3 ms·

Freedom of speech is though. You're allowed to complain about the process as much as you want.

by triceratops 1y ago

bill_joy_fanboy 1y ago
[flagged]
- winter_blue 1y ago
  This is factually wrong. Freedom of speech (1st am.) is for all.
  - bill_joy_fanboy 1y ago
    Because you feel like it should apply?
    - triceratops 1y ago
      Yes. And also the century of case law. Again if you disagree, you'd better be prepared to produce birth certificates of all your ancestors to prove you're a "natural born citizen" born of citizens. That's where this leads.
      - winter_blue 1y ago
        Eventually, if they’re old stock European-American, that essentially means that they’re the descendants of invaders (i.e. illegal immigrants who never got the consent of the Native Americans to settle).
- triceratops 1y ago
  1. You don't know if OP is a citizen or not. 2. They apply to everyone subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Otherwise it would be real easy to just say "you're not a citizen, you have no rights". Don't be so sure you're safe.
- ivraatiems 1y ago
  False. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/about/initiatives/civil-rights-civics-institute/rights-immigrants/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/about/initiatives/ci... https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8... https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/297/ https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/297/ https://www.accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/post/undocumented-immigrants-rights-under-the-united-states-constitution https://www.accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/post/undocumented-im...
- estebank 1y ago
  This is the constitutional equivalent of being a flat earther.
  - bill_joy_fanboy 1y ago
    Sick burn. Now, do you have any ~good~ arguments that prove me wrong?
- qaq 1y ago
  2. Bridges v. Wixon (1945) A First Amendment case involving an Australian immigrant. Key holding: Non-citizens inside the U.S. have First Amendment rights. Quote: “Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country.”
  - bill_joy_fanboy 1y ago
    > “Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country.” Unless this quote is directly from the constitution, it's totally worthless to support your argument.
    - qaq 1y ago
      Somehow Supreme Court ruling vs rando internet post carries a bit more weight.
    - Spoom 1y ago
      I'm assuming good faith debate against my own judgment, but in case anyone is confused, here's your sign: 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Read that carefully and note that the word "citizen" is nowhere to be found. Next, some may argue that "the people" inherently represents only citizens. Jurisprudence has generally accepted that phrase to mean everyone, including illegal immigrants, but it depends on the surrounding context[1]. The idea that the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens, though, doesn't match any court interpretation of which I'm aware. 1. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > So long as you're a citizen. If you are not a citizen, the rights afforded by the constitution don't apply to you. Wrong. The Constitution is very clear on which rights are limitations on the government no matter which people it is dealing with and which are particular to citizens, and there are very few of the latter. Exactly one, in fact: the right to vote, though its mentioned several times in terms of which things are prohibited as excuses for denying it.

Freedom of speech is though. You're allowed to complain about the process as much as you want.

bill_joy_fanboy 1y ago

[flagged]

winter_blue 1y ago
This is factually wrong. Freedom of speech (1st am.) is for all.
- bill_joy_fanboy 1y ago
  Because you feel like it should apply?
  - triceratops 1y ago
    Yes. And also the century of case law. Again if you disagree, you'd better be prepared to produce birth certificates of all your ancestors to prove you're a "natural born citizen" born of citizens. That's where this leads.
    - winter_blue 1y ago
      Eventually, if they’re old stock European-American, that essentially means that they’re the descendants of invaders (i.e. illegal immigrants who never got the consent of the Native Americans to settle).
triceratops 1y ago
1. You don't know if OP is a citizen or not. 2. They apply to everyone subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Otherwise it would be real easy to just say "you're not a citizen, you have no rights". Don't be so sure you're safe.
ivraatiems 1y ago
False. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/about/initiatives/civil-rights-civics-institute/rights-immigrants/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/about/initiatives/ci... https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8... https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/297/ https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/297/ https://www.accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/post/undocumented-immigrants-rights-under-the-united-states-constitution https://www.accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/post/undocumented-im...
estebank 1y ago
This is the constitutional equivalent of being a flat earther.
- bill_joy_fanboy 1y ago
  Sick burn. Now, do you have any ~good~ arguments that prove me wrong?
qaq 1y ago
2. Bridges v. Wixon (1945) A First Amendment case involving an Australian immigrant. Key holding: Non-citizens inside the U.S. have First Amendment rights. Quote: “Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country.”
- bill_joy_fanboy 1y ago
  > “Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country.” Unless this quote is directly from the constitution, it's totally worthless to support your argument.
  - qaq 1y ago
    Somehow Supreme Court ruling vs rando internet post carries a bit more weight.
  - Spoom 1y ago
    I'm assuming good faith debate against my own judgment, but in case anyone is confused, here's your sign: 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Read that carefully and note that the word "citizen" is nowhere to be found. Next, some may argue that "the people" inherently represents only citizens. Jurisprudence has generally accepted that phrase to mean everyone, including illegal immigrants, but it depends on the surrounding context[1]. The idea that the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens, though, doesn't match any court interpretation of which I'm aware. 1. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/
dragonwriter 1y ago
> So long as you're a citizen. If you are not a citizen, the rights afforded by the constitution don't apply to you. Wrong. The Constitution is very clear on which rights are limitations on the government no matter which people it is dealing with and which are particular to citizens, and there are very few of the latter. Exactly one, in fact: the right to vote, though its mentioned several times in terms of which things are prohibited as excuses for denying it.