- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
The question isn't how things are done now. We may be doing them correct, or we may be doing them incorrect. The question is: What do YOU think should apply to non-citizens regarding specifically Constitutional rights and protections?Tattoo Checks Trip Up Visas - Yahoo! Finance
Quote from article: Some critics say U.S. officials are making decisions that derail people's lives and encroach on their rights. "They cast too wide a net and border dangerously on violating first amendment freedom of speech and expression," said Jeff Joseph, a Denver immigration lawyer.
This link is also posted in the immigration forum, but that thread is intended for the immigration aspects. This thread and poll is intended for a different sub-topic that is contained within the story. I have also seen this sub-topic mentioned in other news stories as well, so it's not exactly a rare issue.
Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?
The question isn't how things are done now. We may be doing them correct, or we may be doing them incorrect. The question is: What do YOU think should apply to non-citizens regarding specifically Constitutional rights and protections?
Should something like the 1st Amendment right to free speech and expression apply to non-citizens (who are in this country)?
This link is also posted in the immigration forum, but that thread is intended for the immigration aspects. This thread and poll is intended for a different sub-topic that is contained within the story. I have also seen this sub-topic mentioned in other news stories as well, so it's not exactly a rare issue.
Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?
The question isn't how things are done now. We may be doing them correct, or we may be doing them incorrect. The question is: What do YOU think should apply to non-citizens regarding specifically Constitutional rights and protections?
Should something like the 1st Amendment right to free speech and expression apply to non-citizens (who are in this country)?
This. I have no problem extending constitutional protection to those who enter legally, whether they are on a visa or decide to stay permanently they absolutely fall under the jurisdiction of our constitution. People who enter illegally or enter with the intent to commit attrocities against the U.S. enjoy no protection.I voted for somewhere in between. Specifically, IMHO, the constitution is MEANT to apply to citizens and legal residents within our states and territories. In order to be "under the jusisdiction thereof" you can not be an invading foriegn soldier, an enemy of the state or an illegal alien simply having "dropped in". Under the jurisdiction may be streatched to citizens comitting "normal" crimes but once they actively seek to overthrow the gov't or make war in general (civil or otherwise) then that is where I would draw the line.
In other words, an illegal alien has only the right to be tossed out humanely, the nonsense that allows "anchor babies" has been invented, and illogically streatched to include ILLEGAL entry (or born after the mother overstayed a legal temporary entry) being considered "under the jurisdiction" of the U.S. law which they have obviously violated, or they would not be "illegal" merely by their presense. No other country, except Canada, now does this. THe SCOTUS has not addressed this issue since the U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark case in 1898, and in that case, the parents were both here legally at the time of the birth.
This link is also posted in the immigration forum, but that thread is intended for the immigration aspects. This thread and poll is intended for a different sub-topic that is contained within the story. I have also seen this sub-topic mentioned in other news stories as well, so it's not exactly a rare issue.
Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?
The question isn't how things are done now. We may be doing them correct, or we may be doing them incorrect. The question is: What do YOU think should apply to non-citizens regarding specifically Constitutional rights and protections?
Should something like the 1st Amendment right to free speech and expression apply to non-citizens (who are in this country)?
This link is also posted in the immigration forum, but that thread is intended for the immigration aspects. This thread and poll is intended for a different sub-topic that is contained within the story. I have also seen this sub-topic mentioned in other news stories as well, so it's not exactly a rare issue.
Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?
The question isn't how things are done now. We may be doing them correct, or we may be doing them incorrect. The question is: What do YOU think should apply to non-citizens regarding specifically Constitutional rights and protections?
Should something like the 1st Amendment right to free speech and expression apply to non-citizens (who are in this country)?
This link is also posted in the immigration forum, but that thread is intended for the immigration aspects. This thread and poll is intended for a different sub-topic that is contained within the story. I have also seen this sub-topic mentioned in other news stories as well, so it's not exactly a rare issue.
Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?
The question isn't how things are done now. We may be doing them correct, or we may be doing them incorrect. The question is: What do YOU think should apply to non-citizens regarding specifically Constitutional rights and protections?
Should something like the 1st Amendment right to free speech and expression apply to non-citizens (who are in this country)?
Constitutional rights should not be extended to non-citizens.We open the door for groups ran or owned by non-citizens to contribute to political campaigns, voting to non-citizens, paying for the lawyers of illegals facing deportations and so on.
I find it shocking that anyone trying to claim the mantle of promoting "small government" could ever hold this ridiculous opinion. So, my buddy comes and visits from Canada and you think he shouldn't have any rights?
Constitutional rights should not be extended to non-citizens.We open the door for groups ran or owned by non-citizens to contribute to political campaigns, voting to non-citizens, paying for the lawyers of illegals facing deportations and so on.
Non-citzens in the country LEGALLY like tourists, diplomats, temporary workers and students should receive complete constitutional protection as they are under the jurisdiction of the U.S., ILLEGAL aliens, however, should receive nothing but a quick deporation, with no tax funded legal representation at a hearing.
Well, for example, if the 1st amendment applied to non-citizens, wouldn't we be obligated to enforce that throughout the world?
Our rights are inalienable. They do no originate from the Constitution.
I like the idea of the ID card......if properly and fairly implimented...So you think your buddy should be allowed to vote in our elections, donate to political campaigns, buy firearms, and so on?
Give everyone US Constitutional rights, and there aint no Constitution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?