The United States set itself up as the one country in the world that believed that "all men are created equal" and that we all have rights granted by God.
How ridiculous is it to argue that the very same people who made such statements on the purpose and reasons WHY this nation was giving birth to itself, would then turn around and claim that those lofty ideals pertained only to those born on American soil.
If you believe in the principles that the Founders set forth, and their vision, then you MUST believe that all men are truly "created equal," and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
All men Hugh, not just American citizens.
You see Hugh, the argument isn't whether all men are antitled to the protection afforded by the Constitution, but rather whether we are the true guardians of the principles set forth by the Founders, or the selective oppressors they wished to distance themselves from.
To think that a warrant was needed to search the 20th Hi-jacker and Frenchie Z.M.'s computer is to put his alienable right to be secure in his personal effects, above New Yorkers' unalienable rights to life and property. Priorities.
Now that's ridiculous, and criminally neglegent, especially when the Constitution doesn't require it.
The right to not have your house searched without a warrant is NOT a divinely endowed right. It's a right that people of the United States have. It's not a right an alien has under the Constitution.
Some rights in the Bill of Rights come from God, and some come from Man.
Don't confuse the Bill of Rights with the 10 Commandments.
You see Hugh, the argument isn't whether all men are antitled to the protection afforded by the Constitution, but rather whether we are the true guardians of the principles set forth by the Founders, or the selective oppressors they wished to distance themselves from.
Well the Founders set up a Constitution that secured the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.
Not to Zacharias Moussoui.
You want to have your rights secured by the United States and its resources, and benefit from its principles? Then become part "of the United States", and espouse its principles. Why do you want it to be a one way street, and at that, a one way street for the enemies of the United States? Citizenship has its privileges and responsibilities. You can't separate the two as easily as you would like.
The Founders didn't say that. I'm not arguing that they said that. They insured that you could become a person "of the United States", if you were born on foreign soil. It's called Naturalization, and it's mentioned in the Constitution.
Why do you suppose the Founders gave Congress the authority to establish rules of naturalization? Those rules allow those not born on American soil to become citizens. Why bother being a citizen, if you've already got all the rights in the Bill of Rights? Could it be that the Founders benevolently wished for foreigners to become naturalized so that they could benefit from having their God-given liberties secured by the United States?? Could it be that they acknowledged that until naturalized, a person wasn't "of the United States", and therefore his liberty could not be fully secured by the United States?
Why make the provision for naturalization, if it didn't involve any increase in rights for the person on US soil?
What good does naturalization do the person?