Posted on 12/11/2015 5:06:54 PM PST by GraceG
The one thing about the hornet's nest in the media that Trump kicked over the other day was the whole idea that it was somehow wrong to ask an incoming immigrant about their religious affiliation.
But I ask you all, why did all the progressives either the republicans or the democrat progressives all while and moan like stuck little piggies about this issue.
They seem to come from the perspective that the rights protected in Constitution extend to everyone everywhere in the world. This is absurd, plain outright absurd and dangerous. Their interpretation of "Protected American Rights" would then mean that we would have to invade every other country in the world to protect the rights of other country's citizens.
If the bill of right extend to everyone in the world why are we not invading Canada right now for their recent curtailing of Canadian's freedom of speech? Or invade the U.K. in order to enforce the 2nd amendment for their citizens. Or any other country in that regard???
There is no absolute protected freedom of religion for an alien, here legally or not, even within our countries borders. It also applies to freedom of speech and also the second amendment for non-citizens. However once a non-citizen goes through the process of learning about how our government is supposed to work and their rights and THEN gets sworn in as a naturalized citizen ONLY THEN do they gain the rights we citizens enjoy.
We could ban non-citizens (on Visas or in the process of immigrating legally) from owning weapons within our borders. We could even make it a lengthy process for a non-citizen immigrant who is jumping through the hoops to become a citizen to restrict it down to singe shot guns if we wanted. However once sworn in as a citizen they have all the rights as the rest of the actual citizens. Of course the progressives never seem to argue for non-citizens having 2nd amendment rights because they are animals of their agenda.
The progressives want to blur the lines on what rights we have between what rights a non-citizen has. If we reach a point to where non-citizens enjoy a majority of the rights that a citizen does, then what next? What does the the citizen have that a non-citizen have at that point? They only thing "we citizens" have at this point is an "Obligation to the State".
If all we are left in difference is our Obligations? Why remain a citizen within our own borders? What advantage is that? Being a citizen then becomes a liability... When it becomes too much of a liability what next? Civil war? People renouncing their citizenship in favor of a non-resident alien in their own country status?
[ I’m not saying that we shouldn’t restrict who comes into our country, but if we believe that the government gave us, the citizens, these rights, then that same government can take those rights from us.
But the government did not give them to us. They are rights that all men have. ]
True there are certain inalienable human rights, however the constitution protects the citizens from abuse by the government on certain rights.
We cannot take the life of a non-citizen without due process for instance. However, any of the extra protections that the bill of rights protects can be applied differently to non-citizens. Especially from non-citizens coming from places that don’t believe in inherent rights or who want to do fellow citizens harm thus depriving our fellow citizen of their right to life, liberty, and pursuits of happiness.
You are correct. And foreigners are free to exercise their God given rights. They are not free, however, to exercise them here.
[ It’s not that they have “rights†per se, but a 2003 SCOTUS decision states that foreigners on US soil are accorded the shames in our justice system. ]
When the hell was this ratified by 3/4 of the states?
That being said, liberals do declare "rights" when "privilege" is the correct term. Most things they declare as "rights" are merely humane practice or universal courtesy. Nobody has an inherent right to come to our Nation.
[ That being said, liberals do declare “rights” when “privilege” is the correct term. Most things they declare as “rights” are merely humane practice or universal courtesy. Nobody has an inherent right to come to our Nation. ]
A right costs nothing but to keep tyranny at bay.
A privlidge requires another person to pay for it.
Really?
I need the “Not this shit again guy.”
Why do you as a question and berate the answer? Idiot.
Yes, that is what my comment was intended to illustrate. Natural rights are God given, but the Constitution defines (i) what or who (federal, state, individual) is obligated to defend those rights, and (ii) for whom that obligation is incurred (citizens).
Yeah, well the question was about current US procedure. You answer was simply wrong. You think the DOI is law in this country. It is not.
Exactly.
Well I think that some of it has to do with the fact that our constitution embodies NATURAL RIGHTS and not those GIVEN by the state. If the state can give them they can take them away. Our founders stated we had certain natural rights which mean that they aren’t related to any government but are inherent in our very existence.
What irritates me is that both demoncrat and republicans seem to think they have all sorts of authority through govt to control anyones natural rights citizen or otherwise.
The Constitution of the United States promises to defend the nature rights of US citizens. It does not promise to defend the rights of everybody on planet earth.
in my opinion that is wrong! Non Citizens should NOT have those rights.
where was the berating? Did I miss a post?
And calling people idiot isn’t exactly gonna get your point across dude.
The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection to all persons, not just U.S. citizens.
Courts and police view it differently and have granted due process to Non-Citizens.
Lately on a lot of posts when a fact is stated, the responses are asinine—as if I have to explain how the Supreme Court works. If the responder doesn’t understand how our government works they should go back to civics class and figure it out. And they should tone down the feigned outrage. It’s beginning to read like a bad Fox News show.
If you were running out the clock so your team could win you would say what Obama says. Just enough to cover the topic but not enough to dissuade his peeps from marching on.
and it still doesn’t make it right.
Yeah, it’s their “constitutional right” to be taken care of with our tax dollars.
It’s their “right” to bankrupt the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.