Why does the left think the Constitution applies to non-Americans?

[jc456]

I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.

Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!

Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.

Because a government empowered to strip people of their rights based on their 'papers' is a threat to everyone. Most especially its own citizens.

what rights?

All of them.

what are they? Do you even know? they have rights until they have no papers and then they are deported. So what's your point?

 

[jc456]

but its not the left who thinks the rights are endowed by the creator

but like...i can see anyone being a hypocrite who thinks theyre from a creator.......

but only for Americans

what did the founders state?

 

[jc456]

I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.

Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!

Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.

Just more right wing national socialism?

Our federal Constitution was Intelligently Designed to be Both, gender and race neutral, from Inception.

We have Government, limited by our Constitution.

I love it when the left thinks they can ignore who they are. thanks for the failed attempt to flip who's who.

Which rule # is that on the boilerplate?

 

[jc456]

The Constitutions applies to Americans and LEGAL immigrants/tourists. This should be obvious.

that is foreign nationals.

 

[jc456]

the constitution applies to everyone on our soil....do some reading up on it.

HINT-this is why we had to set up GITMO, off our soil....

But they are NOT on our soil!

Catch a clue!

I didn't say they were.... I simply was answering the question in the Title of this thread....and went in to it more in my next post after this one....

If that were the case, why didn't you just agree and move on?

I didn't know what the op was about, thought the question in the title was simply an off the wall new alternative fact another rightwinger on USMB was creating in their own mental universe again....

 

[Clementine]

It's because the Constitution doesn't say it applies only to citizens. It applies to everyone in the USA.

That is, the lefties actually follow the Constitution, and the righties don't.

And, looking at this thread, the righties here are all very proud of not following the Constitution.

The left wants terrorists in other countries to be protected by our constitution. At the same time, they want American citizens denied 2nd Amendment rights. And they feel they can ignore federal immigration laws, which is not allowed. It also does not allow a president to ignore, change or create laws which Obama did with delaying parts of the ACA law and coming up with the DREAM act.

 

[bendog]

I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.

Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!

Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.

Because a government empowered to strip people of their rights based on their 'papers' is a threat to everyone. Most especially its own citizens.

what rights?

All of them.

what are they? Do you even know? they have rights until they have no papers and then they are deported. So what's your point?

Kaz is smoking dope again. We litigated this in the early 1970s

 

[jc456]

Is every Muslim who enters the US a savage, or do they represent a tiny portion of all the people.

It's true not every muslim is a savage, but that also doesn't mean you should lull yourself to sleep. Not every muslim who emigrated to France was a savage but now there are regions where French law is scorned upon by the inhabitants who prefer Shariah and force their women to stay home. Good luck changing this now! soon France and other countries will have seperate countries inside themselves. How did that ever happen?

It's not to say that Muslims are savages, it's that it's wise to recognize our cultures are at odds with each other. It has nothing to do with hating Muslims, but recognizing that they also have a huge responsibility themselves to respect and assimilate inside any host country that accepts them.

I disagree. Anyone who believes the bloodthirsty ravings of the madman Muhammad is a savage.

Obviously you know shit about that religion. Piss on you

he's fking spot on.

here's a question, do they believe in shira law?

Is every Muslim who enters the US a savage, or do they represent a tiny portion of all the people.

It's true not every muslim is a savage, but that also doesn't mean you should lull yourself to sleep. Not every muslim who emigrated to France was a savage but now there are regions where French law is scorned upon by the inhabitants who prefer Shariah and force their women to stay home. Good luck changing this now! soon France and other countries will have seperate countries inside themselves. How did that ever happen?

It's not to say that Muslims are savages, it's that it's wise to recognize our cultures are at odds with each other. It has nothing to do with hating Muslims, but recognizing that they also have a huge responsibility themselves to respect and assimilate inside any host country that accepts them.

I disagree. Anyone who believes the bloodthirsty ravings of the madman Muhammad is a savage.

Obviously you know shit about that religion. Piss on you

he's fking spot on.

here's a question, do they believe in shira law?

does anyone in this country?

what's that got to do with my question. Does islam include shira law

 

[jc456]

I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.

Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!

Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.

Because a government empowered to strip people of their rights based on their 'papers' is a threat to everyone. Most especially its own citizens.

what rights?

All of them.

what are they? Do you even know? they have rights until they have no papers and then they are deported. So what's your point?

Kaz is smoking dope again. We litigated this in the early 1970s

what?

 

[dblack]

I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.

Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!

Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.

Because a government empowered to strip people of their rights based on their 'papers' is a threat to everyone. Most especially its own citizens.

what rights?

All of them.

what are they? Do you even know? they have rights until they have no papers and then they are deported. So what's your point?

My point is that the Constitution applies to government, not to individuals. It's a set of constraints and grants of power to government. Qualifying those constraints such that they don't apply when the state's actions are against foreigners is not only immoral, it's impractical. It requires society, our society, to sacrifice fundamental tenets of freedom like presumption of innocence and due process. All of the rights previously recognized by our government as universal human rights are reduced to perks of citizenship instead. This makes all of your rights dependent on, first and foremost, being able to prove you are a citizen. It gets even 'curiouser' when you consider that due process, the criminal justice system that gives us a chance to prove our innocence when accused, would be unavailable to anyone the state says is not a citizen.

 

[bripat9643]

I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.

Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!

Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.

Because a government empowered to strip people of their rights based on their 'papers' is a threat to everyone. Most especially its own citizens.

what rights?

All of them.

what are they? Do you even know? they have rights until they have no papers and then they are deported. So what's your point?

My point is that the Constitution applies to government, not to individuals. It's a set of constraints and grants of power to government. Qualifying those constraints such that they don't apply when the state's actions are against foreigners is not only immoral, it's impractical. It requires society, our society, to sacrifice fundamental tenets of freedom like presumption of innocence and due process. All of the rights previously recognized by our government as universal human rights are reduced to perks of citizenship instead. This makes all of your rights dependent on, first and foremost, being able to prove you are a citizen. It gets even 'curiouser' when you consider that due process, the criminal justice system that gives us a chance to prove our innocence when accused, would be unavailable to anyone the state says is not a citizen.

The Constitution doesn't protect "universal human rights." It protects the rights of Americans or people on American soil. Any claims to the contrary are pure idiocy. The idea that our government is obligated to protect the rights of foreigners on foreign soil couldn't be more idiotic. In the first place, it simply can't be done. It would require the USA to declare war on any nation that refused to enforce our Constitution. That fact alone is sufficient to prove that you're an idiot.

 

[dblack]

Because a government empowered to strip people of their rights based on their 'papers' is a threat to everyone. Most especially its own citizens.

what rights?

All of them.

what are they? Do you even know? they have rights until they have no papers and then they are deported. So what's your point?

My point is that the Constitution applies to government, not to individuals. It's a set of constraints and grants of power to government. Qualifying those constraints such that they don't apply when the state's actions are against foreigners is not only immoral, it's impractical. It requires society, our society, to sacrifice fundamental tenets of freedom like presumption of innocence and due process. All of the rights previously recognized by our government as universal human rights are reduced to perks of citizenship instead. This makes all of your rights dependent on, first and foremost, being able to prove you are a citizen. It gets even 'curiouser' when you consider that due process, the criminal justice system that gives us a chance to prove our innocence when accused, would be unavailable to anyone the state says is not a citizen.

The Constitution doesn't protect "universal human rights." It protects the rights of Americans or people on American soil. Any claims to the contrary are pure idiocy. The idea that our government is obligated to protect the rights of foreigners on foreign soil couldn't be more idiotic. In the first place, it simply can't be done. It would require the USA to declare war on any nation that refused to enforce our Constitution. That fact alone is sufficient to prove that you're an idiot.

Impressive condemnation!

It didn't really have anything to do with my post, but it hardly matters.

 

[Unkotare]

The basic premise of the OP is factually incorrect.

 

[GaryDog]

To answer the simple (and dumb) question of the thread title: "Because it does apply to foreigners IN AMERICA."

 

[Boss]

To answer the simple (and dumb) question of the thread title: "Because it does apply to foreigners IN AMERICA."

It applies to foreign nationals and I've admitted that is a flaw in the title. I can't edit the title of the thread or I would. All I can do is post a correction, which I have.

The OP is referring to people who are not foreign nationals or citizens. A person at the airport awaiting admission into the country is not a foreign national or a citizen (unless they were already). Being present on US soil doesn't make you a foreign national any more than being in line on Disney property to enter the park makes you a patron. You must first purchase your ticket and enter the park before you are IN Disneyland. Same thing with entry into the US. If you haven't yet entered, you are not subject to Constitutional rights.

You sure as hell aren't subject to Constitutional rights if your ass is sitting in Syria or Turkey.

 

[G.T.]

but its not the left who thinks the rights are endowed by the creator

but like...i can see anyone being a hypocrite who thinks theyre from a creator.......

but only for Americans

what did the founders state?

uhh, this is in reference to dupes who have the belief that god, not america and its founders, bestowed their rights upon them

uhh, too deep for ya?

if they were bestowed upon you by ..

hrmmm..


GAWWDDDddd


youd think youd uhh, listen to that mother fucker mebbe

 

[GaryDog]

To answer the simple (and dumb) question of the thread title: "Because it does apply to foreigners IN AMERICA."

It applies to foreign nationals and I've admitted that is a flaw in the title. I can't edit the title of the thread or I would. All I can do is post a correction, which I have.

The OP is referring to people who are not foreign nationals or citizens. A person at the airport awaiting admission into the country is not a foreign national or a citizen (unless they were already). Being present on US soil doesn't make you a foreign national any more than being in line on Disney property to enter the park makes you a patron. You must first purchase your ticket and enter the park before you are IN Disneyland. Same thing with entry into the US. If you haven't yet entered, you are not subject to Constitutional rights.

You sure as hell aren't subject to Constitutional rights if your ass is sitting in Syria or Turkey.

I have no idea what this could POSSIBLY have to do with the entire discussion re: Trump's EO.

The constitutional question at issue here is how the constitution constrain's trump's actions. A broad, sweeping ban on a religion does not fall within the constraints provided by the constitution.

 

[Boss]

I have no idea what this could POSSIBLY have to do with the entire discussion re: Trump's EO.

The constitutional question at issue here is how the constitution constrain's trump's actions. A broad, sweeping ban on a religion does not fall within the constraints provided by the constitution.

Well first and foremost, there is not a "broad, sweeping ban on a religion." There are several countries on the temporary hold list. The Top 5 Islamic countries are not on the list. Of the Top 10 Islamic countries, only ONE is on the list. Iran.

But again... the statute which authorizes this, which has been used by the last six presidents, gives the president plenary power for any reason he deems appropriate. Therefore, he certainly COULD ban a religion. People outside the country who are not citizens or foreign nationals, have no Constitutional rights.

 

[GaryDog]

I have no idea what this could POSSIBLY have to do with the entire discussion re: Trump's EO.

The constitutional question at issue here is how the constitution constrain's trump's actions. A broad, sweeping ban on a religion does not fall within the constraints provided by the constitution.

Well first and foremost, there is not a "broad, sweeping ban on a religion." There are several countries on the temporary hold list. The Top 5 Islamic countries are not on the list. Of the Top 10 Islamic countries, only ONE is on the list. Iran.

But again... the statute which authorizes this, which has been used by the last six presidents, gives the president plenary power for any reason he deems appropriate. Therefore, he certainly COULD ban a religion. People outside the country who are not citizens or foreign nationals, have no Constitutional rights.

It's absolutely a "muslim ban", as it specifically exempts religious minority from more heightened scrutiny afforded muslims. And no, he can't blatantly discriminate based on no specific threat. "Plenary Power" does not mean what you think it means. The courts will let you know soon enough.

 

[Boss]

It's absolutely a "muslim ban", as it specifically exempts religious minority from more heightened scrutiny afforded muslims. And no, he can't blatantly discriminate based on no specific threat. "Plenary Power" does not mean what you think it means. The courts will let you know soon enough.

Well.. no hard head... it's NOT.

We can repeat ourselves over and over until it sinks in that granite-like cranium of yours if you like, but it's just NOT.

The temporary hold applies to specific countries which were actually named by the Obama administration.

And yes, according to statutory law, the president has the authority to apply any criteria he deems necessary.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

14 (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.​

So when you take Trump to court, make sure your attorney has read this statute of US Code. It grants the president plenary power (i.e. absolute and unconditional power) to restrict entry on any criteria including religion.