民黑帮大佬是否拥有宪法第四和第十四修正案规定的权利。 最终的结论我也告诉大家：有。
回复 1楼helloterran3的帖子 楼主散布了错误误导的言论。看英文的解释吧，“宪法中的“We The People” 指的就是公民。注意，是the people, 不是people What does We the People mean in the US Constitution? Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm Meaning of "We the People" the government gets all of its powers from the Citizens of the United States of America. https://www.properpatriot.com/blogs/patriot-place/the-real-meaning-of-we-the-people
动不动就来一句“你都没入籍，凭什么要求美国法律保护你的权利” 须知：宪法的主语是we the people。宪法的equal protection条款禁止任何法律基于国籍，种族，宗教信仰，性别，性取向等等，剥夺任何人的宪法权利。这些属性叫做宪法下的protected status。这都是白纸黑字毫无争议的法律常识。 而宪法中“we the people”的定义，在1990年的UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ案子中，早就由第九巡回法庭确认过了：他是一个生活状态，跟国籍没有一毛钱关系。 “ we the people,” for the purposes of protection under the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” ： 私有财产权，是最基本的宪法权利之一。德州禁止某些特定国籍的人买房买地，是明确无误的违宪恶法。 BTW 再给大家扫盲一下，UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ争论的焦点，是VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ这位非法移民黑帮大佬是否拥有宪法第四和第十四修正案规定的权利。 最终的结论我也告诉大家：有。
The more relevant questions are: whether buying real estate is an enumerated right, and whether the equal protection clause applies here. I’m no lawyer but I think while the constitution doesn’t spell out right to purchase real property, there are many anti-discrimination statutes on federal housing laws that support the basic premise of proposed law violates equal protection clause.
even undocumented immigrants have the right to freedom of speech and religion, the right to be treated fairly, the right to privacy, and the other fundamental rights U.S. citizens enjoy.
even undocumented immigrants have the right to freedom of speech and religion, the right to be treated fairly, the right to privacy, and the other fundamental rights U.S. citizens enjoy. Sleepy3824 发表于 2023-01-16 09:33
Undocumented immigrants are illegal criminals and must be deported. If you break into someone's house, you are not entitled to anything in that house. Period.
Undocumented immigrants are illegal criminals and must be deported. If you break into someone''s house, you are not entitled to anything in that house. Period. tseco 发表于 2023-01-16 09:37
While no doubt "We the People" refer to citizens of United States, to ''form a more perfect union'' etc., the enumerated rights are not limited to US citizens by any stretch. For example, 4th Amendment protection clearly extends to all people on US soil when it comes to illegal search and seizure. Just because you might be an illegal alien, it doesn''t mean that you forfeit all your human rights when you enter the US border. And in a case I''m more familiar with, that Massachusetts used to place additional limit gun licensing on Permanent Residents, and it was declared unconstitutional per Fletcher vs. Haas: https://comm2a.org/fletcher/ The view expressed in the above post is flat out WRONG. Do not perpetuate this type of dangerous rhetoric.
Suspected classifications include national race, ethnicity, original, and citizenship. Discriminatory laws based on citizenship violate equal protection clause of the 5th amendment applying to states through the 14th amendment and is subject to strict scrutiny. -- 结论： 宪法也保护国籍
While no doubt "We the People" refer to citizens of United States, to ''form a more perfect union'' etc., the enumerated rights are not limited to US citizens by any stretch. For example, 4th Amendment protection clearly extends to all people on US soil when it comes to illegal search and seizure. Just because you might be an illegal alien, it doesn''t mean that you forfeit all your human rights when you enter the US border. And in a case I''m more familiar with, that Massachusetts used to place additional limit gun licensing on Permanent Residents, and it was declared unconstitutional per Fletcher vs. Haas: https://comm2a.org/fletcher/ The view expressed in the above post is flat out WRONG. Do not perpetuate this type of dangerous rhetoric. SAT 发表于 2023-01-16 11:31
By law, illegal immigration itself is not a criminal act. Your analogy sucks. Some of the acts, like using another person’s SSN, smuggling counterfeit, lying to a federal agents, marriage fraud, are criminal if you commit those acts. But illegally crossing the border and unlawful presence by themselves are NOT.
外交是联邦政府的职责范围，所以德州和佛州最近这些指定某国人不能买地的法案多半是通不过的（越权），大家可以洗洗睡了。 但是，这并不代表联邦政府以后不会通过类似的法案。即使是高法，战争状态下歧视一下完全有可能。二战时有 Korematsu v US. “All legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single ratios group are immediate suspect” and subject to test of “the most rigid scrutiny”, “ pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can”.
外交是联邦政府的职责范围，所以德州和佛州最近这些指定某国人不能买地的法案多半是通不过的（越权），大家可以洗洗睡了。 但是，这并不代表联邦政府以后不会通过类似的法案。即使是高法，战争状态下歧视一下完全有可能。二战时有 Korematsu v US. “All legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single ratios group are immediate suspect” and subject to test of “the most rigid scrutiny”, “ pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can”. CC055 发表于 2023-01-16 14:22
动不动就来一句“你都没入籍，凭什么要求美国法律保护你的权利” 须知：宪法的主语是we the people。宪法的equal protection条款禁止任何法律基于国籍，种族，宗教信仰，性别，性取向等等，剥夺任何人的宪法权利。这些属性叫做宪法下的protected status。这都是白纸黑字毫无争议的法律常识。 而宪法中“we the people”的定义，在1990年的UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ案子中，早就由第九巡回法庭确认过了：他是一个生活状态，跟国籍没有一毛钱关系。 “ we the people,” for the purposes of protection under the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” ： 私有财产权，是最基本的宪法权利之一。德州禁止某些特定国籍的人买房买地，是明确无误的违宪恶法。 BTW 再给大家扫盲一下，UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ争论的焦点，是VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ这位非法移民黑帮大佬是否拥有宪法第四和第十四修正案规定的权利。 最终的结论我也告诉大家：有。
helloterran3 发表于 2023-01-15 22:02
我觉得你说的有两个问题啊，解释一下吧 第一，National of origin和国籍不同，这个不用解释吧 第二，那个Enough Connection就留有解释的空间了，怎么解释应该是大法官们讨论，我觉得他们这个法案不违宪，完全看怎么解释 你的标题起的太绝对，凡事都有例外
楼主贴里这句话也涉嫌偷换概念： “私有财产权，是最基本的宪法权利之一。德州禁止某些特定国籍的人买房买地，是明确无误的违宪恶法。“ 对私有财产权的保护在宪法里的定义是4th Amendment， 意思是私有财产除非有合法原因政府不得被搜查，没收。这里没有定义任何有关“买地产”的词句。楼主咔嚓一下把宪法诠释到火星去了。 "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 不是说这个提出的立法不是恶法，但是批判也得批判到点儿上。我的一点拙见： https://huaren.us/showtopic.html?forumid=398&topicid=2884881&postid=95980883#95980883
Alienage属于classification suspect, 一样要经过strict scrutiny。这是equal protection clause原文规定的 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification Suspect class[edit] The Supreme Court established the judicial precedent for suspect classifications in the cases of Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 [5] and Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).[6] The Supreme Court recognizes race, national origin, religion and alienage as suspect classes; it therefore analyzes any government action that discriminates against these classes under strict scrutiny. 因为国会有外交权，所以涉及外国公民的联邦法只需要rational scrutiny。 而没有外交权的州法，必须通过strict scrutiny Alienage Alienage, or the state of being an alien, i.e. a non-citizen of the United States, is a unique category. For purposes of state law, legal aliens are a suspect class (Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971)). As such, state actions are analyzed according to strict scrutiny. In contrast, because the United States Congress has the power to regulate immigration, federal government action that discriminates based on alienage will receive rational basis scrutiny.
回复 1楼helloterran3的帖子 楼主散布了错误误导的言论。看英文的解释吧，“宪法中的“We The People” 指的就是公民。注意，是the people, 不是people What does We the People mean in the US Constitution? Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm Meaning of "We the People" the government gets all of its powers from the Citizens of the United States of America. https://www.properpatriot.com/blogs/patriot-place/the-real-meaning-of-we-the-people
本大叔不是律师，本来不想说什么，但楼主这只奇葩，由于他自己的成长经历中需要广爱的精神来生存，所以成年后看什么都是广爱， 就算we the people包括在“developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community” 什么是"sufficient connection",这个又需要高院来解释。在美生活的中国公民，什么条件下达到sufficient connection？ 私有财产权，是最基本的宪法权利之一。这个没错。但禁止某些特定国籍的人买房买地，这并不侵犯私有财产权。还没买呢，有什么私有财产权？
NO, 买房买地是trade，是用货币资产换另一种资产。侵犯私有财产权跟trade没有关系。不能说不让你trade就是侵犯你的私有财产权。 楼主之所以有这种奇葩理念，跟他小时候的生长环境有关。他的生长环境跟鹿鼎记里的韦小宝类似，在扬州丽春院那种环境里，需要有广爱的精神，因为不知道爹是谁，见谁都是妈。所以楼主从小就形成了这种广爱的心理，每个人都是他的爹妈，都要护着他。当有人跟他说，你不是我儿子，我不需要护着你，楼主就上蹿下跳。LOL！
须知：宪法的主语是we the people。宪法的equal protection条款禁止任何法律基于国籍，种族，宗教信仰，性别，性取向等等，剥夺任何人的宪法权利。这些属性叫做宪法下的protected status。这都是白纸黑字毫无争议的法律常识。
而宪法中“we the people”的定义，在1990年的UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ案子中，早就由第九巡回法庭确认过了：他是一个生活状态，跟国籍没有一毛钱关系。
“ we the people,” for the purposes of protection under the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” ：
私有财产权，是最基本的宪法权利之一。德州禁止某些特定国籍的人买房买地，是明确无误的违宪恶法。
------------------
然后发现很多宪法盲又自作聪明的给我讲解“宪法只禁止nation of origin歧视，不禁止国籍歧视blabla”
但是事实上呢，Alienage属于suspect classification, 凡是涉及国籍歧视的州法，都要经过高院的strict scrutiny。这是equal protection clause规定的
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification
Suspect class The Supreme Court established the judicial precedent for suspect classifications in the cases of Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 [5] and Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).[6] The Supreme Court recognizes race, national origin, religion and alienage as suspect classes; it therefore analyzes any government action that discriminates against these classes under strict scrutiny.
因为国会有外交权，所以涉及外国公民的联邦法只需要rational scrutiny。 而没有外交权的州立法，必须通过strict scrutiny
Alienage Alienage, or the state of being an alien, i.e. a non-citizen of the United States, is a unique category. For purposes of state law, legal aliens are a suspect class (Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971)). As such, state actions are analyzed according to strict scrutiny. In contrast, because the United States Congress has the power to regulate immigration, federal government action that discriminates based on alienage will receive rational basis scrutiny.
赌2个硬币通不过，
这是德州内的bill 极大概率通过 是不是要上诉到联邦法院就不得而知了
醒醒吧 排华的时候没宪法吗， 二战时候候没宪法吗， 中国的宪法保护最大的那颗星 美国的宪法当然保护最凶悍那个族 书不要读的太多吧
通不过 拭目以待 因为 背后很多经济利益
这跟排华没啥关系，老铁。 这个法案就是不让中国人买地买房。 美国是一个战略self-sufficient country. 战争储备决定。
哈哈。 幼稚的定义。
我唯一恶心的是，故意把中国和俄罗斯伊朗并列，让德州那些野蛮的白人把中国当成敌对国，进而导致不信任华裔甚至敌视华裔
UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ 你是看不懂英语么？ 这个案子，最高法院告诉你，那个黑帮老大不受第四修正案的保护。。。。
重点就在“按需解读”
你是个法律小白么？看英文只能看懂第一段话？
这个案子有一个点是在国外搜出来的证据能不能作为证据。这个答案是肯定的
但是事关we the people定义，这个案子规定了在美国境内被捕的黑老大，即使是非法移民，也拥有宪法规定的所有权利。
除非他们可以明确推翻UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ
Roe vs. Wade是在程序上有漏洞。UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ可没有这样的bug
我记得学过这个案子，但你的说法和我的记忆有偏差。刚翻了一下这个案子，你是不是理解错了？
Chief Justice Rehnquist authored the opinion for the Court, joined by Justices White, Scalia, Kennedy and O''Connor, contending that "the people" intended to be protected by the Fourth Amendment were the people of the United States, and that the defendant''s legal but involuntary presence" on U.S. soil (a direct result of his arrest) failed to create a sufficient relationship with the U.S. to allow him to call upon the Constitution for protection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
from wiki
Facts Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez, a Mexican citizen reputed to be a drug-lord involved in the torture and murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena Salazar, was arrested and brought to the United States. The DEA decided that it would be a good idea to search the defendant''s home, so agents received authorization from the Mexican government to conduct the search. The agents found documents believed to be the defendant''s records of his marijuana shipments.
When the government sought to introduce the documents as evidence in court, the defendant objected, asserting that they were obtained without a warrant, and therefore could not constitutionally be used at trial. The United States District Court agreed, and invoked the exclusionary rule to suppress the documents (i.e., to prevent them from being used as evidence). The government appealed this ruling, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[2] The government then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Opinion of the Court The Court held that the Fourth Amendment''s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply where United States agents searched and seized property located in a foreign country owned by a nonresident alien in the United States. Chief Justice Rehnquist authored the opinion for the Court, joined by Justices White, Scalia, Kennedy and O''Connor, contending that "the people" intended to be protected by the Fourth Amendment were the people of the United States, and that the defendant''s "legal but involuntary presence" on U.S. soil (a direct result of his arrest) failed to create a sufficient relationship with the U.S. to allow him to call upon the Constitution for protection.[3]
我觉得你理解错了。
虽然我觉得这个案子和德州现在的这个法律条文没有太大联系，但是最高法院对这个案子的判决和你的解读应该是不一致的。
我确实是记错了
UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ中确认了被告不享有宪法权利。但是同时也确定了什么人受宪法保护
而什么人受宪法保护的明文定义，才是我们现在最需要的
私有财产权咋被侵犯了？ 美国是要没收你的房子还是现金了？
在某处买房买地的权利，压根不是宪法保护的权利之一，你咋跟宪法挂钩的
楼主散布了错误误导的言论。看英文的解释吧，“宪法中的“We The People” 指的就是公民。注意，是the people, 不是people
What does We the People mean in the US Constitution? Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
Meaning of "We the People" the government gets all of its powers from the Citizens of the United States of America. https://www.properpatriot.com/blogs/patriot-place/the-real-meaning-of-we-the-people
你也知道宪法由法院解释的。反正到时候高院重新解释一下，推翻以前的解释就行了。不要动不动就违宪。最后到底怎么说全部还是靠人治。
I’m no lawyer but I think while the constitution doesn’t spell out right to purchase real property, there are many anti-discrimination statutes on federal housing laws that support the basic premise of proposed law violates equal protection clause.
Chip Roy 是联邦众议员，提案的是HR 3847。和德州的bill 完全不是一个。你有点基本的立法尝试好不好。
Undocumented immigrants are illegal criminals and must be deported. If you break into someone's house, you are not entitled to anything in that house. Period.
又来了，每次都要提排华，然后跟中国的一党专政放在一起得出天下乌鸦一般黑的结论，但是排华是多少年前的事，被反思被批判过排华的土壤还在吗？如果历史上曾经出现的就会再出现的话，那黑人还被当作奴隶呢，就可以证明黑人会继续被当做奴隶吗？
让我想想。
想了之后：还在
从未消失过。
While no doubt "We the People" refer to citizens of United States, to ''form a more perfect union'' etc., the enumerated rights are not limited to US citizens by any stretch.
For example, 4th Amendment protection clearly extends to all people on US soil when it comes to illegal search and seizure. Just because you might be an illegal alien, it doesn''t mean that you forfeit all your human rights when you enter the US border.
And in a case I''m more familiar with, that Massachusetts used to place additional limit gun licensing on Permanent Residents, and it was declared unconstitutional per Fletcher vs. Haas: https://comm2a.org/fletcher/
The view expressed in the above post is flat out WRONG. Do not perpetuate this type of dangerous rhetoric.
实际操作中我感觉国籍几乎没有区别，只要是合法身份，钱更重要。。。
现在很多事也不知道该如何评价，都是利益相关，推翻宪法也不是不可能，不破不立，不过这个破的太快，maga自己可能并不明白建立起美元系统和世界储蓄货币地位有多么不容易，有多少代人的努力
如果德州只喜欢白人，靠卖油的话也能过得不错，就类似瑞典这种，但国际影响力就几乎没有了。。。
Suspected classifications include national race, ethnicity, original, and citizenship. Discriminatory laws based on citizenship violate equal protection clause of the 5th amendment applying to states through the 14th amendment and is subject to strict scrutiny. -- 结论： 宪法也保护国籍
这个法律根据国籍限制买房的权力就是违反了宪法的equal protection clause (of the 5th amendment applying to the states through the 14th amendment)
你家进强盗了要住下，你别赶就行。
你先考虑一下你在白人男人心里算不算we the people，60年代以前连白人女人都是男人的附属品，有色人种更不算人。现在虽然开放一些，大部分白人男性骨子里还是歧视少数族裔以及女性
那德州的美籍华人组织能否针对单禁某些特定国家公民（种族歧视）这一点起诉呢？
PS, 之前版上看到不少夸得州佛州的帖子，特别是夸得州州长的。我虽然也觉得得州天气适合冬天居住，但现在看到现在得州这种操作，庆幸自己不在那里了。
红脖子， 智商确实欠费， 看看 ted cruz 那种胡搅蛮缠的主儿就知道了。 佛州州长也是智商欠费。
False analogy is false analogy is false analogy.
有本事用你知道的美国法律和法理来说服人，指出我上面说的哪点不对。胡搅蛮缠有啥意思。帖子题目说的宪法盲就你这样儿的。
你这个说的是去年的bill，现在是新出的bill禁止中国国籍购买一切property，就是一刀切。
By law, illegal immigration itself is not a criminal act. Your analogy sucks.
Some of the acts, like using another person’s SSN, smuggling counterfeit, lying to a federal agents, marriage fraud, are criminal if you commit those acts. But illegally crossing the border and unlawful presence by themselves are NOT.
但是，这并不代表联邦政府以后不会通过类似的法案。即使是高法，战争状态下歧视一下完全有可能。二战时有 Korematsu v US. “All legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single ratios group are immediate suspect” and subject to test of “the most rigid scrutiny”, “ pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can”.
外交是联邦政府的职责范围，这个我是同意的。但不代表德州和佛州的议员们会因为这个原因就不通过这个法案。反正他们只管立法，即不管执法，也不管如果法律被推翻之后会怎样（其实如果法律被推翻，对他们更好，更能号召基本盘支持他们）
我觉得你说的有两个问题啊，解释一下吧
第一，National of origin和国籍不同，这个不用解释吧 第二，那个Enough Connection就留有解释的空间了，怎么解释应该是大法官们讨论，我觉得他们这个法案不违宪，完全看怎么解释
你的标题起的太绝对，凡事都有例外
“私有财产权，是最基本的宪法权利之一。德州禁止某些特定国籍的人买房买地，是明确无误的违宪恶法。“
对私有财产权的保护在宪法里的定义是4th Amendment， 意思是私有财产除非有合法原因政府不得被搜查，没收。这里没有定义任何有关“买地产”的词句。楼主咔嚓一下把宪法诠释到火星去了。
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
不是说这个提出的立法不是恶法，但是批判也得批判到点儿上。我的一点拙见： https://huaren.us/showtopic.html?forumid=398&topicid=2884881&postid=95980883#95980883
Alienage属于classification suspect, 一样要经过strict scrutiny。这是equal protection clause原文规定的
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification
Suspect class[edit] The Supreme Court established the judicial precedent for suspect classifications in the cases of Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 [5] and Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).[6] The Supreme Court recognizes race, national origin, religion and alienage as suspect classes; it therefore analyzes any government action that discriminates against these classes under strict scrutiny.
因为国会有外交权，所以涉及外国公民的联邦法只需要rational scrutiny。 而没有外交权的州法，必须通过strict scrutiny
Alienage Alienage, or the state of being an alien, i.e. a non-citizen of the United States, is a unique category. For purposes of state law, legal aliens are a suspect class (Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971)). As such, state actions are analyzed according to strict scrutiny. In contrast, because the United States Congress has the power to regulate immigration, federal government action that discriminates based on alienage will receive rational basis scrutiny.
写了这么多字写了个笑话 你以为SCOTUS 真会管这些事？所有申诉到SCOTUS的案件，SCOTUS接纳的不到1% 这个法案结果就是外籍华人去告texas和florida州，可能SCOTUS都不接这个案子 你要知道SCOTUS现在是保守派当家，非常排外 再说了，你知道美国政府早就冻结了伊朗政府在美国的所有资产，这是equal protection么 俄乌战争后美国冻结了俄国oligarch的资产，这是equal protection么？ too naive， too simple， too huaren
我也奇怪这里还真有人把美国宪法当回事 abortion在2022年合法了21年，现在突然不合法了，可是美国宪法白纸黑字一个字没变 有没有违宪，跟宪法本身无关，只跟哪一个总统提名SCOTUS法官有关
但是因为楼主的生长环境跟鹿鼎记里的韦小宝类似，在扬州丽春院那种环境里，需要有广爱的精神，不知道爹是谁，见谁都是妈。LOL！
I think President Xi might disagree with you
估计最终会加一些限制，比如绿卡不算，工作多少年交税的不算，等等。
即便这样，我们也要坚决反对。这个是赤裸裸的歧视。如果通过了，要上诉到最高法院。
你的信息来源是.com 我的信息来源是案例原文
然后你说我在散布错误言论？
他们蠢不蠢我们不要管了。我看他们不蠢，真的，人家在下大棋。 人家目标是把全美国乃至全世界变成Gillead，高科技算个P。
没看出其他种族移民为什么要避开德州。这是他们的机会啊
就算we the people包括在“developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community” 什么是"sufficient connection",这个又需要高院来解释。在美生活的中国公民，什么条件下达到sufficient connection？
私有财产权，是最基本的宪法权利之一。这个没错。但禁止某些特定国籍的人买房买地，这并不侵犯私有财产权。还没买呢，有什么私有财产权？
re，幼稚的人太多了
这是有多傻会觉得德州整完中国人不会接着对其他少数族裔下手？
...
阻碍你获得财产的渠道，也是侵犯私有财产权吧。
也要看大法官脸皮是不是足够厚啦。
NO, 买房买地是trade，是用货币资产换另一种资产。侵犯私有财产权跟trade没有关系。不能说不让你trade就是侵犯你的私有财产权。
楼主之所以有这种奇葩理念，跟他小时候的生长环境有关。他的生长环境跟鹿鼎记里的韦小宝类似，在扬州丽春院那种环境里，需要有广爱的精神，因为不知道爹是谁，见谁都是妈。所以楼主从小就形成了这种广爱的心理，每个人都是他的爹妈，都要护着他。当有人跟他说，你不是我儿子，我不需要护着你，楼主就上蹿下跳。LOL！
那不幼稚的人该怎么做呢?
全美国有可能，不过要很久很久，全世界完全不可能，看看世界宗教史和战争史就知道了，真要为宗教而战的话，那真能打成一团，穆斯林，天主教，东正教等等，尤其穆斯林和天主教，一旦发起圣战中东南美北美会打成一团，如果北美Gilead参战的话
当然这是开玩笑。。。世界各大宗教势力都大得很，没那么容易搞定的
阻碍trade也是对财产权的侵犯。法律规定不允许把商品卖给某人，那某人手中的美元就成了废纸，这也是侵犯其财产权。
哈哈，不让买房买地美元就成废纸了？
那上海不让外地人买房，人民币就成废纸了？上海市政府就侵犯外地人的财产权了？
中国人就需要有中国这样的强权政府，美国对你nice，有一点点不如意就吹鼻子瞪眼睛。
中国的房子限购不要太普遍，也没见哪个像楼主这种SB搬出宪法来说中国政府违宪，说侵犯了其财产权，LOL！
当然了，你限制我的购买渠道，也就削弱了我手里的美元的价值。如果某州通过法律，不准卖任何商品和服务给中国公民，那人家手里的美元就跟废纸一样，这就是侵犯其财产权。 我讨论的是美国，至于中国怎么操作，不在我关心范围之内。
是不是稍微有滴滴点儿太飘了。看来还是得吃啊，继续po你那些饭桶贴要做自己擅长的事情。
你如果是美国公民，那你就不需要关心德州的这个法案，因为你可以在美国任何地方买房子。 你如果是中国公民，那你就需要关心中国怎么操作，因为美国不是你的家。
不卖房子给中国公民，不等同于“不准卖任何商品和服务给中国公民”，如果你把这两个划等号，那你最urgent的事情不是买房子，而是去找个好的精神医生，治疗迫害幻想症。
本大叔没时间跟精神病人胡搅蛮缠，这个本大叔最后一次回复你。你表现素质的时刻到了。
我是美国公民我也要关心，因为我认为这是违宪的。 宪法同样保护身在美国的其它国家公民的正当权益，如果违背这一点，那就是违宪，就是背离了美国的精神。
同样，今天能禁卖房子给中国公民，明天就可以禁卖菜给中国公民。
如果你认为这都是正当的，可以继续支持德州政府，甚至在这个官司打到最高法院的时候，给保守派大法官出谋划策，这也是你的权利。
美国肯定有不少公民是法盲啊。