tk421 wrote:

bigmanbt wrote:

Glory Days wrote: it also doesnt say illegal aliens or men from other countries if you want to get technical.

No, it says ALL men. Not American men, not men from other countries, ALL men. That, to me at least, means everybody.

If we're going to be absolutely literal in the interpretation, then women don't have any rights at all. Black people should still be slaves, etc. It was a document written for Americans, not everyone else in the world to come here and use up our resources while breaking federal law.

haha exactly, if it really was for all "men" like you say, why didnt the founding fathers give women, blacks, and non land owning men rights?

Illegals can still have access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness while being held accountable for breaking our laws.

So should all criminals be set free from prisons because they seemingly don't have access to those rights? Either we're a sovereign nation with laws and borders or we're not. Enforcing such laws does not deny rights to anyone- it protects the rights of law-abiding citizens.

bigmanbt wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:
Again, illegal immigrants are not privy to civil rights. Civil rights pertain to American citizens.

I disagree with this statement. The Declaration clearly says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It doesn't say American citizens are created equal with certain unalienable rights, it says all men(and women, for the feminists ). Everyone deserves these unalienable rights, regardless of where they are from. That's why terrorists should be given due process and not whisked away to Gitmo as "enemy combatants".

Ah, see, but you are confusing inalienable rights, with civil rights. They are two TOTALLY different things.

Yes, even illegals have these "inalienable" rights, which is why we shouldn't treat them "inhumanely". They should be checked (AZ law), arrested, and deported.

Civil rights, the heart of this discussion, is NOT given to non-US citizens inside the US. Look up the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it applies to US citizens, not illegal aliens.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong, inalienable rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) are universal by our DoI, but Civil rights (which go farther) are US citizens only.

Every illegal alien has the right to pursue happiness here in the US if they go through the right procedures and immigrate over. If they go through the citizenship criteria then they have all the same civil rights as everyone else. When they come over illigally they forfeit all civil rights here in the US.

jhay78 wrote: Illegals can still have access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness while being held accountable for breaking our laws.

So should all criminals be set free from prisons because they seemingly don't have access to those rights? Either we're a sovereign nation with laws and borders or we're not. Enforcing such laws does not deny rights to anyone- it protects the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Exactly, well said.

bigmanbt wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:
Again, illegal immigrants are not privy to civil rights. Civil rights pertain to American citizens.

I disagree with this statement. The Declaration clearly says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It doesn't say American citizens are created equal with certain unalienable rights, it says all men(and women, for the feminists ). Everyone deserves these unalienable rights, regardless of where they are from. That's why terrorists should be given due process and not whisked away to Gitmo as "enemy combatants".

And I agree with the Declaration. I do believe that everybody in this country, especially in a legal and benevolent manner, deserves to be treated with basic human rights and/or courtesy.

http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary?invocationType=topsearchbox.refcentre&query=human+rights

Main Entry: human rights
Function: noun plural
Date: 1766
Results
1766rights (as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons
However, by definition and otherwise, civil rights pertain to American citizens. It may not be a comfort zone for everybody, but it is what it is.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights

ensure that no state "shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States... [or] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, [or] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Congress was also given the power by section five of the Fourteenth Amendment to pass any laws needed for its enforcement.

(that is somewhat cherry picked from the whole article, so I'll give the absolute definition below)

http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary?invocationType=topsearchbox.refcentre&query=civil+rights

Main Entry: civil rights
Function: noun plural
Date:
Results
the nonpolitical rights of a citizen especially the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress

The Constitution was written for American law and the protection of American citizens. It does not include civil rights for other countries.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/boyack3.1.1.html

The Constitution applies to all, terrorists, illegals, anyone.

Wow, that's some strong support for your cause, big. :rolleyes:

And what specifically did you have a problem with? I thought it was a well thought out, interesting article that highlighted my point of view. It was also written recently and certainly applied to the topic.

The main point of the article is that the Constitution is a limit to what the Federal government can do, so anyone who comes in contact with the federal government has these rights that cannot be taken away. Changing the argument to fit just Americans is very short-sighted and allows for exploitations of non-Americans (which if you haven't noticed, we do ALL THE TIME). It use to be only Progressives who didn't apply the Constitution to non-Americans who have to deal with our government, by the looks of it it has spread to the Republican party as well. Sad really, we use to respect the individual in America, but that all seems to have changed.

What I don't understand is how a dictionary (pick one) is involved in changing the argument?
Are political factions influencing dictionaries/makers of dictionaries?
Are dictionaries rewriting history?
Are dictionaries liberal, conservative, progressives, libertarians, constitutionalists?
If so, how many have that specific point in mind when definining words?

bigmanbt wrote: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/boyack3.1.1.html

The Constitution applies to all, terrorists, illegals, anyone.

You can't be serious with that...come on, you can do better than that rubbish.

jmog wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/boyack3.1.1.html

The Constitution applies to all, terrorists, illegals, anyone.

You can't be serious with that...come on, you can do better than that rubbish.

Again, it's a factual article that you can click on links to see the works cited. So... what is your problem with the article? Calling it rubbish is not an intellectual argument, far from it.