Should We Give Constitutional Rights to Illegal Aliens

@gewcew23 (8012)
United States
June 13, 2008 8:45am CST
If Illegal combatant that are foreigners are to be given Constitutional Rights why not illegal aliens? What is the difference? If these illegal combatants are protected by the Fifth and the Sixth, why not give illegal aliens Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendment rights to vote? Where does it stop, if one wants to argue the point that all men are created equally?
3 people like this
6 responses
@laglen (19783)
• United States
13 Jun 08
We the people of the United States - not illegal aliens or combatants for that matter!
@gewcew23 (8012)
• United States
13 Jun 08
I agree.
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Jun 08
Our country is so messed up. Too much liberalism.
2 people like this
• United States
13 Jun 08
The way our courts are going some lawyer is going to cite your arguement as an example of how at the grassroots level ordinary citizens want illegal aliens to have the full rights of American citizens. Soon some lawyer will argue all people are citizens of the world and just as Americans are citizens of the world so to should all citizens of the world be Americans. It is the only way there can be justice. No justice, no peace! It is truely sad the extent to which lawyers will come up with convoluted arguements.
2 people like this
@Destiny007 (5820)
• United States
13 Jun 08
Our Constitution is only for the citizens of the US, not for the citizens of another country, including illegal aliens. Notice the "illegal" part of the phrase. They get zero, zilch, zip, and nada. They got nothing coming and therefore should expect nothing. As for the illegal combatants, the thing to do now is shoot them as soon as they are captured.
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Jun 08
WOW. On what basis would you shoot someone who is labeled an "illegal combatant"? Because someone TOLD you they were an illegal combatant? Many of these people were rounded up "not on a battlefield" of sorts, since urban warfare is really a lot different than the "battlefields" we've known in the past. You're military, you go into a building that someone has TOLD you is enemy owned and operated. You round up the people in that building. Of course, as ANY human being would, when confronted by armed figures pointing weapons, they resist (WOULDN'T YOU?), so they're detained and taken to GITMO. Now. On what basis do you decide to SHOOT them? Because someone told you the building was enemy owned and operated. Does that mean that every single person in that building was a terrorist? What if it was a laundrymat as a front, and some of the people in there were just innocently doing laundry. Or what if it were a place of business as a front and some of the people in there were just doing their business. I won't even argue the point that the original information was accurate, that the place was owned and operated by terrorists or whatever. But when you arbitrarily scoop people up in an otherwise "civilian" setting, you are GOING to pick up civilians, people who are completely innocent. And that has been the WHOLE PROBLEM with GITMO from the beginning. Since when is it okay to just ROUND UP people, lock them up for an indeterminate amount of time, and then just SHOOT them because someone says they're an enemy, combatant, whatever. http://www.bloggernews.net/18420 http://www.alternet.org/rights/55993/ http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1629283 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/11/eveningnews/main525342.shtml http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/24/national/main4125235.shtml What about the INNOCENT people at GITMO? http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080526/huq Rigged Trials at GITMO? http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080303/tuttle http://www.alternet.org/rights/88007
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Jun 08
Read the Constitution, then come talk to me. I'm betting there is a clause in there that is going to shut people like you up BIGTIME.
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Jun 08
excuse me? "people like you" I'm not sure what you mean. I thought this was a dialogue. Please explain?
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Jun 08
I think there is a huge difference between "inalienable rights" such as "LIFE and LIBERTY" - versus the RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES of being a citizen of the US. All human beings, whether they're US citizens or not *should have* the same rights to LIFE and LIBERTY and who are we to arbitrarily take those rights away from them? Those are "inalienable" rights that have nothing to do with what country they're in, etc. For the US to hold someone hostage and then arbitrarily kill them is to deny them the same rights that we claim as inalienable, that is LIFE and LIBERTY. That is hypocritical. Let us differenciate inalienable rights - the ones that Thomas Jefferson claims are given to us by "The Creator" or whatever, that preceeds any "rights or privileges" given to us by any government. Clearly I don't have the right to vote in any elections in Eygpt, Germany, Costa Rica, Venezuala, Japan, etc. I am not a citizen of those countries. However, I have certain "inalienable" RIGHTS that say that those countries cannot just deny me, or arbitrarily declare me an enemy of their country and scoop me up, deny me freedom and then kill me arbitrarily. The Geneva Convention says that individuals held by a foreign country have the right to some kind of legal hearing. Our Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that Bush has overstepped himself in denying these prisoners their "inalienable" rights. Would YOU want to be in a prison in a foreign country without any recourse to any kind of hearing before a judge (and jury), knowing that you may full well be executed due to that countries bias against you for your country of origins political or religious beliefs, regardless of whether or not You happen to share them and without any recourse to demonstrate or prove your innocence?
1 person likes this
• United States
14 Jun 08
They were getting a legal hearing... in a military court where they belonged. If you think you have ANY kind of rights in any other country, then you are in for a rude awakening. The US Constitution does not apply when you are on foreign soil. By the way, you seem to be confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. Anyone can be arrested, tried, convicted, and then killed, or was you not aware of that? I like that "The Creator or whatever" reference. The Creator was God, this nation was a Nation Founded Under God, it was founded by Christians who wanted to be able to worship as they saw fit without government interference or intervention. The whole separation of church and state is a myth perpetrated by the ACLU and other anti-Christian forces who are intent on destroying Christianity in this country.... in other words they are attacking the very foundations that are country was founded on. I am not concerned with other countries, because I don't go into them trying to commit terrorist acts. When you go to another country, you are not a citizen of that country, and therefore are subject to whatever conditions, laws, and rights that country decides to give you. The dissenting judges were correct, and the liberal judges overstepped their bounds once again, and just made it a lot harder to protect our country from terrorist attacks.
1 person likes this
• United States
14 Jun 08
I am not confusing the declaration of independence with the constitution - in many ways the documents go hand in hand. There are certain rights that precede the constitution. Those are inalienable rights as Thomas Jefferson put it, right? Do our rights come from our government? Are they "granted" to us, or are they natural rights that we as human beings have? Life Liberty and (the persuit of happiness or property - if you follow John Lock). This was codified in the 5th amendment to the constitution, the nuances of which are debated to this day, as demonstrated even in the most recent court cases. But you're right, anyone can be arrested, tried, convicted and then killed, doh! Unless of course you're at GITMO, until recently you would just be arrested and then, if certain people had their way, killed without any REAL trial. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080303/tuttle Colonel Morris Davis, A former CHIEF PROSECUTOR for GITMO's military commissions has reported that the so-called trial process has been manipulated, rigged from the very beginning to deny those held at GITMO a fair trial. As far as the whole claim that the separation of church and state being an ACLU myth, lets go back to the words of the person who penned the constitution himself: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between a man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church of state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of the conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convicned he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." - Thomas Jefferson. 1/1/1802 Hmmm, was the ACLU around back then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state An interesting discussion by James Madison on the essential reasoning for keeping church and state separate (among other things): http://www.constitution.org/jm/18191213_monopolies.htm
@suspenseful (40326)
• Canada
14 Jun 08
I am sure for those of us who live in Canada and for some reason, feel alienated being Christians, that if one of us who lived close to the border decided to sneak across and try to get a job in the States, he would be escorted back immediately. Yet if a Mexican did the same thing, he would be welcomed with sympathy and that is not right. So my views is this. Illegal combatants and illegal aliens should not be given constitutional rights. If they do not greet Canadians who cross the border illegally with sympathy (if any would) or do not allow Canadians to immigrate to the States and stay there more than just temporarily, they should not pardon immigrants who come across from the Southern borders. I do not hear of any Canadians rushing from across. Maybe we should be granted the special privileges not the Mexicans who are in the States illegally.