• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?

Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • No

    Votes: 14 56.0%
  • Somewhere in between

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • Not sure, but I'm interested in what others have to say

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • Total voters
    25

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
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
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?

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.
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)?
 
Last edited:
Well, for example, if the 1st amendment applied to non-citizens, wouldn't we be obligated to enforce that throughout the world?
 
All men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

Maybe one day all men will mean everyone in the world, whether or not they are citizens of a democracy. While progress has been made over the past couple of centuries, we've still got a long way to go to achieve such an ideal.
 
If they are here legally, sure. If they are here illegally, their rights should only exist to the point that we get them shipped back home in a just manner.
 
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)?

The US Constitution should apply to anyone in the US, citizen or not. We have no jurisdiction in other nations. As far as military engagements in foreign territory, we should adhere to the Geneva Convention regarding combatants, as well as ethical behavior regarding non-combatants.
 
To me, the issue isn't black-and-white. On the one hand, I don't think non-citizens should automatically be granted the right to bear arms. On the other hand, I think they should be protected from unreasonable search and seizure.
 
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)?


Where in the Constitution does it say one has to be a citizen to get the protections? Hint: It doesn't the protections extend to everyone within our borders whether they are a citizen or not.
 
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 committing "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.
 
Last edited:
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. 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.
 
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 are limitations upon government power. If the government doesn't have the power, then it doesn't matter if one is a "non-citizen" or not; it doesn't have the power to infringe.
 
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)?

No need to Mirandize an attacking enemy, or offer them any other rights. Think of what "rights" the 9/11 morons SHOULD be entitled to. Think of what rights an illegal alien acting as a human trafficker SHOULD have. How do you Mirandize a crazed foreigner that speaks no English and is screaming about Allah and rigged for detonation?
 
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.
 
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?
 
Any rights granted to foreign nationals on US soil is done at the pleasure of the US Government, not enforced by the US Constitution.
 
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?

So you think your buddy should be allowed to vote in our elections, donate to political campaigns, buy firearms, and so on?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Yes, of course they should - to people who are here as a guest, a visitor, a green card worker....but to a "illegal" immigrant ?
This must be fixed....We need a much better Congress...Is this not their job ????
 
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.

Actually, any lawbreaker has constitutional rights. However, once convicted, then liberty is gone, and the perp gets to take the punishment that the law imposes. In the case of illegals, that punishment is deportation.

What the illegals don't have is the right to be in our country in the first place.
 
Well, for example, if the 1st amendment applied to non-citizens, wouldn't we be obligated to enforce that throughout the world?

It should be called rights and responsibilities. You can't grant rights for others, but you ahve a responsibility to follow your laws. This comes into play when we think we can treat forgien nationals differently that our laws dictate. Our Laws govern our behavior as well as our rights. I think many miss this. I'm also not sure where this answer fits in this poll.
 
Our rights are inalienable. They do no originate from the Constitution.
 
Some should, yes.

The right to life. The right to one's legally owned property.

But some should not...such as the right to vote.
 
So you think your buddy should be allowed to vote in our elections, donate to political campaigns, buy firearms, and so on?
I like the idea of the ID card......if properly and fairly implimented...
If our "buddy" donates , so what, he is the fool !
If he buys a fire-arm - so what , let him - his loss , our gain..again he is the fool.
And so on.
We need a better people and a new Congress.
 
Give everyone US Constitutional rights, and there aint no Constitution.

To not respect the rights of everyone, protected by the Constitution, is to deny the very foundation the Constitution was founded upon.
 
Back
Top Bottom