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.
My main problem with the view that the Bill of Rights
applies only to citizens is that such a distinction would view the government
as the entity that bestows the rights...that view would hold that the government
can strip non-citizens of the rights mentioned.
That would seem to imply that it is the government itself bestowing the rights..."
# 23 by MWS
===============
MWS, you are mis-understanding the meaning of the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is not a list of the rights of men.
It is a list of rights that our government will not interfere with.
Instead of,
"You have the right to..."
it says,
"Government will not interfere with your right to..."
That's a big difference,
and the solution to your problem.
"...Freedom applies to countries as well as individuals.
....I have the right to discipline my kids,
....but I don't come into your house and discipline your kids."
# 168 by exodus
===============
To: exodus
But you'd discipline someone else's kid
if they were a guest at your house and set your kitchen on fire!
{whether or not some liberal says it's "okay"}
# 180 by RasterMaster
===============
Yes, I would.
And I've told everyone that if their kid "acted out,"
(that's Socialist for "causing trouble")
I would not "tell Daddy," I would take care of it myself.
Funny, even known troublemakers don't cause trouble at my house.
To: HarryKnutszacke
Look at the 14th Amendment:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There is a distinction made between "citizens" and "persons."
I don't think we should be reading "citizens" unless the word "citizens" is actually used.
# 33 by BikerNYC
===============
I still feel that since the Constitution
is about the creation of a government,
and how it will deal with it's subjects,
that in context, it plainly is referring to citizens.
You do have a good point, BikerNYC.
"...On another note I just thought of this...
Can you legally purchase a firearm in the United States if you are not a citizen?
I'm not sure if you can or not. Does anyone know this?..."
# 35 by RebelDawg
===============
I believe you can, RebelDawg.
Every firearm is legally required to be registered,
but I've never heard that you "had to be a citizen" to register your weapon.
Remember, also, that all the old movies assumed that anyone could have a firearm.
Au contraire mon frere. There is no denying reality.
Substitute "clothes" for "rights" and you can see how silly your conclusion seems...
If you can't sense, touch, enjoy and embrace them, you don't have them.
This is the central issue, and we should not wrap ourselves around the philosophical axle about what "rights" are or where they come from. That is a distraction and unproductive.
I would clarify your statement to say that citizenship confers our Republic's duty and obligation and commitment to protect, defend and maintain those innate rights as an American citizen.
The US can not and should not attempt to do likewise to everybody in the world to prove dedication to that idea.
Well, if your brat comes to my house and kills the cat, and you don't deal with it, you can count on the fact that somebody would deal with him.
Well, if your brat comes to my house and kills the cat,
and you don't deal with it,
you can count on the fact that somebody would deal with him.
# 190 by Publius6961
===============
Actually, I would expect you to "deal" with him.
I don't believe in delayed punishment,
and I don't believe in
"I'm going to tell your daddy," either.
To: exodus
"You missed the carefully placed word 'legally'!
Without 'legally' not much of what I wrote makes any sense, now does it?..."
# 185 by dhuffman@awod.com
===============
I caught the "legally," dhuffman@awod.com,
but when when you said,
"Only AMERICANS enjoy the Right to Keep and Bare Arms legally!"
"...Dissenters must cite the document, of equivalent weight as the Bill of Rights..."
"The terrorists likely exercised their First Amendment Right to political expression..."
I got the impression that you believed
that if others don't have a legal, government-recognized right,
that they are being "bad" for acting as if they had any rights at all.
"If the rights are inherent in all men,
and the US chooses only to recognize them in citizens,
but not in non-citizens,
it is denying rights which by definition
those people have by virtue of living,
and thus is not truly advocating freedom.
Just food for thought."
# 147 by MWS
===============
Beautiful, MWS.
I believe that, too.
If a man is on United States controlled territory,
his rights should be recognized,
except in time of national emergency,
when even a citizen's rights are curtailed.
If you can't sense, touch, enjoy and embrace them, you don't have them. If you want to trade your natural rights for clothes, that's your decision. Nothing you do, however, infringes on my natural rights.
Your logical fallacies are laughable and can be most simply demonstrated by asking: Do you have intelligence? If your answer is yes, can you "sense, touch, enjoy and embrace" it? Then by your logic you have no intelligence.
Natural rights are equally intangible. Not being able to "sense, touch, enjoy and embrace" them does not change their reality.
PS If you are so small minded as to be offended by the example, then you deserve to be offended. I will operate under the assumption that you are intelligent enough to comprehend the irony and humor, until facts prove otherwise.
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.