• 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 visitors to our country be afforded Constitutional protections?

Should visitors to our country be afforded Constitutional protections?

  • Yes, everybody should have Constitutional protections.

    Votes: 11 52.4%

  • Only citizens and legal visitors should have Constitutional protections.

    Votes: 5 23.8%

  • No, no visitors should have Constitutional protections. Only citizens.

    Votes: 2 9.5%

  • Other. (Please elaborate)

    Votes: 3 14.3%
  • Total voters
    21
radcen

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
Should visitors to our country be afforded Constitutional protections?

"Visitors" means anybody here that is not a citizen. Can be legal with a visa or work permit, for example. Can be illegal.

Please note that for the purposes of this poll and question, the current status is completely irrelevant. Imagine yourself writing the Constitution from scratch and this is the last item that you need to address before it is put into play.
 
You would need a new constitution for constitutional protections not to apply to visitors to our country. The constitution (with a few exceptions) does not specifically apply to citizens. It applies to anyone on U.S. soil. For example, if you are a U.S. citizen and travel to China, even though you have a constitutional right to freedom of expression, that right only applies when you are here. Similarly, if a Chinese national travels to the United States, even though they have restrictions on their freedom of expression in China, on U.S. soil, they have the same right to free speech as anyone else does.
 
radcen said:
Should visitors to our country be afforded Constitutional protections?

.
Click to expand...

No, they should be water boarded immediately.
Preferably, in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty.
They may be concealing important info on terrorist plots.
You can't be too careful.
 
It's not really a matter of should they be afforded those rights, but should they be revoked. The constitution applies to all people on US soil. Just a fact. And, IMO, that is the way it should be.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You would need a new constitution for constitutional protections not to apply to visitors to our country. The constitution (with a few exceptions) does not specifically apply to citizens. It applies to anyone on U.S. soil. For example, if you are a U.S. citizen and travel to China, even though you have a constitutional right to freedom of expression, that right only applies when you are here. Similarly, if a Chinese national travels to the United States, even though they have restrictions on their freedom of expression in China, on U.S. soil, they have the same right to free speech as anyone else does.
Click to expand...

TeleKat said:
It's not really a matter of should they be afforded those rights, but should they be revoked. The constitution applies to all people on US soil. Just a fact. And, IMO, that is the way it should be.
Click to expand...

Yup, good going you guys.
 
As a legal permanent resident (but not citizen) I'd be pretty peeved if I wasn't afforded rights to freedom of speech, or of religion.
 
radcen said:
Should visitors to our country be afforded Constitutional protections?

"Visitors" means anybody here that is not a citizen. Can be legal with a visa or work permit, for example. Can be illegal.

Please note that for the purposes of this poll and question, the current status is completely irrelevant. Imagine yourself writing the Constitution from scratch and this is the last item that you need to address before it is put into play.
Click to expand...

I think we would have to go through the constitution and decide which protection we should afford different categories of foreigners.
 
radcen said:
Should visitors to our country be afforded Constitutional protections?

"Visitors" means anybody here that is not a citizen. Can be legal with a visa or work permit, for example. Can be illegal.

Please note that for the purposes of this poll and question, the current status is completely irrelevant. Imagine yourself writing the Constitution from scratch and this is the last item that you need to address before it is put into play.
Click to expand...

The Constitution as written is designed to limit the government. Not the people. If looked at correctly everyone in the entire world, no matter location, is afforded our Constitutional protections...and the key part here...FROM our Government. This is not to say that their own governments can't use their own power because some how ours mythically over rides theirs. It doesn't. It only applies to OUR government.

So yes, everyone is and should be afforded our Constitutional protections.

However, when translated into reality...this just doesn't happen. It should. But it doesn't.
 
radcen said:
Should visitors to our country be afforded Constitutional protections?

"Visitors" means anybody here that is not a citizen. Can be legal with a visa or work permit, for example. Can be illegal.

Please note that for the purposes of this poll and question, the current status is completely irrelevant. Imagine yourself writing the Constitution from scratch and this is the last item that you need to address before it is put into play.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, imagine the consequences if we did not.
 
radcen said:
Should visitors to our country be afforded Constitutional protections?

"Visitors" means anybody here that is not a citizen. Can be legal with a visa or work permit, for example. Can be illegal.

Please note that for the purposes of this poll and question, the current status is completely irrelevant. Imagine yourself writing the Constitution from scratch and this is the last item that you need to address before it is put into play.
Click to expand...

You want to ignore whether they are breaking the law or not? Whether someone is a criminal or not affects the "rights" that "citizens" have.
 
Doesn't it depend on what rights we are talking about?
 
Lovebug said:
Doesn't it depend on what rights we are talking about?
Click to expand...

No. The Constitution was written to limit the government, not the people. The rights enumerated in the Constution, along with others not enumerated, belong to the people and theyget them regardless of anything else. At least as far as our government is concerned. (or should I say at least as far as they should be concerned)
 
radcen said:
Should visitors to our country be afforded Constitutional protections?

"Visitors" means anybody here that is not a citizen. Can be legal with a visa or work permit, for example. Can be illegal.

Please note that for the purposes of this poll and question, the current status is completely irrelevant. Imagine yourself writing the Constitution from scratch and this is the last item that you need to address before it is put into play.
Click to expand...


What kind of rights specifically? Like, do they get the right to carry a gun no matter what?

If you're asking about our justice system, yes they should have the same rights we do. Just like when we go to their countries, we are treated as their citizens are. Sometimes that isn't so pleasant, but when you break the law in (insert country here) you should be afforded whatever their citizens get.
 
the US Constitution applies to the US government... it limits what they can/can't do to persons within it's jurisdiction.

the moment you say "... in the US".. you have simply stipulated the jurisdiction as "the US" .. .a jurisdiction in which the US Constitution is the supreme law.


easy question...
 
DVSentinel said:
And the rest of us would care if a progressive is peeved about something, why?
Click to expand...

Because 'the rest of us' generally do care that other people are afforded rights. Well the non-psychopaths do, anyway.
 
radcen said:
Should visitors to our country be afforded Constitutional protections?

"Visitors" means anybody here that is not a citizen. Can be legal with a visa or work permit, for example. Can be illegal.

Please note that for the purposes of this poll and question, the current status is completely irrelevant. Imagine yourself writing the Constitution from scratch and this is the last item that you need to address before it is put into play.
Click to expand...

Only citizens and legal visitors should have Constitutional protections. Those who are here illegally should have no rights except for 6 months in jail and immediate deportation assuming their only crime is illegal immigration.
 
jamesrage said:
Only citizens and legal visitors should have Constitutional protections. Those who are here illegally should have no rights except for 6 months in jail and immediate deportation assuming their only crime is illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight... you believe someone who can be incarcerated in our prisons, which aren't exempt from constitutional law, and then have constitutional protections denied to them? Am I getting that right?
 
Nilly said:
Because 'the rest of us' generally do care that other people are afforded rights. Well the non-psychopaths do, anyway.
Click to expand...

"Rights" are earned, not "afforded". Same with Respect and Contempt. Guess which progressives have actually earned.

Look up the term psychopath then explain how it applies to to caring what progressives think.
 
DVSentinel said:
"Rights" are earned, not "afforded". Same with Respect and Contempt. Guess which progressives have actually earned.

Look up the term psychopath then explain how it applies to to caring what progressives think.
Click to expand...

Right....

So people of a certain political affiliation should not have rights? Sorry buddy, but normal (see: non-psychopathic) people simply don't see things that way. I'm sure most conservatives and libertarians will agree with me when I say that rights are not earned, bought or inherited. In fact, pretty sure that the constitution holds rights as natural, as self evident. Not earned. Otherwise, should a newborn baby have rights? Or a special needs children?
 
Hatuey said:
Let me get this straight... you believe someone who can be incarcerated in our prisons, which aren't exempt from constitutional law, and then have constitutional protections denied to them? Am I getting that right?
Click to expand...

Rights should not be for trespassers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom