Posted on 10/18/2001 10:05:22 AM PDT by RebelDawg
I have seen several posts lately where people have made statements that illegal immigrants as well as those persons from abroad visiting here on student, work and travel visas are NOT protected by the Bill of Rights. I have also seen posts by people vehemently opposing that view. I thought about it a while and decided to side with the first group: that is that those individuals who ar enot citizens of this country are not granted the rights listed in the Bill of Rights of the United States of America. My reasoning is quite simple. If you take the stance that the Bill of Rights covers ALL people then what about the gvernments of other countries? does our Bill of Rights supercede those governments? Should we overthrow other governments who violate their citizens first and second ammendment rights? What about China? Good you say??? Well what about England, Canada and Australia? they have clearly violated their citizens second ammendment right! Or is it that they do NOT have those rights and that the Bill of Rights ONLY covers citizens of the United States of America?
Here is a quick quote that I pulled from a sight about the Bill of Rights of the United States of America:
During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.Bill of Rights
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.From Article IV
Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.Ammendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievancesAmmendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Ammendment IV
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.Ammendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.Ammendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Are some of you telling me that the term “the people” as written in the Bill of Rights refers to a global notion of people? I think that is completely absurd, it has the same meaning as in the opening paragraph of the United States Constitution and that is We the People of the United States.
All of these “rights” are listed in the Bill of Rights. “Good Grief” are all of these GOD given rights?????
Might it be because the rights being defined by the new Constitution were explicitly reserved for its new citizens?
Obviously somewhere along the line the principle that the constitution protects citizen and foreigner alike was probably embraced by the court system and we have accepted it ever since as inviolate.
It certainly seems overdue to revisit the subject, either through the courts or by Constitutional Amendment.
Well I will certainly say that citizens have certain "rights" that are denied non-citizens. Running for and holding public office comes to mind. As does the purchasing of (some) firearms though those may still be possessed (In fact some states will allow foreigners to purchase rifles and shotguns). Foreigners commonly hunt, for instance.
However non-citizens may pratice freedom of speech, association, religion and the press. They do not have to house soldiers. They are secure in their papers. Miranda applies. As does "speedy trial", impartial jury, Grand Jury, "double jeopardy", "self-incrimination", freedom to travel, "right to an attorney", and "search and seizure", excessive bail, excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment.
While there are probably some attorneys out there "picking nits", in general, non-citizens have the same protections as citizens.
Primarily, most of what you quote has to do with the right to be secure in your person unless those that are going to throw you in jail, accuse you of a crime, etc. have a good reason. Once you've been bothered by the legal system, the right is to be treated fairly, to not have false witness borne against you, etc.
If context is a valid argument, then it's a no-brainer:
We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility...
That is also an opinion.
It could also be interpreted to mean those who reside here and also are citizens.
Otherwise we must accept the absurd notion that any Brirish spies, who might have been here when the constitution was adopted, were also among those forming a "more perfect union..."
Do you realize how irritating it is to supply a response to a statement that was presented long ago and way back there in the thread?
At the risk of seeming argumentative, if an individual is born, lives and dies in a society that recognizes no such rights, did that individual ever have them?
There are older U.S. Supreme Court cases to the same effect--aliens in the U.S. can't be deported without due process, but aliens seeking entry to the U.S. are not entitled to due process if the INS won't let them in; German war criminals tried in Europe were held not entitled to trial by jury; etc.
I have an Israeli friend who I know purchased firearms (legally) before he was a citizen. I think the only requirement was legal status.
The thing is, the BOR does not grant any rights to anyone.
The govt recognizes that these rights exist and states that the US government will not interfere with them.
Ah no. Sorry but you are wrong.
That's why they're called amendments; look the word up, it means an addition to... something.
It does not become an entity on its own, a separate item in itself, it just makes the original longer or bigger.
That the first 10 amendments are referred to as the "Bill of Rights", is a semantic convenience to identify them as the first ten, adopted at the same time as the main body of the Constitution when it was officially adopted (but not yet ratified).
I beg to differ.
In the real world (not academia or metaphysics) people have only those rights that they are able and willing to assert and hence enjoy. All else is sophistry.
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.