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.
The fact is obvious. The Bill of Rights begins with We the people of the United States. The people of the United States are those who reside here. Where is the confusion?So are you saying that a citizen of China here on a work visa is a member of "the people of the United States"?
Protect our borders...remove the illigals
Can you point to any Amendments in the Bill of Rights which explicitly "grant" rights to the people? Thanks.
The philosophy of the founders was clearly natural rights, they clearly believed that rights were bestowed by the Creator, and they clearly intended that the Bill of Rights protect God-given rights. Just because the document doesn't say doesn't mean it isn't so.
!!!!????
So our representative government could abolish religious freedom, RKBA, freedom of speeech, etc?
I don't think you really mean this. Read the BOR. The BOR does not say the rights are "granted", but that they shall "not be infringed."
I wish I HAD stayed at the Holiday Inn Express.
Harry K.
One of many.
"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
This section has been the subject of much debate. In the first sentence and the first clause of the second sentence, it's clear that the law applies to citizens.
It is the second and third clauses of the second sentence that are unclear. Does the semicolon mean that the clauses are to infer citizens from the first clause?
Or, does the law apply to anyone within US juristdiction regardless of how they got there?
The courts have ruled both ways. In the most cases anyone in this country is afforded equal protection.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ...
The Declaration of Independence states the principles upon which the Constitution is legally constructed. The Bill of Rights was written by its proponents to explicitly state that the gov't could not infringe on these natural rights, rights granted by nobody but God.
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.Ah good point Biker! You may convince me yet ;-)
Best,
That's right. And that's why any society where such a philosophy is the prevailing one is doomed to tyranny.
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.