Israel vs Palestinians

[McDad]

Then they simply aren't actual rights and the us govt does not view them as such. I'm glad to get the admission out in the open

What's your resource as evidence that the BoR applies to people globally?

 

[EasternVol]

Yeah. Hog mentioned that a bit after my post. I read that explanation as saying this:
the default position is prohibited unless there is a legitimate reason to reconsider.

Don't you think the principle of unequal application of constitutional rights still stand wrt to visa holders and citizens?

Non-citizens can't vote and there are restrictions on gun ownership as noted. Other than those and the possibility of deportation, I suppose they have about the same constitutional rights as citizens, as they should.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Then they simply aren't actual rights and the us govt does not view them as such. I'm glad to get the admission out in the open

You're saying that immigration law hasn't been made public until now?

 

[McDad]

Non-citizens can't vote and there are restrictions on gun ownership as noted. Other than those and the possibility of deportation, I suppose they have about the same constitutional rights as citizens, as they should.

Based on what we are discussing, I disagree they do.

Whether or not they should is another conversation (at least for me)

 

[Orange_Crush]

There is a thing called registering to vote

Which is one of the main hang-ups of a lack of ID requirement.

You register to vote.

JuanVol7000 shows up and says he's NashVol11.

Your registration was worthless and stolen.

 

[EasternVol]

Based on what we are discussing, I disagree they do.

Whether or not they should is another conversation (at least for me)

You may like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/03/28/what-constitutional-rights-noncitizens-have/

 

[McDad]

I've asked for evidence from huff. In the spirit of cooperation, I'll provide mine.

I am not sure the BoR and constitutionally protected rights apply to everyone globally. At the time of the writing, "all people" was understood to mean men of those of white ethnicity. So, we can conclude that "all people" does not actually mean all people. We have since matured in who we consider "people" (rightfully, of course). But we are talking about the rights "all people" possess and I don't think we can say the document was written to include what we consider all people now.

Additionally, I infer that rights even those we say are inalienable are based on trust. Specifically the trust the government has about you. Felons have their rights reduced because they have been found untrustworthy. American citizens who were Asian looking had their rights restricted during WW2 for same reason. Lincoln restricted during the civil. I infer that when the government doesn't trust you or your motives, then they move to reduce or remove the rights other citizens enjoy. To carry that forward, do you think the government trusts or doesn't trust those who are here on temporary visas?

 

[McDad]

You may like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/03/28/what-constitutional-rights-noncitizens-have/

before I read, is that an editorial on the rights they "ought" to have. Or one based on what they absolutely have?

 

[EasternVol]

before I read, is that an editorial on the rights they "ought" to have. Or one based on what they absolutely have?

The headline question is 'what rights do they have' if that tells you anything.

 

[McDad]

Non-citizens can't vote and there are restrictions on gun ownership as noted. Other than those and the possibility of deportation, I suppose they have about the same constitutional rights as citizens, as they should.

I looked at the constitution and voting. I found a site called National Archives Review. Full disclosure, i know nothing of the site.

Voting Rights

The U.S. Constitution refers to the election of members of Congress and of the President, but the document adopted in 1787 does not define who may cast those votes. Amendments to the Constitution extended the right to vote in the 19th and 20th centuries. The 15th Amendment (1870) extended voting...

www.archives.gov

The Consitution didn't limit to citizens. That came through amendments. Is this right?
The U.S. Constitution refers to the election of members of Congress and of the President, but the document adopted in 1787 does not define who may cast those votes. Amendments to the Constitution extended the right to vote in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The 15th Amendment (1870) extended voting rights to men of all races. The 19th Amendment (1920) prohibited the states from denying the vote on the basis of sex. The 24th Amendment (1964) sought to remove barriers to voting by prohibiting a poll tax. And the Voting Rights Act of 1965 secured voting rights for adult citizens of all races and genders in the form of federal laws that enforced the amendments.

 

[McDad]

The headline question is 'what rights do they have' if that tells you anything.

Did you read it?

My question about "oughts vs absolutes" is not evasive. I just don't want to read something that is a tangent from the discussion I am having.

 

[85SugarVol]

Al-Aqsa flood is what Hamas called 10/7, and the pamphlet is nothing more than Hamas propaganda

There’s some really good lines in there

 

[McDad]

I have really enjoyed the conversation this morning. Appreciate it.

If nothing else, it was a welcomed diversion from the typical repartee in this thread.

 

[85SugarVol]

I have really enjoyed the conversation this morning. Appreciate it.

If nothing else, it was a welcomed diversion from the typical repartee in this thread.

Get outta here with your big fkn words, old man.

 

[EasternVol]

Did you read it?

My question about "oughts vs absolutes" is not evasive. I just don't want to read something that is a tangent from the discussion I am having.

It's about what rights they have.

 

[Smokey123]

There’s some really good lines in there

View attachment 731066

I saw that lol

 

[McDad]

Get outta here with your big fkn words, old man.

No need to be quarrelsome and oppugnant.

A concillatory demeanor would be more convivial.

 

[McDad]

It's about what rights they have.

Pop up asking for payment before I can read. No thanks.

 

[EasternVol]

Pop up asking for payment before I can read. No thanks.

You can try this to read it:

https://archive.ph/

 

[utvolpj]

You're saying that immigration law hasn't been made public until now?

No I'm saying that the current admin is prosecuting based on laws that are anti-free speech. Wouldn't our spreading democracy goals include the basic human right of free speech? Of so, why shut it down in our own country?

 

[McDad]

You can try this to read it:

https://archive.ph/

Do i paste the url from washington times in the red url window or the blue?

 

[utvolpj]

What's your resource as evidence that the BoR applies to people globally?

I view things like freedom of speech/association/assembly/protest to be basic human rights that exist outside the bor. I believe the ff chose to explicitly list them in the constitution as they understood tyrannical govt better than we do.

 

[OrangeTsar]

How many? You suggested there's proof of millions of illegals voting, so go ahead and let me know how many have been convicted of voter fraud. Doubt you can even find 100

Easy to get away with it if no one is looking. Expect the new DOJ to not turn the same blind eye as they did under Biden minion Garland

 

[OrangeTsar]

I view things like freedom of speech/association/assembly/protest to be basic human rights that exist outside the bor. I believe the ff chose to explicitly list them in the constitution as they understood tyrannical govt better than we do.

Indeed, certain inalienable rights are the natural birthright of all mankind; whether a government chooses to acknowledge them or not. People often mistakenly believe that the BoR “grants” certain rights when what it actually does is prohibit the government from denial of those rights.

 

[EasternVol]

Do i paste the url from washington times in the red url window or the blue?

blue