Share.

22 Comments

  1. Unfortunately as we saw during WW2 rights that should be applied to all people can be circumvented. Goes back to language used to created the laws. It’s like they find backdoors on the code of law.

  2. Depressed-Industry on

    I made this point before, but there’s a problem with the constitution. I believe that people is meant to be inclusive, so everyone physically in the country or a citizen that’s outside of it, benefit from the protections the constitution lays out.

    But here’s the problem. The second amendment also uses the word people. So does that mean someone from England can fly over here and buy a firearm? I don’t think we really want that. But I can’t shake the contradiction.

    Other than an amendment I don’t have an answer.

  3. Bridges v. Wixon heavily relied on due process and the freedom of association.

    Freedom of speech is a different story. There are currently laws on the books that violate the First Amendment rights of non-citizens by deeming as deportable anyone that “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization” 8 USC 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII)

    Until that law is struck down as unconstitutional, non-citizens have diminished First Amendment rights.

  4. The regime has absolutely no interest in protecting the rights of anyone who isn’t a billionaire. Of course they are going to declare the First Amendment is not for non-citizens.

    Shortly followed by the declaration that your citizenship is dependent on whether you make Donald Trump happy.

    This is fascism 101, kids.

  5. They like to forget it says “all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights among these are the right to life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
    The “all” is the all inclusive kind of all. Not just the rich white guys.
    Inalienable means they can’t be taken away just because you don’t like them.

  6. Stereo_Jungle_Child on

    The 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to non-citizens who do not possess the correct type of immigration visa, so why does the 1st Amendment? They cannot legally own firearms here.

    Who gets to choose which Amendments cover everyone inside the US and which don’t?

  7. WebInformal9558 on

    It’s SO bizarre that people think otherwise. It’s also bizarre that so many people WANT to punish speech by immigrants.

  8. No, the First Amendment applies to the government, not the people/citizens/visitors/whatever. **The First Amendment says the government cannot infringe, outright, full stop.**

    This means in simple terms that it doesnt matter who or where you are, the US government is not allowed to infringe. This applies to natural born citizens, immigrants and refugees alike, and the limit does not stop at a border.

  9. No f*cking sh*t. A high schooler should be able to tell you that, but alas, this is America.

Leave A Reply