2 Next
Topic: Howey Cwap ! Did I just hear that?!
willing2's photo
Wed 02/19/14 12:00 PM
Not mocking. No need to. Just setting the facts straight.

Foreign visitors have very limited rights.

But, but, butcrack is changing all that. They now can get taxpayer paid health insurance without proving citizenship. Guess, Bush is to blame, si?laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh





no photo
Wed 02/19/14 12:03 PM




Americans are myopic in accepting opinions for which they disagree and demonstrate ignorance to contrary opinions lest they examine their self righteous beliefs with more scrutiny...

doesn't make it any less true...


it also doesn;t make any sense

good grief that was over 200 years ago. Can't she come up with anything better than that?

Tho' I do agree that nationals from other countries need to myobslaphead


lol

not to mention, I kind of think it was some 'brits' who founded the states and some 'brits' who wrote the protections and the constitution,,lol

but , the us vs them usually works well as a distraction,,,


he has as much right to speak what he feels about American laws when he is residing in America,, as the holocaust survivor who lives in America has to speak about how similar our conditions allegedly are to those during the holocaust,,

aren't freedom of speech and right to bear arms part of the same constitution?


smh





What rights does he have...

"If you are one of the People of the United States, then all ten amendments are available to you, you have natural rights. If you are a citizen of the United States, then you have civil rights [properly called civil privileges]. see Senate Document 108-17, p. 1006, 1007, Footnote 37, for details summarized here."

37 The following list does not attempt to distinguish between those Bill of Rights provisions which have been held to have themselves been incorporated or absorbed by the Fourteenth Amendment and those provisions which the Court indicated at the time were applicable against the States because they were fundamental and not
merely because they were named in the Bill of Rights. Whichever formulation was originally used, the former is now the one used by the Court. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 148 (1968).

First Amendment— Religion— Free exercise: Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245, 262 (1934); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 300, 303 (1940). Establishment: Everson. v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 3, 7, 8 (1947); Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948).
Speech— Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925); Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931).
Press— Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 701 (1931).
Assembly— DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937).
Petition— DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. at 364, 365; Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939); Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941).

Fourth Amendment— Search and seizure— Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

Fifth Amendment— Double jeopardy— Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969); Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (collateral estoppel).
Self-incrimination— Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964); Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965).
Just compensation— Chicago, B. & Q. R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).

Sixth Amendment— Speedy trial— Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967).
Public trial— In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948).
Jury trial— Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
Impartial Jury— Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961); Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (1965).
Notice of charges— In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948).
Confrontation— Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 (1965).
Compulsory process— Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967).
Counsel— Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

Eighth Amendment— Cruel and unusual punishment— Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947); Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).

Provisions not applied are:
Second Amendment— Right to keep and bear arms—Cf. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886).

Third Amendment— Quartering troops in homes—No cases.

Fifth Amendment— Grand Jury indictment— Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884).

Seventh Amendment—
Jury trial in civil cases in which value of controversy exceeds $20—
Cf. Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 64–65 (1947) (Justice Frankfurter concurring). See Minneapolis & St. L. R.R. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916).

Eighth Amendment— Bail— But see Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357, 365 (1971).

Excessive Fines— But see Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971) (utilizing equal protection to prevent automatic jailing of indigents when others can pay a fine and avoid jail).

no photo
Wed 02/19/14 12:07 PM


so wait,,

they are only 'rights' because they are 'given' in the constitution, and not inherent for all people under US laws?

visitors to the US aren't protected by US laws or permitted US rights?

I wasn't aware,,

in that case,, british bsshing makes much more sense,,


tying in all of another countries citizens to the disagreeable things some of them did centuries ago while disregarding the things some of those same people did that afforded said rights

makes much more sense too

winking


Purely accidental, but you got something right.

Sojourning_Soul's photo
Wed 02/19/14 02:02 PM

it wasn't a major

married an immigrant, went through the immigration process for and with them

there are many visas, there is also a visa that allows a specified number of days one can spend in the us, or work in the us

if one is not planning to make someplace their permanent home, they are VISITING that place,, in my opinion,,,

but sadly, you missed the point again, in the haste to be mocking

the point was, I was previously told that rights are not 'given', thay are just innate,, if they are not 'given' they are not restricted to citizenship status

if that is not true, than americans have every 'right' to bash anyone from anyplace else when they use their speech to share an opinion about someone else, and even to imply they shouldn't have as equal a right to do so as we do when we interject our opinions about things happening in the middle east, or Israel, or AFrica,,,,to name but a few,,,

but, I was just previously misguided by the idea thst such rights were just INNATE and not given,,




I know you can't finally be getting it! noway

The gov't nor the Constitution "gives" any rights, only protects them!

2 Next