Imigration

[leo9]

I guess for me "legality" isn't as important as "humanity". Labeling a person a "criminal" doesn't take away the fact that they are still human, and still deserve human rights. Why, once they step across that line, does it irk you so to help them if they need it? Are they not people like the rest of us?

And now we come down to one of the fundamental lines that divide people's basic philosophies of life.

If you answer "yes" - yes, all people deserve the same basic rights regardless of who they are or what they may have done - you are on one side of the line. (Hi!) If you answer "no" - no, some people don't deserve the basic rights I consider an absolute right for me and mine, because they're the wrong sort of people - you're on the other. It doesn't matter whether you define their wrongness as being black, gay, Muslim, terrorist-suspect, illegal-immigrant or whatever. It's the belief that human rights only apply to the right sort of humans that determines where you are going to stand on every important issue.

Believing that human rights are absolute doesn't make you a liberal pushover, though you will of course be accused of it. You can be as aggressive as anyone in defending your own rights: you just recognise the challenges in doing so without violating others'.

Classing your enemies as unpeople makes everything simpler, which is one reason it's so popular. But we all know where it leads in the end.

[Thorne]

And now we come down to one of the fundamental lines that divide people's basic philosophies of life.

Believing that human rights are absolute doesn't make you a liberal pushover, though you will of course be accused of it. You can be as aggressive as anyone in defending your own rights: you just recognise the challenges in doing so without violating others'.

Classing your enemies as unpeople makes everything simpler, which is one reason it's so popular. But we all know where it leads in the end.

I suppose most of those who would place themselves in the 'Yes' group would classify me as being in the 'No' group, but it isn't that simple at all. I'm not advocating denying anyone their basic human rights. But my interpretation of those rights may be quite different from yours. I don't claim that my human rights are any better than someone else's human rights, either.

However, as a US citizen I have certain rights guaranteed to me under the Constitution which are not necessarily guaranteed to non-citizens. And those rights come with certain responsibilities. Allowing those same rights to non-citizens without insisting on them accepting the responsibilities that come with them cheapens those rights.

Most rational people, I think, would agree that criminals, defined as those who break the law, lose some of those rights by doing so. As a citizen, I have the right to apply for a driver's license, and once receiving one I have the right to drive my vehicle on public roads. If I commit a crime, such as driving to fast or driving while intoxicated, I could have that right revoked. I could have my freedom restricted, at least temporarily. And no one would complain about my being profiled or mistreated because of who I am. After all, I've committed a crime!

So why is it that when someone crosses the border illegally they are considered, by some, to have more rights than I have? How can anyone claim I am profiling if I send someone back for breaking the law? Aren't they subject to the same restrictions and laws as everyone else? Their color, language or homeland are not the issue! Their human rights are not the issue! The issue is that they are breaking the law! Therefore they are subject to the penalties for breaking that law, which can involve incarceration and deportation. That's not profiling.

If an illegal alien were to drive a car without a valid license, and he were to kill an innocent pedestrian, would you consider it wrong for the police to arrest him? Would they be wrong to hold him in jail? Would it be profiling to try him in a court of law for his crime? And if convicted, would we be violating his rights by sending him to prison? I think few would answer 'Yes' to any of these questions. Yet some of you seem to believe it's a violation of his rights to ask for his ID after he's struck and killed that person.

Believe me, nothing would please me more than for the entire world to be united under one flag, one government, one economy, so we could all travel anywhere we wished without worrying about borders. All people would be equal, there would be no hoarding of resources, and peace would reign over the Earth. I think it would be wonderful if we could all live together without laws to restrict our freedoms. But right here, right now, the world doesn't work that way. And allowing criminals to get away with their crimes just because you feel sorry for them isn't going to make the world a better place. Quite the opposite, I'm afraid.

[leo9]

However, as a US citizen I have certain rights guaranteed to me under the Constitution which are not necessarily guaranteed to non-citizens.

I am only an ignorant foreigner without understanding of your Constitution. I had been told that your Declaration of Independence held that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Thank you for explaining that in fact only US citizens are held to have rights.

[Thorne]

I am only an ignorant foreigner without understanding of your Constitution. I had been told that your Declaration of Independence held that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Thank you for explaining that in fact only US citizens are held to have rights.

Again someone misrepresenting what I said. I agree with you! There are certain basic human rights which all persons have. But there are other rights which are granted to American citizens, just as there are certain rights granted to British citizens, or Canadian citizens, or citizens of any country. These are ADDITIONAL rights, over and above those inalienable rights which all people have.

[DuncanONeil]

Two different documents.
Again you are confusing varying types of rights. Those referred to in the Declaration are as stated. Constitutional rights are citizen based. To go deeper the Constitution actually is a document that LIMITS rights, but only the rights of Government. Something that has been totally ignored for several decades!

I am only an ignorant foreigner without understanding of your Constitution. I had been told that your Declaration of Independence held that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Thank you for explaining that in fact only US citizens are held to have rights.

[DuncanONeil]

But we are not discussing "human rights" but "legal rights" Two completely different things!

And now we come down to one of the fundamental lines that divide people's basic philosophies of life.

If you answer "yes" - yes, all people deserve the same basic rights regardless of who they are or what they may have done - you are on one side of the line. (Hi!) If you answer "no" - no, some people don't deserve the basic rights I consider an absolute right for me and mine, because they're the wrong sort of people - you're on the other. It doesn't matter whether you define their wrongness as being black, gay, Muslim, terrorist-suspect, illegal-immigrant or whatever. It's the belief that human rights only apply to the right sort of humans that determines where you are going to stand on every important issue.

Believing that human rights are absolute doesn't make you a liberal pushover, though you will of course be accused of it. You can be as aggressive as anyone in defending your own rights: you just recognise the challenges in doing so without violating others'.

Classing your enemies as unpeople makes everything simpler, which is one reason it's so popular. But we all know where it leads in the end.