4 ms·

We should give foreigners rights that Americans enjoy. If American enjoys 4th amendment protection, so can foreigners. That mean you can't spy on foreigner with

by kiba 13y ago

We should give foreigners rights that Americans enjoy. If American enjoys 4th amendment protection, so can foreigners. That mean you can't spy on foreigner without getting a warrant from an open court, rather than secret courts with secret ruling. Edit: I am not arguing that foreigners should receive welfare check and benefit from social programs. I am arguing that if they are targeted by the US government, they should be subjected to the same protection. There should be no special exception for anybody, because the special exception was used to justified the NSA spying program.

bilbo0s 13y ago
Good luck with that.
carbocation 13y ago
Is there a precedent for that? I don't mean to agree or disagree (though I am inclined to disagree, I admit, which is why I ask the question). By asking, though, I hope to see the advantages and disadvantages in a real-world situation.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Universal jurisdiction[1] is a fairly new concept, and there definitely precedents. The Nuremburg trials are notably the first major application of jurisdiction over a distinctly separate, foreign and sovereign nation. Most things that qualify as precedents are predominantly rulings on genocide, crimes against humanity, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, torture and forced disappearances. The impact of universal jurisdiction is not simple, in fact it flies in the face of Westphalian soverignty[2] in the sense that it destroys it utterly, potentially disrupting over four centuries of precedent and denying nations' inherent right to self-determination. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty
  - carbocation 13y ago
    Great post. I think that there is a distinction to be drawn here, though. Nuremberg essentially applied penalties for rights violations to people of a foreign, sovereign nation. The proposal in the GP comment is for new rights–not new responsibilities–to be granted to people of a foreign, sovereign nation. So I appreciate the background you have provided, and I want to springboard from there to draw a distinction, and to see if there is any precedent for something even more similar.
    - ihsw 13y ago
      The simplest and most direct springboard would be "There is no taxation without representation" however that is a whole different (and more volatile) debate. The UN Human Rights Council[1] would probably be the highest authority to appeal to, considering they have enshrined many rights as natural human rights that are inviolable and universally applicable -- for example freedom of association and assembly, freedom of expression, freedom of belief, Women's rights, and so forth. Many nations don't recognize these rights (and quite a few don't recognize the UN's authority) and the UN's ability to enforce respect of these rights is quite non-existent, but it's a good place to start. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Cou...
maratd 13y ago
> We should give foreigners rights that Americans enjoy. Uhhh no. I pay taxes and uphold my civic responsibilities (jury duty, selective service, etc.). I earn those rights. Unless those foreigners decide to become US citizens and take on the same responsibilities, no, those rights do not extend to them.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- opminion 13y ago
  Those foreigners usually have those responsibilities in their own countries. The same works the other way around. Wouldn't it make sense to have reciprocity so it ends up being a game of citizen collaboration, rather than of competition (as in many other areas of international diplomacy and law)?
  - maratd 13y ago
    > Wouldn't it make sense to have reciprocity so it ends up being a game of citizen collaboration Yes, I'd be perfectly happy with that. In fact, I'd be thrilled to have the same protections when travelling abroad. Unfortunately, most countries don't provide such protections for even their own citizens.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- pantaloons 13y ago
  You earned the right to not be spied on? What, specifically, did you do that exclusively grants you that privilege?
  - cathustler 13y ago
    The fourth amendment, and Map v. Ohio; upholding civic duties are the end of the deal that civilians are to be responsible for, ceding tyrannous behavior that is disallowed by legislation is the government's. Obviously barring the fact that the Constitution seems to just be a long-standing joke to the government, or so it seems as of late. Also, to be clear I'm not defending the point of whom you responded, I'm just outlining the support for it.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
salgernon 13y ago
I completely agree. Our constitution represents the best thinking (at the time it was written, and it's if it still applies) of the best set of rules by which to treat people fairly. Unfortunately, there are people that venerate the constitution that ignore its precursor document which states that we believe all men are created equal. If all men are created equal, then they should be treated as such, unless we want to repeat the "some are more equal than others" line.
- davidmr 13y ago
  Are you surprised that the Constitution is venerated more than the Declaration of Independence? The former is the supreme law of the land (or rather would be if it were not ignored without consequence so frequently), and the latter is rhetoric. It is lofty and high-minded rhetoric (or rather would be if its authors had actually meant that all persons should be equal) but rhetoric nonetheless, void of legal value.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    That "rhetoric" serves as a justification for why the "supreme law of the land" should be respected and upheld in the first place. Instead people have replaced that justification with circular justifications, blind patriotism, and apathy.
ganeumann 13y ago
The Constitution follows the flag. I think in the sense that the rights are human rights, then all humans should get them. But the civil rights in the US Constitution and amendments are, for the most part, meant to protect citizens from the government becoming too powerful and abusing its power. The framers of the constitution, being in the novel position of actually getting to decide what the powers of their own government were to be, were very fearful that it would be too powerful. A fear soon validated by the French Revolution's problems. (The idea that civil rights are somehow "earned" as mentioned in this comment thread is odd... the rights are not a "reward" to be earned, they were put in place as a precursor to any government: no American starts off without them and you do not need to be a taxpayer or even a citizen to enjoy them, you just need to be in US-ruled territory.) It does not make sense for anyone not residing in the US to be given freedom of speech or the right to bear arms by the US government. These rights are allowed (or not) by whoever governs the place where you are. If the US government is spying on you on your territory, it is up to your government to protect you. Note how the US government reacts when another country is spying on our citizens (well, corporates anyway.) The fourth amendment was not put in place because "gentlemen do not read each others' mail" but because the Brits used to bust in with general warrants to try and collect taxes and it pissed off the colonists. It was not the principal of the thing, really, but the consequences that got the colonists' goat. Since the US government can't really do anything to people not within the US except as an act of war, their search of your property--while reprehensible--is not meant to have been protected under the 4th. It does, unfortunately, make perfect sense for any non-American to want their Internet traffic kept from traversing US soil if by so doing it places that communication under US scrutiny. I suspect it would not be hard to set up routing tables that keeps traffic from entering the US unless that's the destination (but I'm talking out of my armpit, I'm not a network engineer.)
sneak 13y ago
From the declaration of independence: > 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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. All men. Rights endowed by their creator - not the government. The way I read that, regardless of government or location of their birth, the basic rights enumerated in the constitution are the birthright of every single human. My favorite way to battle the stupid bullshit neocon xenophobia is to leverage their own anti-state agenda (which, to be fair, I generally agree with) against them, by pointing out that the false dichotomy of us/them is based upon them labeling someone as "American"/"foreign", which is in turn based upon whether or not they are born within or without an imaginary line drawn by the state. PS: inb4 "but slaves are people too"
- ceol 13y ago
  The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, though.
- nnash 13y ago
  >PS: inb4 "but slaves are people too" Slaves were considered property like cattle, I'm sure there are higher ups who view non-natural born citizens and/or immigrants that way.

by kiba 13y ago

bilbo0s 13y ago

Good luck with that.

carbocation 13y ago

Is there a precedent for that? I don't mean to agree or disagree (though I am inclined to disagree, I admit, which is why I ask the question). By asking, though, I hope to see the advantages and disadvantages in a real-world situation.

ihsw 13y ago
Universal jurisdiction[1] is a fairly new concept, and there definitely precedents. The Nuremburg trials are notably the first major application of jurisdiction over a distinctly separate, foreign and sovereign nation. Most things that qualify as precedents are predominantly rulings on genocide, crimes against humanity, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, torture and forced disappearances. The impact of universal jurisdiction is not simple, in fact it flies in the face of Westphalian soverignty[2] in the sense that it destroys it utterly, potentially disrupting over four centuries of precedent and denying nations' inherent right to self-determination. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty
- carbocation 13y ago
  Great post. I think that there is a distinction to be drawn here, though. Nuremberg essentially applied penalties for rights violations to people of a foreign, sovereign nation. The proposal in the GP comment is for new rights–not new responsibilities–to be granted to people of a foreign, sovereign nation. So I appreciate the background you have provided, and I want to springboard from there to draw a distinction, and to see if there is any precedent for something even more similar.
  - ihsw 13y ago
    The simplest and most direct springboard would be "There is no taxation without representation" however that is a whole different (and more volatile) debate. The UN Human Rights Council[1] would probably be the highest authority to appeal to, considering they have enshrined many rights as natural human rights that are inviolable and universally applicable -- for example freedom of association and assembly, freedom of expression, freedom of belief, Women's rights, and so forth. Many nations don't recognize these rights (and quite a few don't recognize the UN's authority) and the UN's ability to enforce respect of these rights is quite non-existent, but it's a good place to start. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Cou...

maratd 13y ago

> We should give foreigners rights that Americans enjoy. Uhhh no. I pay taxes and uphold my civic responsibilities (jury duty, selective service, etc.). I earn those rights. Unless those foreigners decide to become US citizens and take on the same responsibilities, no, those rights do not extend to them.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
opminion 13y ago
Those foreigners usually have those responsibilities in their own countries. The same works the other way around. Wouldn't it make sense to have reciprocity so it ends up being a game of citizen collaboration, rather than of competition (as in many other areas of international diplomacy and law)?
- maratd 13y ago
  > Wouldn't it make sense to have reciprocity so it ends up being a game of citizen collaboration Yes, I'd be perfectly happy with that. In fact, I'd be thrilled to have the same protections when travelling abroad. Unfortunately, most countries don't provide such protections for even their own citizens.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pantaloons 13y ago
You earned the right to not be spied on? What, specifically, did you do that exclusively grants you that privilege?
- cathustler 13y ago
  The fourth amendment, and Map v. Ohio; upholding civic duties are the end of the deal that civilians are to be responsible for, ceding tyrannous behavior that is disallowed by legislation is the government's. Obviously barring the fact that the Constitution seems to just be a long-standing joke to the government, or so it seems as of late. Also, to be clear I'm not defending the point of whom you responded, I'm just outlining the support for it.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

salgernon 13y ago

I completely agree. Our constitution represents the best thinking (at the time it was written, and it's if it still applies) of the best set of rules by which to treat people fairly. Unfortunately, there are people that venerate the constitution that ignore its precursor document which states that we believe all men are created equal. If all men are created equal, then they should be treated as such, unless we want to repeat the "some are more equal than others" line.

davidmr 13y ago
Are you surprised that the Constitution is venerated more than the Declaration of Independence? The former is the supreme law of the land (or rather would be if it were not ignored without consequence so frequently), and the latter is rhetoric. It is lofty and high-minded rhetoric (or rather would be if its authors had actually meant that all persons should be equal) but rhetoric nonetheless, void of legal value.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  That "rhetoric" serves as a justification for why the "supreme law of the land" should be respected and upheld in the first place. Instead people have replaced that justification with circular justifications, blind patriotism, and apathy.

ganeumann 13y ago

The Constitution follows the flag. I think in the sense that the rights are human rights, then all humans should get them. But the civil rights in the US Constitution and amendments are, for the most part, meant to protect citizens from the government becoming too powerful and abusing its power. The framers of the constitution, being in the novel position of actually getting to decide what the powers of their own government were to be, were very fearful that it would be too powerful. A fear soon validated by the French Revolution's problems. (The idea that civil rights are somehow "earned" as mentioned in this comment thread is odd... the rights are not a "reward" to be earned, they were put in place as a precursor to any government: no American starts off without them and you do not need to be a taxpayer or even a citizen to enjoy them, you just need to be in US-ruled territory.) It does not make sense for anyone not residing in the US to be given freedom of speech or the right to bear arms by the US government. These rights are allowed (or not) by whoever governs the place where you are. If the US government is spying on you on your territory, it is up to your government to protect you. Note how the US government reacts when another country is spying on our citizens (well, corporates anyway.) The fourth amendment was not put in place because "gentlemen do not read each others' mail" but because the Brits used to bust in with general warrants to try and collect taxes and it pissed off the colonists. It was not the principal of the thing, really, but the consequences that got the colonists' goat. Since the US government can't really do anything to people not within the US except as an act of war, their search of your property--while reprehensible--is not meant to have been protected under the 4th. It does, unfortunately, make perfect sense for any non-American to want their Internet traffic kept from traversing US soil if by so doing it places that communication under US scrutiny. I suspect it would not be hard to set up routing tables that keeps traffic from entering the US unless that's the destination (but I'm talking out of my armpit, I'm not a network engineer.)

sneak 13y ago

From the declaration of independence: > 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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. All men. Rights endowed by their creator - not the government. The way I read that, regardless of government or location of their birth, the basic rights enumerated in the constitution are the birthright of every single human. My favorite way to battle the stupid bullshit neocon xenophobia is to leverage their own anti-state agenda (which, to be fair, I generally agree with) against them, by pointing out that the false dichotomy of us/them is based upon them labeling someone as "American"/"foreign", which is in turn based upon whether or not they are born within or without an imaginary line drawn by the state. PS: inb4 "but slaves are people too"

ceol 13y ago
The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, though.
nnash 13y ago
>PS: inb4 "but slaves are people too" Slaves were considered property like cattle, I'm sure there are higher ups who view non-natural born citizens and/or immigrants that way.