4 ms·

I'm appalled that so many Americans who are outraged about their government's mass surveillance of Americans simultaneously seem to think it's acceptable for th

I'm appalled that so many Americans who are outraged about their government's mass surveillance of Americans simultaneously seem to think it's acceptable for the US government to conduct mass surveillance on the citizens of other countries.

sliverstorm 13y ago
The US doesn't govern non-citizens. Most people don't see why people who do not pay taxes, obey US laws, etc have to be treated with all the perks of US citizens. Recall a feudal model, where a lord governs his people and protects them, but is not generally obligated to extend his protection to non-subjects. It's not a belief that foreigners have no rights, but more like foreigners have their own government to watch out for them. I don't really know which I personally believe, just sharing information.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    I ask you to consider, who are The People? (The ones whose rights we are securing in that text) It's used repeatedly but never formally defined. There is a clue though: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...
- sitkack 13y ago
  Not infringing on freedom isn't a perk, it is a natural born right. We don't live in feudal states, with live in the United States. "The People" formed the Union and wrote the exact rules that the government could operate under. You aren't granted rights by the Constitution. They are removed from federal government, the Constitution takes rights away from the federal government. A very important distinction.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    I'm not a constitutional scholar, but as I discussed in my other reply in this little alcove of the discussion- the Constitution appears to operate on US citizens (The People), not humanity: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...
    - aplusbi 13y ago
      The constitution makes a distinction between "person" and "citizen" and is careful to grant rights to "people" and not just "citizens". This is why freedom of speech applies to illegal immigrants and visitors and not just US citizens.
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        This is why freedom of speech applies to illegal immigrants and visitors Not if we read the text: 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. Extracting the relevant bit: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech Illegal immigrants and visitors "have" free speech because no laws may be enacted against it, period.
        aplusbi 13y ago
        You're missing the forest for the trees, but if it will make you happy, "congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble". Illegal immigrants and visitors have the right to assembly because no laws may be enacted against people assembling, not just citizens assembling. And perhaps more significantly, let's look at the 14th amendment (which I really should have started with in the first place): >All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Here there is a clear distinction between citizen and person

sliverstorm 13y ago

The US doesn't govern non-citizens. Most people don't see why people who do not pay taxes, obey US laws, etc have to be treated with all the perks of US citizens. Recall a feudal model, where a lord governs his people and protects them, but is not generally obligated to extend his protection to non-subjects. It's not a belief that foreigners have no rights, but more like foreigners have their own government to watch out for them. I don't really know which I personally believe, just sharing information.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  I ask you to consider, who are The People? (The ones whose rights we are securing in that text) It's used repeatedly but never formally defined. There is a clue though: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...
sitkack 13y ago
Not infringing on freedom isn't a perk, it is a natural born right. We don't live in feudal states, with live in the United States. "The People" formed the Union and wrote the exact rules that the government could operate under. You aren't granted rights by the Constitution. They are removed from federal government, the Constitution takes rights away from the federal government. A very important distinction.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  I'm not a constitutional scholar, but as I discussed in my other reply in this little alcove of the discussion- the Constitution appears to operate on US citizens (The People), not humanity: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...
  - aplusbi 13y ago
    The constitution makes a distinction between "person" and "citizen" and is careful to grant rights to "people" and not just "citizens". This is why freedom of speech applies to illegal immigrants and visitors and not just US citizens.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      This is why freedom of speech applies to illegal immigrants and visitors Not if we read the text: 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. Extracting the relevant bit: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech Illegal immigrants and visitors "have" free speech because no laws may be enacted against it, period.
      - aplusbi 13y ago
        You're missing the forest for the trees, but if it will make you happy, "congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble". Illegal immigrants and visitors have the right to assembly because no laws may be enacted against people assembling, not just citizens assembling. And perhaps more significantly, let's look at the 14th amendment (which I really should have started with in the first place): >All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Here there is a clear distinction between citizen and person