[RebelDawg]

Open for discussion. I really want to hear the arguments on both sides of this issue.

Please post what stance you take on this issue and any facts that you have to support that stance.

[Straight Vermonter]

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) deals with the rights of non-citizens living abroad. Specifically if they have a 4th amendment right protecting them from search and seizure by the DEA. It covers who the founders viewed as the "giver" of rights.

[Publius6961]

Dawg I have a more basic way to look at the conundrum.
Innocent until proven guilty is one of the "undisputed" basic rights of individuals.
King George was an individual. He was not tried and found guilty before separating the "ties that bind one people to another". How can that be?

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.

[swampfox98]

It was the leftists liberals who said that all illegals and non Americans had rights the same as Americans do. Also going along with that is welfare payments, free medical care, schools for their children and free lawyers when they commit crimes. Americans are idiots -- they vote for politicians who are dedicated to destroying this country, then whine about it when it happens.

[Aurelius]

I believe there was a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that a non-citizen had the same right to purchase a gun, specifically for self protection, as a citizen. I think Justice Holmes wrote the majority opinion. Anyone know details? Have to admit I haven't read the whole thread; this quite possibly is mentioned on it.

I have an Israeli friend who I know purchased firearms (legally) before he was a citizen. I think the only requirement was legal status.

[Triple]

...that is that those individuals who ar enot (SIC) citizens of this country are not granted the rights listed in the Bill of Rights of the United States of America. " - RD

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.

[Demidog]

I don't know what you believe. I believe that "the people" and "person" are not vague "terms of art" but are specific and mean anyone who is subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government including non citizens.

You erected a strawman when you suggest that by opening rights up to non-citizens this somehow puts our government as jurisdictional over the whole world.

False premise. It simply means that the government is not allowed to infringe on the natural rights of anyone for any reason as those rights are not "granted" by government but protected by government.

The only thing limited here is the government's jurisdiction to protect. The government may only protect the rights of its citizens as it's jurisdiction is limited to our borders. So for instance, it may not seek to protect the self-defense rights of English citizens who reside in London. However, it may not infringe upon the rights of non-citizens who reside here or anywhere else. This should be obvious. I am surprised at those who would argue that non-citizens really were not born with the same rights as Americans. This would men that we didn't get our rights naturally but that they came from the government.

A dangerous and stupid assertion as this means that they can be revoked at any time and for any reason.

If we can't trust our government to act equally restrained with non-citizens as well as citizens, then it is only a matter of time before our rights are equally disregarded.

Be carefull what you wish for.

[constitution]

I read somewheres that 'the people' mentioned were the 'legal individuals' of that time. IE; those having property, the vote, and not slaves or felons.

IOW perhaps it should read 'THE people'!

[DCBurgess58]

Great post, I salute you RebelDawg

[Bill_o'Rights]

Good post!

[ladyinred]

Certainly the Bill of Rights was intended to apply only to the citizens of the United States. The past several years, the living breathing constitution has changed. Our forefathers were not PC and did not expect this nation to become so diverse and therefore they were wrong in their nationalism.
This is the view of the powers that be, or have been, and anyone who tries to say otherwise is ridiculed and would probably be tarred and feathered if they persisted in their bigoted views.

[boris]

Unfortunately the illegals and enemy aliens are covered by the BoR. If we had a formal declaration of war, it would be much easier to deport the enemy aliens.

I have argued that an amendment is needed to change the words "person" and "people" to "citizen" throughout the Constitution.

The repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment should also be a priority. In particular, citizenship should not--and must not--be based upon the location in which one is born. Quite simply, if one or both parents is a citizen, the child should be a citizen. If neither parent is a citizen, the child should not be a citizen.

American Citizenship should be precious, and confer certain rights that should not pertain to non-citizens.

--Boris