Why should non-US citizens be afforded the protections of the US bill of rights?
362428
Funny it is all us "lazy Americans" that did all those jobs before! Hmm yea I beleive its all the LEGAL IMMIGRANTS and born Americans that created this "land of Milk and honey" that the illegals run to. \n\nBush has made sure our economy has stayed rock bottom , media lies about new jobs being created when they are merely seasonal jobs or fast food. Starve them and they will come, is and has been his tactic. So our young people are forced to join the military to fight this b.s. war and run our countries debt up more. Were else will they work? \n\nTHERE ARE NO JOBS! Illegal immagrants around here are working at Taco Bell! Gas stations, Wendy's, road construction, housing construction, cleaning services, day care! We cant get government aid for ourselves and our children when we can not find any work. We can not even get a Taco Bell job now! I have dozens of friends who have built houses all over this state all their lives, and now are lucky to work one or two months a year cause illegals have their jobs. Was it because they didn't want them? NO, as a matter of fact no one even waited to ask them if they did or not. They show up for work after the ground thraws and are told to go home. And yes for the sake our kids we would work it!!! And have been for years. The truth of the matter is there are large numbers of Americans in their 30's and 40's with hs diplomia's and many with college that cannot find work now. Job statistics are and have been manipulated (lied) about for some time.\n\nThe Illegals do not come into this country and stay on the tomatoe farms... They run to any employer who will take them, and send there women to the welfare office for government aid. Destroy a large percentage of rental properties, Sell some mexican swag on the side and do not go home after harvest time in most situations. Why should they? We hand them the keys to the city! \n\nWe spend billions on medical care, food, housing, prisons. They send all their money back to Mexico. Lower our wages and work standards and are now filling job slots we Americans need, now that all American jobs worth a damn are now "outsourced" or "sized down". How can you use someone who illegaly came over here knowing all this? They arent forced to illegaly jump our boarders and come here to work. Hell they can grow tomatoes in mexico too. And do! Most of our winter produce is now Mexican grown in Mexico. Hell they now have handbooks on how to survive in America now, it's printed by the Mexican government. Very few of their employers legally withhold taxes or SS. Most are contractor type jobs. And it's time a few of you get your heads out of the clouds, cause this whole situation has been corrupt for some time. We don't abuse and use them, corrupt employers might. The illegals think what they are being offered is great! And that is why the employers also need to be punished and fined. \n\nThey come here Illegally and expect we owe them food stamps and medical care! Do we get this when visiting their countries? Hell no! Everywhere the American goes now we have "sucker" on our forheads. We can pay for it all! Lower their import taxes into our country or remove them all together. Send them food that our government won't even give to our poor, send them weapons and training. Yea we can do it all ! Now they have the nerve to march in our streets with their country's flags! Demanding they have rights here and the right to come here by whatever means they choose and act as they choose. The problem has been let to go on so long, and catered to for so long they now seem to think they are intitialed to EVERYTHING WE HAVE INCLUDING PRESSURING OUR POLITICIANS! When was the last time you picked up a product or a set of instructions without having to search for the English text? \n\nIs this just directed towards Mexicans? NO, but what other country is flooding our boarders illegally and now marc
337797
Of course. People seem to think that americans somehow have more rights than people from other countries. Why? Because we were lucky enough to be born in the richest country in the world? Our instrinsic value is the same no matter what country we're from or race we are. "American" rights are rights that our founding fathers believed that ALL humans deserved.
302834
First of all, let me say that by definition, illegal immigrants have broken American law - so there is no need to put illegal in quotes. As a nation of laws, residency status cannot be allowed to hinge upon an illegal act just to enter the country. We cannot pick and choose which laws we enforce and which ones we do not - ALL must be enforced. If someone doesn't like it, they should elect someone to try to change the law ... you know - the LEGAL way.\n\nSecond, for those of you who say illegal immigrants have no rights, you are dead wrong. Don't get me wrong - I am 100% dead against illegal immigration and think every last one of them should be deported. However, facts are facts.\n\nSection 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution contains what is known as the Equal Protection Clause. It means that states are prohibited from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The actual text reads:\n\n"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWs." [Caps added]\n\nThis answer may not be popular, but it is the legal answer.\n\nEDIT: JD - I understand the frustration with the 14th Amendment. No one wants the illegals gone more than I do. However, I am not arguing that the 14th Amendment give illegal aliens all the rights of a citizen. It does, however, grant them certain rights.\n\nI don't believe that the authors of the 14th Amendment *intended* what has become of the 14th Amendment any more than I believe the authors of the Bill of Rights *intended* the so-called separation of church and state. However, sloppy wording has put us into this situtaion.\n\nPersonally, I believe they should have no rights under the Constitution, but I also realize that the 14th Amendment does grant them certain rights. They have every right that does not require you to be a citizen to have - and those are many. Rights that do not require you to be a citizen are far less.\n\nNone of those rights preclude them being detained, heard before a court and deported.\n\nBTW, I have recently been told of a blog in which you participate regarding immigration. I fully intend to become more knowledgeable in this area because I believe passionately that illegal immigrants should be deported, our borders should be shored up, have illegal immigration laws toughened and have them ENFORCED.
904267
In Britain we do not have a 'bill of rights' but we are given 'free speech'......well that is if you're an immigrant.....as for the rest of us....we just have to grin and bear it....oh what a joy to live in a dictatorship dressed up in 'democratic clothes'!!
1022600
A bill of rights is a statement of certain rights which, under a society's laws, citizens and/or residents either have, want to have, or ought to have.\n\nIn some jurisdictions, the bill of rights is entrenched in the constitution or Basic Law of that nation-state. When embedded in the constitution, it can prescribe the limits of power the government has to intervene in the lives of its citizens. Usually such entrenched bills of rights have codicils that define the extent of limitation of rights in times of war or civil unrest. The rights outlined in a constitution are protected from being changed as other acts cannot contradict or contravene the provisions of an entrenched bill of rights.\n\nA Bill of Rights may be unentrenched. This means it exists as a separate legal instrument of parliament. An unentrenched bill of rights may be weakened by other acts passed by the same parliament. If those other Acts contradict what the bill of rights sets out to protect then this can happen as the parliament making the Acts has the power to do so. A vote of the people is not required to alter the bill of rights. An unentrenched bill of rights therefore does not necessarily permanently protect rights.\n\nA statutory bill of rights is one that exists as a separate Act of parliament. As such it can be amended or repealed by the parliament that created it. It is therefore not as permanent as a constitutional bill of rights. A bill of rights that is written into the constitution of a country is a constitutional bill of rights. As such there is democratic protection of the bill of rights as the constitution containing the bill of rights cannot be changed unless it is with the approval of the voting public in that country. Rights being protected are more likely to be protected permanently.\n\nIn other jurisdictions, the definition of rights may be statutory. (In other words, it may be repealed just like any other law and does not necessarily hold greater weight than other laws). Not all jurisdictions enforce the protection of the rights articulated in their bill of rights.\n\nA 'bill of rights' may also be an aspirational statement of the rights that citizens ought to have even though the defining body does not have the ability to enforce the protection of those rights. The United Nations's (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights is currently an example, though this may be perceived as a controversial example depending on one's opinion of the UN's current ability to effectively enforce its decision.\n\nInfringement of rights protected by a bill of rights (such as by repeal of statutory protections or by statutory infringement of constitutionally protected rights) may cause civil unrest, civil disobedience or even revolution. A common concern of libertarians is the gradual erosion of rights, especially those articulated in bills of rights. This concern is heightened during times of war or crises when certain rights may be perceived by some as a luxury compared to security concerns.\n\nA parliament is a legislature, especially in those countries whose system of government is based on the Westminster system modelled after that of the United Kingdom. The name is derived from the French parlement, the action of parler (to speak): a parlement is a talk, a discussion, hence a meeting (an assembly, a court) where people discuss matters.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliment
396476
Yes. But it does not give them extra rights above the rights of citizens...ie...the right to violate the law.
498456
I see what you're trying to say, but it needs rewording.\n\nYeah, just because they get over here doesn't mean they are entitled to any citizen benefits.
1141857
Not just our president, but all of our elected officials should support equal rights and protection under the law for all citizens. (If we aren't all equal, none of us are.)\n\nTo do anything less is to fail at upholding the founding principles of our country.
645737
SURE< WHY NOT? why not invalidate the meaning of american citizen? Why not extend the right to vote to citizens of the world? Why even bother having borders?
581393
Because as we educate them, we tell them about the rights that US Citizens have, and nobody bothers to inform them that most of those rights don't apply until they are adults.  On the other hand, there are basic rights that apply (or should apply) to ALL human beings...
1043500
Yes to all of your questions.  They are essentially taxed without representation.  But they are legal citizens with full US rights, they just dont get their own voting Representatives or Senators in the US Congress.
416940
Nope.  I personally served alongside some Marines that weren't US citizens.  In several cases it expedited their naturalization process.  In all cases I respected that these men weren't citizens but loved America enough to serve.  I'd be first in line to say that these men should be citizens.
106754
Yes. I think the Constitution should be amended to include non-born citizens, that have been citizens for at least 10 years. Most of the people who immigrate and become citizens love this country more than people born citizens. Those that are born citizens take too much for granted, while those who become citizens work hard for it. They should have as much oppotunity as anyone else.
5052
A child is a citizen of whatever country its parents are citizens of.\n\nIf the USA's anachronistic grant of citizenship to anyone born on US soil weren't an actual part of the Constitution, that grant would have been changed long ago.
446363
Bush hasn't done anything right.\n\nIf a person has not gone through the process under U.S. law to become a citizen of this country, then the person should have NO RIGHTS PERIOD.
383252
If you are a U.S. citizen, you should be able to.
1184289
I don't believe we give foreign criminals unreasonable rights. We wouldn't be the country we are if we didn't give that, and if you listen to news elsewhere you would believe that Americans torture foreign criminals. I don't believe because one or more other countries are inhumane in this way that we should follow suit. Human rights are important to Americans and we even strive for them for people in other countries.