Should foreigners have the same rights as citizens?

Well, I have seen this hinted at in other threads but...

Most (all I believe--at least with regards to the suicides) of these terrorists were not citizens of the USA. They were foreign nationals in the US for some reason or another.

Now I know there are some good reasons to give people visiting our country many of the same rights as citizens enjoys but should we give them the exact same rights? If so, why? If not, what rights should they have (or should we take away from them)?

[erik_kosberg]

Well, since my dad is a resident of the U.S. but not a citizen, I’m not exactly in favor of restricting foreigner’s civil liberties any more than I am of jumping on the bandwagon of restricting citizen’s liberties as so many people seem so willing to do in the last few days.

[MrsNormanMaine[$]]

If we start restricting the liberties of 'foreigners' where do we stop? With those on temporary visas? With those with green cards? With those who are permanent residents? With those who are naturalized citizens but who were born and raised somewhere else? With their children? If we start taking it to illogical extremes, most of the population would be restricted and the terrorists win by default. Any changes that are made have to apply to all equally, not to some sometimes.

MNM

But why not? Why isn't he a citizen?

Sigh. Yeah I know that sounds a bit confrontational and am not trying to press you for personal information.

I am just curious about peoples' reactions to this sort of thing. I am not suggesting mass xenophobia or anything of the sort but I do think it is curious that people are willing to impose restrictions on the people in this country but not willing to section themselves from noncitizens...

Really I can see some problems there myself but it seems like just dismissing the idea out of hand has something behind that (not really addressing a particular person with this comment, just in general--I have seen it dismissed as silly in a couple different threads).

I would tend to say personally that there are some rights that definitely shouldn't be tampered with but other rights...

Shrug.

Ander

"If we start restricting the liberties of 'foreigners' where do we stop?"

Why the quotes? That was exactly what the question was.

This is a sort of slippery slope argument. It really isn't tough to distinguish between people that aren't citizens and people that are.

The question I posed does have some problems with it (people from other countries *don't* have the exact same rights as it is) and yeah I could see that perhaps imposing restrictions might have an eroding effect but why?

Ander

[erik_kosberg]

It really isn't tough to distinguish between people that aren't citizens and people that are.

It isn’t? What makes it easy?

I guess that if it was tough, we could always make it easier by forcing them to wear yellow stars or something like that.

Originally posted by anderclayton
This is a sort of slippery slope argument. It really isn't tough to distinguish between people that aren't citizens and people that are.

How can you tell who is or isn't before you stop them to ask? I live in a multi-ethnic neighborhood, and I honestly couldn't tell you which people are citizens and which aren't.

Wouldn't stopping someone to ask "Hey, can I check your ID" be something of a civil rights violation? How is that different from racial profiling?

[realtraveller]

If you are a foreigner in the country legally, then of course you have the same civil rights as a citizen, except that you can be deported if you commit crimes.

However, a foreigner has NO constitutional right to enter this country. The country can put whatever limitations on visas and entry it deems necessary or proper. Being permitted to enter the U. S. if you are not a citizen should be viewed as a gift from this country.

I learned today on the news that there are 5 million foreign nationals here who entered legally but have overstayed their tourist or student visas and the INS has absolutely no way to find them. They also have no way to check if you have violated visas in the past, and seek entry again to know that and deal with it. The INS is a miserable mess.

I said:

"It really isn't tough to distinguish between people that aren't citizens and people that are. "

Eric said:

"It isn’t? What makes it easy?"


I was talking about the government being able to distinguish who is and isn't a citizen.

I suppose though, if the government doesn't keep records of people that enter into the country (as noncitizens) or of people that become citizens then it wouldn't be easy...

Ummmm... I think tons of racial profiling is going to be going on right now anyhow. I think that certain nationalities are going to be watched right now anyhow. Is this a violation of their rights?

Ander

[realtraveller]

Ander,
This is how I understand it. They know who has entered the country legally. They know how long that person is supposed to stay. (That is how so many of the potential conspirators are being kept in custody. Their visas had expired.) But once the foreign visitor has overstayed his visa, the INS has no way to locate him to assist his exit out of the country.

For example, some of the terrorists merely gave the name of a hotel where supposedly they'd be staying. That's it. You don't have to show a passport when checking into a hotel here as I have done in Europe many times.

[Workingmomof2]

There are a lot of people jumping to conclusions about arab americans - citizens or not - in the US right now and it's really frustrating for me. This is not directed toward anyone on this board, it just hit a major sore spot with me.

For example, did you know that there are about 15 million Christians living in the "arab nations"? And there are 3.5 arab americans in the US - but 2 million of those are Christians? Yes, the majority (but not all) of the remaining arab americans are muslim - which means that only 1.5 of the 6(+) million muslims living in the US are arab... kindof makes you think huh?

Anyway it is an interesting issue - and one that brings home the whole dilemma. Then again, one of my good friends is an arab american, raising her four kids here. She was born here, and you'd swear she was italian if you saw her in the grocery store. But she had to pull her kids out of school, because they were threatened. Yes, she's muslim, by the way -- but she was so upset by this. She said, "These people do not speak for me!" I agree -- and I can relate. These people do not speak for my friend, anymore than the folks who bomb the abortion clinics or those who hold KKK rallies speak for me, though they may claim they do it because of their (Christian) beliefs.

Just another side issue ---

I can understand that. That was kinda why I phrased the question the way I did. It seems interesting that people are able to suddenly clamp down on one particular ethnic group all of a sudden and people don't have any objections but that it can't really be a general thing.

I also think that it is interesting that we do give foreign nationals (yeah I agree that "foreigner" has a negative tone to it but think it is interesting that it does) more rights than pretty much *any* other country does...

Ander

[Redlass]

Pray tell, if we deny "foreigners" rights in this country, on what moral ground will we stand when we accuse other countries of violating human rights?

"Rights" are just that.

Now, we may extend certain benefits to our citizens that we don't to non-citizens. That seems fair, our citizens pay more taxes and have certain disadvantages. We may put limits on what public services are available to citizens versus non-citizens.

However, our Constitution and Bill of Rights says that "all men are created equal" not "all Americans are created equal."

Let us not lose our ideals. We're a great country because of our character and our belief that all people have inalienable rights. Let us not turn into a Roman empire where only citizens had rights. (I believe they identified citizens by a ring and particular types of dress, but it has been awhile since I've studied that.)

[Redlass]

We posted at the same time.

but think it is interesting that it does) more rights than pretty much *any* other country does...

That's because the very spirit of our Constitution demands it.

I would tend to say that "human rights" are a bit different than "rights" in general though. There are certain things that are a little ambiguous here (as in not unalienable).

Yeah I do agree that our Constitution demands a lot of it but it kinda becomes a bit of a problem in cases like this.

Ander

[CeeJay62]

I heard it phrased this way. If you make it into this country, if you make it as far as within three miles of the beaches of this country, you have most of the same rights as any citizen, EVEN if you have only come here for six months in order to learn enough about flying airplanes to crash one into a building.

That I don't like.

But, I couldn't begin to tell you how much further back on the pendulum we should go, or what a remedy for this issue might be, with any real measure of confidence.

[Redlass]

Yeah I do agree that our Constitution demands a lot of it but it kinda becomes a bit of a problem in cases like this.

There are a lot of things about our Constitution which are problematical. It's over-simplifying, but we fought a war between the states because of some of those problematical issues.

Was it really so long ago that we were preaching the importances of spreading democracy? If we want to spread democracy, we first must practice it at home with EVERYONE within our borders. We take rights away from criminals. We don't take rights away from people based on where they were born.

Many, many people live all their lives here without ever becoming citizens. Indeed, it is not uncommon among Irish immigrants. But I don't think we're talking about taking away the rights of our Irish residents.

[mtomm[$]]

Or tons of Canadians.

"But I don't think we're talking about taking away the rights of our Irish residents"

Hmm... Perhaps "rights" wasn't exactly the right term to use. I suppose "priviledges" would probably be a better term to use (the so-called "right to privacy" isn't exactly a right). The problem is that many of the priviledges that we enjoy are taken as rights and so conveyed to people not from our country as the same.

Yeah I was talking about Irish as much as I was talking about anyone else--if we are going to revise policy for one set of foreign nationals, my view is that we should do it for everyone. Otherwise the same sort of thing will happen again with some other nationality. Yeah it sounds a bit xenophobic but hmmm... Take someone that has lived in the country for most of their life. Why exactly haven't they become a citizen? Generally some sort of lingering loyalty towards their previous country...

The problem with that sort of thinking is that it can easily lead into serious xenophobic/isolationist thinking which isn't terribly good. On the other hand, sectioning off a specific ethnic minority of people isn't good either. On the other other hand, people could just as easily say the citizenship oaths and not really mean them. On the other other other hand, some sort of background check is general for nationalized citizens. On the other other other other hand, this is isolating and encroaching on their own personal liberties. On the other other other other other hand, this is standardized around the world (except for us and perhaps a couple other countries) and so it isn't necessarily that bad...

Really a sticky issue but something that is definitely relevant. I just thought of something when driving around. In some ways, foreign nationals have more liberties in this country than citizens do. I would bet that the reason that many of the people are being held as "material witnesses" is so that they can't be deported into their home country to face trial there. I had been a bit curious about that particular phrasing...

Ander

[hadassahchana[$]]

. Why exactly haven't they become a citizen? Generally some sort of lingering loyalty towards their previous country...

Ok, I'll be blunt here - why is it any of your business? And who do you know personally who is a legal immigrant in order to base your statement about their motivation? I am going to be interested in this reply, I'll tell you.

On the other other other hand, some sort of background check is general for nationalized citizens

Ander, 'some sort of ' background check is a process which is currently taking more than a year for those who wish to work in the US with a Green Card. When my husband got his, it took just over 9 months. So, both for those who become citizens and for those who remain legal aliens, a really thorough background check is part of the entire procedure. Don't go accusing holders of Green cards of slipping in between the cracks until you find out what you're talking about.

In some ways, foreign nationals have more liberties in this country than citizens do

I'm glad to hear this. Please , post that list here...

Cindy

[wivabef]

Hi!

Me here, the Canadian Citizen living in the states!

Paying same taxes (more should hubby die).

Not able to vote.

Not able to run for office.

Not able to work for the Post Office!!!

As to Ander's question about why I am not -- I have my papers and am working on it (takes about a year and a half here in NH).

Why wasn't I before? INS lost my papers when they did that green paper lottery amnesty bit back in the 80's for tens of thousands of illegals.

I am still waiting, too, to hear about how we "pay less taxes" and "enjoy more liberties".

(by the way, the cards aren't green any more, they are red, white and blue)

And what ever happened to that line under Lady Liberty? Give us your "fill in the blank"?

By the way, Tim McVeigh wouldn't have passed your screening. And don't even get me started on Klansmen.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by anderclayton
I would bet that the reason that many of the people are being held as "material witnesses" is so that they can't be deported into their home country to face trial there. I had been a bit curious about that particular phrasing...

My understanding is that they don't yet have enough evidence to charge them with a specific crime, or in fact they might not have committed a specific crime but are associates of the terrorists, and the "material witness" charge is a way to hold them temporarily -- otherwise they would flee. I don't think it has anything to do with whether they are citizens or not.

As for the citizen issue, if you kept out all foreign workers, tourists, and students, I think the economy would collapse pretty quickly.

[wivabef]

Originally posted by AuntieEmma

As for the citizen issue, if you kept out all foreign workers, tourists, and students, I think the economy would collapse pretty quickly.

Not to mention Saturday Night Live...

Elyzabeth
Who would like to remind you that Monty Hall was a canadian.

Originally posted by wivabef
Who would like to remind you that Monty Hall was a canadian.

Fine. Take him back....

or would you rather have what's behind Door Number Three?

-ls/file13

[wivabef]

Originally posted by file13


Fine. Take him back....

or would you rather have what's behind Door Number Three?

-ls/file13

No, no -- you can keep him! Along with Peter Jennings.

But, for personal reasons, can I keep Michael J. Fox?