3 ms·

So you’re a journalist. You criticize the French government in your investigative reporting. You take a visit to France again next time. They prohibit your e

So you’re a journalist. You criticize the French government in your investigative reporting. You take a visit to France again next time. They prohibit your entry based on your articles. All else equal you otherwise would have been granted entry. === The United States’ Constitution has a first amendment that does not discern between citizen or not. It applies to the laws that can be made. Same goes for the other bill of rights. Obviously a non citizen should not have the right to vote, but a non citizen still should have and they do have the right of freedom of speech or the right to a speedy trial… Otherwise the laws you made are not impartial.

salamanderss 3y ago
Part of the first amendment, specifically assembly and petitioning grievances is explicitly qualified to the 'people'. Aliens are not generally considered the 'people' in the US, as evidenced by them not being allowed arms which are the right of (even individual per Heller) people.
- jessenaser 3y ago
  Incorrect. When a part of the constitution wants to describe the requirement of citizen or not, it will specifically say. "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
  - salamanderss 3y ago
    So aliens have the right to bear arms in the US?
    - jessenaser 3y ago
      Yes. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-aliens-legally-united-states-purchase-firearms https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-aliens-legally-united-st... But some of the restrictions may be on how the constitution was worded. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," implies that that person has an interest in the United States, instead of being a visitor. So only nonimmigrant visa aliens have a hard time, but there are exceptions. Even so, law that exists does not imply that it is correct or just with other laws. The AI tool in the article or some of the restrictions are up for debate on their legality. The same way why people debate gun restrictions on their constitutionality.
      - salamanderss 3y ago
        Ah k so those on non-immigrant visas aren't people, unless they buy hunting license to become a people? Does that make sense to you?
        jessenaser 3y ago
        No. They are obviously still people. I said either: the clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," modifies the requirement to those with an interest in the United States, instead of visitors. OR The current laws are unjust by being unconstitutional.
        salamanderss 3y ago
        Heller made clear that right of people is individual rights of persons. So for instance you still have fourth amendment right even when by yourself. Heller also clarifies the right is disconnected from militia service. I'm just looking for a single logically consistent person to admit that aliens (not just those with a hunting license or other credential) are people with all the rights of people, or not people and not protected specifically by what is narrowed to protection of people. You were painfully close.

salamanderss 3y ago

Part of the first amendment, specifically assembly and petitioning grievances is explicitly qualified to the 'people'. Aliens are not generally considered the 'people' in the US, as evidenced by them not being allowed arms which are the right of (even individual per Heller) people.

jessenaser 3y ago
Incorrect. When a part of the constitution wants to describe the requirement of citizen or not, it will specifically say. "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
- salamanderss 3y ago
  So aliens have the right to bear arms in the US?
  - jessenaser 3y ago
    Yes. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-aliens-legally-united-states-purchase-firearms https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-aliens-legally-united-st... But some of the restrictions may be on how the constitution was worded. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," implies that that person has an interest in the United States, instead of being a visitor. So only nonimmigrant visa aliens have a hard time, but there are exceptions. Even so, law that exists does not imply that it is correct or just with other laws. The AI tool in the article or some of the restrictions are up for debate on their legality. The same way why people debate gun restrictions on their constitutionality.
    - salamanderss 3y ago
      Ah k so those on non-immigrant visas aren't people, unless they buy hunting license to become a people? Does that make sense to you?
      - jessenaser 3y ago
        No. They are obviously still people. I said either: the clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," modifies the requirement to those with an interest in the United States, instead of visitors. OR The current laws are unjust by being unconstitutional.
        salamanderss 3y ago
        Heller made clear that right of people is individual rights of persons. So for instance you still have fourth amendment right even when by yourself. Heller also clarifies the right is disconnected from militia service. I'm just looking for a single logically consistent person to admit that aliens (not just those with a hunting license or other credential) are people with all the rights of people, or not people and not protected specifically by what is narrowed to protection of people. You were painfully close.