Posted on 12/02/2001 8:50:01 AM PST by H.Akston
True.
The reason they ask for citizenship is the opportunity to enjoy their rights.
No. Even as non citizens, while they're within the jurisdiction of the United States, they're entitled to "equal protection of the laws"(14th amendment).
The reason they ask for citizenship is so they can stay as long as they like, and won't be deported for breaking any INS laws. If they are granted citizenship, they won't have to worry about that.
You are not "given" rights. You have rights by virtue of the fact that you are a human being.
AAARRRGGGHH! This thread makes me want to tear my hair out. Didn't anyone take Constitutional Government in high school? Weren't you required to memorize and understand the Bill of Rights before you could graduate from the 11th grade?
Do you really think that police officer, who shoved a plunger up a foreigner's rectum, had the blessings of the US Constitution on his side?
To: tex-oma
You cannot produce a Supremes ruling which states
that non-citizens are entitled to constitutional rights.
...I will grant ALL people "HUMAN" rights.
This does not prevent the USA from expelling them,
or capitally punishing them for spying,
or conspiring against the USA,
or causing mass destruction on US soil.
# 194 by ninenot
************
Why do you need a reason to tell someone to get out of your house?
The United States is our home, we live here.
Just like your personal home,
you don't have to let anyone in,
even if they don't have a home of their own.
They still have God-given rights, ninenot.
Even if they mis-behave,
even if we just don't want them,
they still have rights.
It's just that their rights
don't justify violating our rights.
By the way,
the Supreme Court recognizes
that they have all the rights we have, as well.
Actually, McCainiac was quoting from a document which had been substantially altered. The original document stated that "...[subversives]...were seen unloading automatic weapons, grenades, munitions, and ammunition." The document was altered by a gun-control organization to read: "...unloading weapons and ammunition."
McCainiac does NOT support the 2nd Amendment, and he KNEW this document was falsified when he referenced it.
As to terrorists using the "gun show loophole:" get serious. If you've EVER been to a gun show, you have noted that virtually EVERY weapon sold is sold only by a Fed-licensed dealer--and requires the same ID check as if you went to a gun shop to purchase.
McCain is running for chief classroom dolt (and President;) that's why he makes stupid and inflammatory remarks.
BTW, the 2nd Amendment was inserted so that citizens would have protection from the GOVERNMENT--not so that citizens could go duck-hunting.
To: exodus
The government prohibits convicted felons from owning firearms.
Is this unconstitutional?
# 143 by Wissa
************
Yes, it is un-Constitutional, Wissa.
The 2th Amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That means that our right to weapons will not be interfered with by our government.
It wasn't until the last few years that government decided that former criminals couldn't have weapons. Remember the old movies? A bad cowboy or gangster would get out of prison, and the first thing he did was get a gun. The police would be watching him, but not because he had a gun, as was his right. They watched hin to see if he retured to his evil ways. The weapon wasn't an issue.
Wissa, if a man is qualified to walk the streets, his right to a weapon should be secure. If he's too dangerous to be walking the streets, he should be locked up, as a menace to society.
Hmmmm... I guess I'd agree. There DOES seem to be a tendency for the government to view the second amendment as a statement of privileges (which can be denied) instead of rights. Regardless of my opinion on the matter though, whether something is unconstitutional or not depends on how the SCOTUS interprets it.
Read the thread. There are several precedents cited. See replies by mrsmith, Iwo Jima, and general_re.
To: exodus; nopardons; All
Dear exodus, let me use little words. If you are in a foreign country...that means not the United States, then it does not matter in that country what the laws are in the United States, what the Constitution of the United States says, or whether any of the United States legal system is valid.
I understand your argument, in your opinon, your inalienable rights come from your Creator, and no government can either give them to you or take them away. I am telling you that is a wonderful argument to make in America. But in all the other countries of the world...they would consider it so much babbling as they led you away. They don't care about your inalienable rights, they don't care about your rights period. And they certainly don't have laws to protect you. Thank all you hold holy that you live in the United States. And if you don't think that is true. Thank all you hold holy that you are free to leave the United States any time you so choose.
# 199 by JD86
************
The point is that I have rights,
even if I'm locked up in an American jail.
In another country, I still have rights.
Your "it doesn't matter if you do" argument makes no sense.
If I owned a car, and you stole it,
it's still my car, even though I don't have the use of it
because of your infringement of my ownership right.
It's still mine.
We, as citizens of a sovereign state, have graciously extended certain rights to our visitors. However, we have NOT extend the right of freedom of political speech (1st Amendment). Political speech regarding elections is strictly prohibited for non-citizens. That is why I say the that the Bill of Rights does not extend to non-citizens. Only those privileges that the government has chosen to extend have been granted.
That said, we have chosen to extend many, many privileges to immigrants and visitors because we are a nation of immigrants and we feel strongly about extending our hospitality. We have NOT extended freedom of political speech and the right to vote, however -- although to listen to some people, you'd think we have.
No other nation allows the freedoms to visitors that we have. Alians here can travel freely across this land without ever reporting their addresses or destinations. I cannot do that in any country that I have ever visited. Upon entry, I must give my destination and the address of every place I intend to stay. Upon exit, I must declare all my purchases.
To go to China, I had to declare every job I had ever held in my life and every address I'd had for some years prior. In China, I was required to use special "tourist money". If I'd been caught with Chinese money, I could have been prosecuted. Also, I was required to turn in my "tourist money" for refund upon my exit. It was illegal for me to take it from the country.
At the time I visited China, I also had to have all my arrangements (hotel, food, travel) prepaid. I could only spend money for gifts and souvenirs. I think that rule has changed. I am only citing these examples as examples of how other countries curtail visitors in ways we do not.
I am making this point so strongly because it was a revelation to me that this is the law when my Australian friends were nearly deported for engaging in election activities in a chintzy little local election. As I mentioned earlier on this thread, it required a 10 year battle, a lot of money, and intervention from one of the highest offices in the land to keep them in this country.
As a result, I never encourage foreign nationals to engage in political activity -- no posters in the windows of their businesses, no political contributions, nada. I would never want to be responsible for getting someone in trouble with the INS. But once they have citizenship, it's "Katie bar the door!" I'll hound them to register, to vote, and to contribute to my favorite candidates! LOL!
Howsomever, such rights do NOT apply in whole to those who have committed acts of war against the USA--and I might argue that an act of war is an act of war, regardless if Congress declares the war. Thus, the case of the Germans who submarined themselves to our shores for the purpose of raising hell and killing people would apply. Summary military justice, right now.
To: exodus; susangirl
Even as non citizens,
while they're within the jurisdiction of the United States,
they're entitled to "equal protection of the laws"(14th amendment).
The reason they ask for citizenship is so they can stay as long as they like,
and won't be deported for breaking any INS laws.
If they are granted citizenship, they won't have to worry about that.
# 201 by Gumption
************
True.
I don't consider being a guest
to being just as good
as actually living in the house.
Show me.
It is my understanding, however, that the Military Tribunals are a Department of Defense deal as a result of the would be detainees status as an enemy that has declared war on us. Their rights, as such, might be better found in the Geneva Convention wording, not our Constitution. It should also be noted that most of the models of behavior were not based on an enemy of the sort we deal with today. The threat of massive intelligence information flowing into the public domain is real and of great concern.
To: exodus
Kinda. Now having read the whole thread, I understand that the Supremes have ruled that certain Constitutional rights apply to non-citizens. One might conclude that those 'applicable' rights are identical with "human" rights...
Howsomever, such rights do NOT apply in whole to those who have committed acts of war against the USA--and I might argue that an act of war is an act of war, regardless if Congress declares the war.
Thus, the case of the Germans who submarined themselves to our shores for the purpose of raising hell and killing people would apply. Summary military justice, right now.
# 211 by ninenot
************
The Germans came into our country in time of war. We had already declared war on Germany and Japan the year before. Even so, the German men were able to fight being assigned trials in the military courts. They fought it out in civilian courts, in wartime. There case went all the way to the Supreme Court, who ruled that, as spies and saboteurs in time of war, they actually could be tried by the military court system.
I would point out, ninenot, that if spies and saboteurs captured in wartime were accepted as having the right to challenge the court system, they legally, according to our courts, have all other rights as well.
It must be kept in mind that terrorists are legally defined as combatants. According to the Geneva Convention they are "illegal combatants" and their actions are classified as war crimes but they are "combatants".
The Japanese on Kiska were also combatants living on U.S. soil. However, they had a higher legal standing under the law because they were legal combatants.
The question becomes, "Are combatants waging war against the United States on U.S. soil covered by the Bill of Rights.?"
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.