"How did it ever come to pass that non-citizens are entitled to citizen's rights? And how is it that loitering in the streets while waiting for somebody to come by and offer you a job is considered to be "speech". If this is the case then any 'john' soliciting a hooker should be protected because he is exercising his 1st Amendment rights."
We have to, as a civilized nation based on a foundation of human rights, extend those rights to all humans, even if they are tourists or illegal immigrants. I have mixed feelings about this, in the face of current events.
If we do not accord people in our country (regardles of their legal status) basic human rights, then what DO we allow them?
It's an interesting debate - what rights SHOULD a visitor to our country enjoy? (Legal or not). Does the law of habeus corpus get thrown out if the suspect is not a US citizen? Do Miranda rights only apply to US citizens? Does the freedom of speech only apply to US citizens (and isn't THAT a lovely path to wander down, so many non citizens I'd love to have silenced...)
But, in the end, you are correct to question how and why rights are being given to non-citizens. I don't know, I suspect it's been a slow process, a Chinese water torture method of slipping in more and more over years, if not decades. The concept is sound, the generousity of according righst to visitors that we enjoy, but like everything else, it's been abused and shockingly warped by liberal judges and government beaurocracies.
"Our judicial system, and our nation itself, is falling apart at the seems because of these dishonest, agenda-driven judges and the do-nothing politicians who refuse to do anything about this judicial legislating and usurpation of their power."
And, if left unchecked, will lead to non-citizens being given MORE rights, and seperate rights. If this is allowed to stand, then how long until a Clinton appointee decides that not only can private business forbid gathering for day work on their property (Home Depot, 7-11, ect...), but they also must provide shelter, safety, and portajohns. It's typical that these days, the solution punishes the innocent, and rewards the criminal.
Expect more of this before the tide turns. Sadly, I don't think it's going to happen soon, the forces to turn the tide are just now waking up to the fact that we're drowning, and it will be a while before sufficiant forces (voting booths) can start the change.
Such may be a belief, but it must not be law for a limited government. The Constitution is a social contract among we the people of the United States. To allow the Federal government the power to honor claims of non-citizens is to extend its powers to interests adverse to its citizens, such as we have seen.
Foreigners are not party to that social contract. They have interests adverse to the citizenry. For the Federal government to respect their interests violates the requirement that it represent the interests of citizens. It thus violates its representative essence.
The principal reason we have government is to settle competing claims simply because all rights eventually overlap in specific instances. One person's free assembly and free speech can violate another person's right to be secure in their home. One person's free expression of homosexuality can violate another's religious free exercise. That's why we have fifty states, where the people can congregate with their common beliefs.
It is therefore one thing for the people to believe that all humans have rights. It is another to give government the power to enforce an alien's claims against American citizens. That puts government in the position of conferring rights, which is a very dangerous thing to do. Extending the rights of aliens also waters down the distinction of being an American citizen, something to which we require specific knowledge of their responsibilities and an oath of allegiance before participation. In that vein, unless a person agrees to abide by our mutual contract, it is unwise of us to allow them the freedoms it offers, simply because that latitude and protection of the law extends the opportunity for mischief in a person who has not demonstrated the intent to abide by our laws.