so jolanda jones feels that (if u live in htown u know who that bald headed chick is) she feels that the us consitution shoul apply to everyone in the world when you come to america, you are going to be ok. fuck if u came here and tried to blow up something, you get our excellent justce system. u dont get executed on the spot, like they would do in russia. and allthough i can understand how she feels, i think the rights and protections of the our consitution should apply to american citizens i think as a nation we allready do a good job taking care of people. we allow people from all over the world to come here and we dont throw them in labor camps. we allow anyone the use of our medical facilities in case of emergencys. we dont kill political opposition leaders. in general, if u come to our country you are safe, and most likely beter off then you were what does she mean by the consitution is for everyone in the world? what do yall think? if u give illegals all the same rights as american citizens, then what is so great about being an american citizen? might as well take that away. maybe with the comming one world goverment, there is no illegal imergration and some in the goverment are allready working as if that is happening allready?
Let me just throw a scenario out there. This did happen a few years ago. Three American nationals were hiking in Iraq. However, during their excursion, they unknowingly crossed the border into Iran, which is highly illegal. Should Iran: A: Treat them as enemy combatants, hold them indefinitely for two years, then declare them guilty of espionage with no trial? B: Be allowed a trial by jury wherein they present evidence of hiking and no intent of wrongdoing, and argue that they meant to harm and unknowingly crossed into Iran. (remember, it's still highly illegal)?
It was never intended to be for anyone other than American citizens hahaha, it's just a laughable notion, really. Only the modern liberal, socially indroctinating and otherwise silly mind tends to apply our constitution and extend it's benefits to everyone lol. Some people already take stances against illegal immigration and treating undocumented people like regular citizens and applying benefits (Libertarians and Republicans) but not enough peope do. They are too brainwashed by political correctness rather than truly rational / fair about the matter. I dunno, jobs is one thing but I definetely don't think it should entitle them to things like benefits. And w/e Lenny described a situation that doesn't really equate well to many people from other countries coming to America and basically living/working here for durations of time. But I do see the point, which is why I'm only for not giving illegals any sort of insurance, tax, income, medical, or aid benefit. Unless they are in a hospital bed about to die or injured from some accident. And yeah letsmokeasweet I think that's a good point about the global government thing.
yees! i remember that one. it happens all the time. i remmeber lisa lang. it felt good when u saw her hugging her sister thats what i am saying. here in america, you get that ability to go though some type of due process over there, they basicly kidnapp foeigners and use them for political ransom
I don't think you're comprehending my post properly They illegally crossed into Iran. They aren't citizens of Iran. Could you please answer which option Iran should execute?
uhmm so u think iran should basicly say they are guilty and should be dealt with as such? in which case you would also think that a mexican national who purposly crosses oour border should be charged with a crime as the people in iran did? i am pretty sure crossin our border is HIGHLY ILLEGAL also
But the Americans who illegally crossed into Iran aren't Iranian citizens, so should they still be entitled to a trial in Iran? The point I am trying to get across is, if you choose B then I would say it would make sense if the Constitution applied to all people in the United States who have been accused of a crime, or people who are accused of a crime by the US government using US law, regardless of citizenship The constitution says "people" "person" and not "citizen". The founders were familiar with the English language, I believe if they wanted the Constitution to apply to only citizens, they would specify. Especially the 5th amendment starting off as "no *person* shall be deprived of life....". I don't know what you mean by the one world government thing. You would have to give me a video or a manuscript of what the lady said. I'm guessing she means it should apply to anyone accused of a crime by the United States government and who will stand trial in the United States. I don't see why the law of the land would change because a person in the land is from the other side of the line in the sand. Of course, this is irrelevant because the government does not care about the constitution, and the government will violate constitutional rights of citizens and non-citizens on a regular basis. Consider being a citizen a privilege nowadays. Because you could be in GITMO, as a non-citizen not accused of a crime yet being indefinitely detained and tortured. If you choose A) - then. you're consistent at least.
My opinion is is that any Western person who is stupid enough to go hiking in Iraq, and ends up being arrested in Iran, probably deserves whatever they get. Expecting Iran to act the way we think they "should" is an exercise in futility.
@OP The constitution was for the U.S. government, not 'Americans'. Perhaps people could actually read the shit before making assertions about it.
Excuse my ignorance of this specific story, but: Who decided that was a good recreational activity???
I don't know, but if something stupid can be done there's always somebody, somewhere, who will try it.
One of the three people I guess. They were in Iraqi Kurdistan, which is a good hiking area, ignoring pretty much every other aspect of the region. I did not realize that the government actually granted civilians visas to Iraq at the time. Anyways, I hope you guys did see the point I was trying to make.
Since the OP's question applies to the US constitution..We don't charge illegal immigrants as spies in America. We just deport them I think I get your point but how the fuck does Iran have anything to do with this?
Hate to say it, since I'm also American. But they should be sentenced however the Iranians decide to punish them. And @OP I believe that the Constitution is actually our rules for the government. Not necessarily rules for Americans to follow if that makes sense? They aren't really rules it's more of a statement about rights and rules that we have as Americans that the government either has to follow or should/cannot try to challenge. Even though things like our gun rights and the right to a jury of our peers and the right to a fair and speedy trial are being taken away but nobody seems to care.
Not everyone that crosses illegally is an immigrant, but that is besides the point. It was just a scenario to question whether or not the Americans should have the right to trial by jury in Iran to present their case, even though they are not citizens of Iran. It was meant to draw parallels to non-citizens on US soil being accused of a crime, and whether the right to trial by jury (as is prescribed by the constitution) applies to them as well. The language of the constitution only says "person, and people" -- not "citizens" Basically, the American citizens allegedly committed a serious crime by making an unauthorized entry into Iran. If you believe that Iran should just declare them enemy combatants, hold them indefinitely, declare they are committing espionage and torture them for information, then (IMO) OP is logically consistent with wanting America's law of the land applying solely to citizens. However, if you believe that Iran should give the Americans a trial by jury that Iranians are entitled to wherein the Americans can plead their case, saying they meant no harm, it was an accident, etc, and have someone assess the evidence, then logic dictates that the constitution applies to more than American citizens, but rather anyone whom the US has suspected committed a crime. I mean, if you think three hikers are spies and they really aren't, that would be very important to ascertain right? And - the declaration of enemy combatants, indefinite detention, torture for information, not formally accusing of crimes does happen to non-US citizens in GITMO so it is a very realistic scenario. Honestly though, my scenario was directly aimed at OP since he's all gungho MURICA FUCK YEAH, LETS BOMB BROWN PEOPLE so I knew he'd probably not react well to the thought of Americans being tortured by Iran.
Word, I completely agree with you. Guess I was just trying to point out the flaws in the Iranian justice system and overall, the common Iranian morality views I mean , really ..anyone who thinks that shit is ok is fucking sick Also, I don't even want to formulate an opinion as to what Iran should have done in this situation. I don't agree with their laws/views in such matters so it would be out of place for me to suggest what they should do
No place is perfect really. Iran and the US both have their flaws. Iranian and American people are generally good, it's just the people in power that give the countries a bad rep. In case anyone doesn't know, the hikers were all eventually released. IMO it does not matter what the crime is, where it is located, and the severity of the crime, everyone should have the right to trial by jury.