Who does the Bill of Rights cover?

This Week | 2 Dec 01 | Bob Barr

[H.Akston]

Bob Barr just said on Sam and Cokie's show that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, and the Constitution covers "persons", not just citizens, and "the Bill of Rights applies to all persons on our soil."

[H.Akston]

LOL. I knew you were kidding all along. :)

[Squantos]

I like fact, thank's for posting the exact text. Mr Barr (whom I like and respect for the most part) is twisting this citizen, we the people yada yada a bit too much IMHO ?

As a career serviceman I was subject to military justice (UCMJ) for 26 years. But according to Mr Barr it's too harsh on our non-citizen enemies but OK for the sons and daughters, fathers and brothers, sisters and mothers in uniform today and veterans past ?

That is indeed offensive to me that such opinion exist's. My opinion and understanding may not be factual but is based on my limited understanding of the issue. I'm here to learn so if anyone has the time to correct anything I've said , please do so....educate me........

Stay Safe !

[go star go]

But do you think resident aliens should be able to buy guns at gun stores. You do realize that most of the 9/11 terrorist were here legally? If the 2nd Amendment applies to them then they could buy guns legally.

[VeritatisSplendor]

You missed my point. If they are here LEGALLY but are non-citizens, they have no problem. If they are here ILLEGALLY, they MAY be detained, but due process must still occur! (If you do something illegal you may be detained too!) I don't see why this means they're not protected by the Constitution. (It is true that if they were detained INDEFINITELY without being deported, the "cruel and unusual punishments" protection should kick in so that they are either deported or released after a fixed sentence is served).

[afraidfortherepublic]

...The second is a matter of punishment not meted out to citizens

Well, natural born citizens would have no country to which they could be deported -- i.e. they can't create a retroactive native country for you from the country of your ancestors.

Naturalized citizens may be stripped of their citizenship if their crime has been grievous enough. It's not done too often now, but this method was used against the Mafia years ago.

The fact that resident aliens are not afforded Freedom of Speech in political matters is not widely known (except by them because it is explained when they are admitted.) Australian friends of mine in Houston were nearly deported 10 years ago because of political activity in a local election. A complaint to the INS by a disgruntled neighbor set the wheels of justice into motion, and it became a problem that was amazing to behold. It took 10 years of appeals and more than $50,000 for them to win the right to stay here.

a Greek friend told me that when he got his green card, a judge told him to be very careful about all laws and to NEVER get involved in elections and he would be all right.

[NewAmsterdam]

I suspected that that was the case. Thanks for the explanation. Everyone in the West now looks to government to solve everything and consequently the quality of life decreases.

[H.Akston]

I don't know of any case off hand that says that the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens, but I'm not a lawyer.

What I am starting to think that it's all in the definition of "due process". Foreigners are not "Due" the same "Process" as citizens, and therefore have less liberty to do what they want in this country. They are here at our pleasure, and better behave better. Barr's statement therefore has little meaning. Even if foreigners are covered under the bill of rights, they can searched and their belongings siezed much more easily than a citizen, so what does that "coverage" really get them? Doodly squat.

[NewAmsterdam]

Well, you know, foreigners are dangerous things. And you sure don't want a foreigner to think he is worth the same as a 'homelander'.

[Iwo Jima]

The Supreme Court has said otherwise, countless times. What rights apply and how to someone who is in this country ilegally is a more complicated analysis and depends on the facts of the case, but there can be no dispute that if you are prosecuting an illegal alien for a crime (as opposed to just trying to deport him) that ALL constitutional safeguards in the Bill of Rights must be observed.

The statement has been made that the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens, and that is nonsense. President Bush's executive order regarding "trials" before military tribunals of resident aliens (or anyone other than citizens) which do not observe these Constitutional protections is legally and morally wrong, and I am sure that our Supreme Court will tell him so in due course.

[Iwo Jima]

Agreed. If they are waging war against us overseas, then catch them and kill them where you find them. Don't go bringing their sorry a$$e$ back here.

[H.Akston]

In my last, I'm talking about ILLEGAL foreigners.

[SusanUSA]

So technically your statement is correct, but is equally as meaningless.

Huh?

[Iwo Jima]

It makes a lot of difference if it's a deportation case or a criminal prosecution. When deportation is the issue, the analysis is quite different, but nevertheless the Constitution does apply (it's just applied differently). But in a criminal prosecution EVERY Constitutional safeguard in the Bill of Rights apples exactly the same for an illegal alien as for a citizen whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower.

[MadameAxe]

Apologies; I'm multitasking this morning. I should have chosen my words differently.

I notice people on the thread are talking about the 14th and other amendments. Yet the phrase "Bill of Rights" refers only to the first ten amendments.

Would you agree that the BOR is a mechanism for limiting the scope of government in order to protect our unalienable rights?

Which one or more of the first ten amendments do you believe should not apply to non-citizens?

[Iwo Jima]

"But do you think resident aliens should be able to buy guns at gun stores."

Of course! Why not? It's not just my opinion -- it's the law. No one to my knowledge has ever seriously disputed that resident aliens have the legal right to purchase guns or argued that they should not have that right. I'm sure that you have seen the forms which must be filled out to purchase a firearm. To my recollection, it does not even ask if you're a citizen. Certainly, no one is refused the right to purchase a weapon based solely on their lack of citzenship.

[exodus]

To: H.Akston
You seem to be suggesting that our unalienable rights are given to us by the Constitution..."
# 20 by MadameAxe
*******************

To: MadameAxe
That must be true because
I don't have those rights as an American in another country, do I?
# 49 by afraidfortherepublic
************

You, and every other man, have God-given, inalienable rights.
Our government is legally, by man-made laws,
required to refrain from interfering with those rights.

If you go to another country,
you may find yourself in a place where government
does not have man-made laws telling it to leave your rights alone.
That foreign government can legally infringe upon your rights,
but the rights given to you by God, as part of being a man, are still there.
They are just being interfered with by man-made laws.

[Wissa]

Which one or more of the first ten amendments do you believe should not apply to non-citizens?

How about the second? I'm 100% behind the second amendment, but I don't think it should apply to all foreigners here on student visas.