• 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 foreigns have the following protections

Which scenario do you feel is fine legally

  • Total voters
    23
jamesrage said:
So you would be cool letting someone on a visa or even someone here illegally get a firearm?
Click to expand...

Nope. I didn't say that. But the person I was responding to said he was fine with everything on the list. Some of those things are just silly. Like forcing Chinese people to disburse if they gather in front of a monument or arresting a visitor that writes a negative letter about the President. That's just nonsense.


If they act like well mannered guest then there will not be a problem.
Click to expand...

Millions of people visit America ever year. DC, New York, Vegas, Florida, our beaches, mountains, etc... Do you really think they're all gonna be well behaved?

If tourists are not under the American rule of law when they visit here then which laws are they under? None? Their home country? Because if it's their home country how in the hell are we gonna enforce those laws here? Foreign laws have no legal standing in the US.
 
Winnb said:
Nope. I didn't say that.
Click to expand...

So constitutional rights do not apply to foreigners? Or are you just picking and choosing which constitutional rights apply?
But the person I was responding to said he was fine with everything on the list. Some of those things are just silly. Like forcing Chinese people to disburse if they gather in front of a monument or arresting a visitor that writes a negative letter about the President. That's just nonsense.
Click to expand...

Those things would be a violation of the 1st amendment if an American citizen was arrested for doing those things. Constitutional rights are constitutional rights regardless if it is the 1st,2nd,3rd amendment and so on.



Millions of people visit America ever year. DC, New York, Vegas, Florida, our beaches, mountains, etc... Do you really think they're all gonna be well behaved?
Click to expand...


They better be on their best behavior.

If tourists are not under the American rule of law when they visit here then which laws are they under?
Click to expand...

They are under American law when they are here,however constitutional rights do not apply to them. Since they are not citizens the constitution does not apply to them,if they say something we do not like we can say **** you, you are out of here on the first plane back to your country or we can throw them in jail as long as we like. We can say that while you are a guest or trespasser in this country you do not have a right to protest,peacefully assemble, a right to lawyer, a right to keep and bear arms, and so on.
 
Last edited:
So in general you disagree with the founders and the notions found within the Declaration of Independence that the rights this country are founded on are unalienable rights bestowed upon us by a Creator that the government should not take from people?

You believe rights are instead creations of the government, bestowed only upon those the government views as a citizen, with others having no rights and therefore completely disconnected from the notion of them being bestowed from a creator?
 
Zyphlin said:
So in general you disagree with the founders and the notions found within the Declaration of Independence that the rights this country are founded on are unalienable rights bestowed upon us by a Creator that the government should not take from people?

You believe rights are instead creations of the government, bestowed only upon those the government views as a citizen, with others having no rights and therefore completely disconnected from the notion of them being bestowed from a creator?
Click to expand...

You lost me at "Creator".
 
In scenario 4, that's if the officer has probable cause to believe illegal items are on the dutch guy/in his car?
 
No probable cause, just dislikes foriegners so wanted to give him a hassle
 
Zyphlin said:
Take it up with those who created the Declaration of Independence. Their word, not mine.
Click to expand...

I would, but it is unnecessary since the same people who fought for our independence were smart enough to leave their Creator out of our government. I only wish the politicians of today were as wise.
 
I don't believe any of those scenarios as written are proper action of the government.
 
Tsunami said:
I would, but it is unnecessary since the same people who fought for our independence were smart enough to leave their Creator out of our government. I only wish the politicians of today were as wise.
Click to expand...

...but those same people who fought for our independence explicitately stated that the rights are endowed by a Creator.

You make no sense.

how can I have "lost" you at creator by stating exactly what is in the DOI and then somehow in response you compliment the founders while still disagreeing with my use of the word while acting like they didn't say it....

I'm....lost
 
Zyphlin said:
...but those same people who fought for our independence explicitately stated that the rights are endowed by a Creator.

You make no sense.

how can I have "lost" you at creator by stating exactly what is in the DOI and then somehow in response you compliment the founders while still disagreeing with my use of the word while acting like they didn't say it....

I'm....lost
Click to expand...

Humans are deserving of those rights whether given by a Creator or inherent in free will. You don't have to be a creationist to support fundamental human rights. So I suppose I disagree with the founding fathers on their words and reasons, but not the results. And the fact that they left religion out of the Constitution despite their own theological views makes me respect them even more.
 
Tsunami said:
Humans are deserving of those rights whether given by a Creator or inherent in free will. You don't have to be a creationist to support fundamental human rights. So I suppose I disagree with the founding fathers on their words and reasons, but not the results. And the fact that they left religion out of the Constitution despite their own theological views makes me respect them even more.
Click to expand...

FYI, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, including the part about the Creator. That's the same guy who practically created the idea of Separation of Church and State.

You're basically saying that the guy who invented Separation of Church and State, violated the Separation of Church and State.
 
Zyphlin said:
1. If a gentleman from England comes into this country and is on a long term visit and writes a negative letter to the editor piece about Barak Obama, do you think it should be okay for the government to throw him in jail for his negative speech against the POTUS?
Click to expand...
Pretty obvious where this is going.

All adults has the right to free speech, unless they voluntarily agree to give it up. The fact that you are not a citizen does not matter.

This does NOT extend to election contributions, however, though that was not part of the issue presented.

2. If a gentleman from Canada comes into America on vacation and openly is talking about his worship of the Devil as a Satanist, should he be arrested and put in a mental institute for his following of a crazy evil religion?
Click to expand...
Establishment clause. So long as he does nothing illegal, or otherwise harm/threaten others, or conspires to do any of these things he is free to worship satan.

3. If a group of Chinese people assembled in front of the Empire State Building taking numerous pictures would it be fine to forcefully get them to disperse and arrest any that wouldn't.
Click to expand...
That depends on the specifics. If they are, say, impeding the progress of others, then yes.

4. If a gentleman from the netherlands is here and ends up getting pulled over for going 3 over the speed limit should he be subject to a full body cavity search, his entire car searched, and numerous items siezed to give them a more thurough investigation if the police officer wishes?
Click to expand...
That depends entirely on his actions and other circumstances. Usually the answer is no, but there are instances where it may be warranted.

5. If an individual from Russia is thought of as a suspect for a crime and is poor at speaking english do you believe its fine for the cops to get him in an interrogation room and tell him if he confesses and said he did it he'll get out within a day and back home?
Click to expand...
The police are legally able to lie to a suspect to get him to divulge information.
However, they are not allowed to make deals in bad faith, and they are stupid to make such a deal w/o the suspects lawyer present, as, if the DA is stupid enough to run with it, the whole thing will get tossed out of court.

6. If a gentleman from Dubai is suspected of robbery is it okay to throw him in jail without a trial?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Last edited:
Dav said:
FYI, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, including the part about the Creator. That's the same guy who practically created the idea of Separation of Church and State.

You're basically saying that the guy who invented Separation of Church and State, violated the Separation of Church and State.
Click to expand...

The Declaration of Independence wasn't law, it was speech. I'm saying the guy who invented separating church and state didn't do it for his own sake, he did it because it was the right thing to do despite his personal beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Tsunami said:
I'm saying the guy who invented separating church and state...
Click to expand...
You know that the seperation of church and state isn't in the constitution, right?
 
Goobieman said:
You know that the seperation of church and state isn't in the constitution, right?
Click to expand...

Neither is jury nullification. They exist because they weren't prohibited.
 
...did someone just literally say that a majority of the founders of this country were "Creationists"

Still wrapping my head around that one
 
The Constitution should not apply to enemy combatants or Foreign nationals here illegally. They should be immediately deported, and not protected by the Constitution. The Constitution should apply to foreign nationals legally visiting the US etc.
 
Tsunami said:
Neither is jury nullification. They exist because they weren't prohibited.
Click to expand...
The point is that the 1st amendment does not specify this prohibiiton.
 
If Foreigners have the same rights as "Tax Paying Citizens" then what would be the benefit of being a Tax Paying citizen??:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom