THE US CONSTITUTION AND THE RIGHTS OF NON-CITIZENS

FORD FOUNDATION REPORT ^ | Fall 2003 edition | Rose Gutfeld

[TLI]

bump

[rmlew]

Patriot Act supercededs this.

[usurper]

Aliens enjoy every constitutional right that citizens enjoy save two, the right to vote and more importantly the right to remain in the US. No alien has a right to enter or remain in the US it is exclusively to right of the legislative branch of government to determine how many aliens can legal enter, under what conditions and from what country we will accept them.

The executive branch has been granted broad authority to regulate immigration by law. The attorney general has very broad authority when it comes to immigrants particularly when we are under attack.

Frankly, if the congress passed a law saying that all aliens from say…..France must report in 30 days for a removal hearing that would meet the test.

It all completely constitutional that is what this attorney POS is on about. The Supreme Court has continually held that when it comes to immigration the legislative branch can pretty much do what they want, with the only limitation that the alien must have some form of due process before we boot his butt out.

His basic argument is that the secret hearings (which were only necessary because of A-hole lawyers such as himself) denied his client due process which is bunk and why he lost. Now he is relegated to writing anti American books as failures often do.

[4Freedom]

This has been discussed before. This isn't the first time these one-worlders have tried to claim that when the Founding Fathers said "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,..." they were talking about foreigners, tourists, transients, temporary workers, illegal aliens, etc..

They weren't. All future references by the Founding Fathers to "the people" are made implicitly to citizens of the United States, too.

[mrustow]

Nonsense!

[JustPiper]

I am sooooooooo sick of hearing about non-citizens entering illegally having ANY rights in our country!

[JustPiper]

Pong KK ;)

[rolling_stone]

I suggest you look at the history of 18 usc 242 and you will see how it has changed since the Civil War....you might find it interesting....

[justshutupandtakeit]

Is that what causes it? From now on I will wear a veil.

[traditionalist]

If we accept the premise that our Constitutional rights are only for citizens, I had better get a passport to prove my citizenship.

Excellent idea. Everyone should have a passport. I don't understand why you're so opposed to it. A lot of other countries require persons to present a passport as proof of identity when opening bank accounts, dealing with the government, etc. IMHO, this is a very wise and prudent practice that does not diminish one's civil liberties one bit.

[R. Scott]

I’m not opposed to having a passport per se, but I have always thought of it as a document needed when traveling overseas as a civilian. I doubt I will ever be in the economic position to travel as such, and equate needing a passport to travel within the USA with the internal passports required by the old Soviet system.
I guess I’m just too appreciative of individual freedom and liberty to want to see it happen here. A lot of other countries do require it, and a lot of other countries have other restrictions I would loathe to see implemented here.
Just because “other countries do it”, we should too?

[tarator]

Nonsense!

What exactly is your objection? That I am not endowed by our Creator with the same unalienable rights as you or that I am not supposed to enjoy them?

[mrustow]

Nonsense!

What exactly is your objection? That I am not endowed by our Creator with the same unalienable rights as you or that I am not supposed to enjoy them?

That you're confounding the people with all of humanity.

[traditionalist]

I guess I’m just too appreciative of individual freedom and liberty to want to see it happen here.

How does it reduce your individual freedom and liberty to require passports for domestic flights? Or to open a bank account? As it is, you already have to show some form of government issued i.d. What difference does it make if it is a federally issued i.d. vs. a state-issued i.d.?

A lot of countries, such as Switzerland, with just as much if not more individual freedom than ours, require passports for things such as domestic travel, bank accounts, and the like. There is nothing inherently Soviet or Nazi about this practice.

[traditionalist]

That I am not endowed by our Creator with the same unalienable rights as you or that I am not supposed to enjoy them?

There's a difference between natural rights and civil rights.

[R. Scott]

How does it reduce your individual freedom and liberty to require passports for domestic flights? Or to open a bank account? As it is, you already have to show some form of government issued i.d. What difference does it make if it is a federally issued i.d. vs. a state-issued i.d.?

Having a necessary document that is controlled by the Federal Government gives federal bureaucrats one more element of control over the citizen. Mandating a Federal ID for air travel and bank accounts could well lead to requiring it for interstate travel and other commonly accepted activities.
You might not object to going to a bureaucrat with hat in hand, but I do. I do not believe in sacrificing liberty for the illusion of safety.

[tarator]

There's a difference between natural rights and civil rights.

The D. of I. clearly states "That to secure these rights [i.e. the natural rights], Governments are instituted among Men". It seems to me that civil rights are simply government-secured natural rights.

[traditionalist]

Having a necessary document that is controlled by the Federal Government gives federal bureaucrats one more element of control over the citizen.

What exactly does it allow them to control?

[traditionalist]

The D. of I. clearly states "That to secure these rights [i.e. the natural rights], Governments are instituted among Men". It seems to me that civil rights are simply government-secured natural rights.

The D of I is not a legal document, nor does it have anything to do with the founding of our government. It was a highly effecive polemic justifying a worthy rebellion against a tyranical king. Still, I will grant you that ONE of the purposes of government is to secure natural rights.

Government has more purposes than merely securing natural rights. To get a list, see the preamble to the constitution. In order to fulfill these purposes, government grants civil rights to citizens over and above their natural rights. One of these, for instance, is a civil right to education. You may or may not agree that it is prudent to grant this civil right, but certainly it is not a natural right.

Another example is the civil right non-citizens to have a hearing before being deported. Only citizens have a natural right to live in their home country. No one has a natural right to live in any country but his own. However, with the goal of preventing the deportation of desirable immigrants, we grant all immigrants a civil right to a hearing and due process before deportation. We are not under any moral obligation to grant this right, however, because no non-citizen has a natural right to be here.

[hosepipe]

[ Has the government operated with a "double standard" since September 11, 2001, that is, denying immigrants the civil liberties and constitutional protections that citizens enjoy? ]

Said with a wry smile and in Barney Fifes uniform and brim of his hat off to one side.. in Barneys shakey way.....

Bwahahaha...