Did Michele Bachmann say foreigners have no rights?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When did the rights that Ameicans have died to enure become the property of the world. This is our country foreigners have no investment in our country. Anwar al-Awlaki is a turncoat to his country if he really considers himself an American. During a war if a soldier decides he wants to fight for the other side then he will be shot.

I believe the idea that our nation was founded upon was something along the lines of all men being created equal with the same inalienable rights. I don't think they only meant Americans. So is that a yes to the assassination option for an American citizen? I thought your argument was that only American citizens have constitutional rights, now it's only certain American citizens have constitutional rights?

For any american citizen the penalty for treason is death.

After a fair trial to ascertain whether they're actually guilty of treason, maybe. But assassination kind of takes that off the table.

 

[tonystewart1]

I believe the idea that our nation was founded upon was something along the lines of all men being created equal with the same inalienable rights. I don't think they only meant Americans. So is that a yes to the assassination option for an American citizen? I thought your argument was that only American citizens have constitutional rights, now it's only certain American citizens have constitutional rights?

For any american citizen the penalty for treason is death.

After a fair trial to ascertain whether they're actually guilty of treason, maybe. But assassination kind of takes that off the table.

I am sure that if we catch him he will be afforded all the rights of an american if he still has citizenship. When you have dual citizenship and swear allegiance to another country your american citizenship can be stripped.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

For any american citizen the penalty for treason is death.

After a fair trial to ascertain whether they're actually guilty of treason, maybe. But assassination kind of takes that off the table.

I am sure that if we catch him he will be afforded all the rights of an american if he still has citizenship. When you have dual citizenship and swear allegiance to another country your american citizenship can be stripped.

The problem is that we're not trying to catch him, we're trying to kill him. With no trial.

 

[tonystewart1]

After a fair trial to ascertain whether they're actually guilty of treason, maybe. But assassination kind of takes that off the table.

I am sure that if we catch him he will be afforded all the rights of an american if he still has citizenship. When you have dual citizenship and swear allegiance to another country your american citizenship can be stripped.

The problem is that we're not trying to catch him, we're trying to kill him. With no trial.

Why cant we defend our own country anymore. If world war 2 where to happen today most americans would just learn german and japanese and welcome our new overlords.

This country for all its flaws is precious to some of us and will be defended at all costs.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am sure that if we catch him he will be afforded all the rights of an american if he still has citizenship. When you have dual citizenship and swear allegiance to another country your american citizenship can be stripped.

The problem is that we're not trying to catch him, we're trying to kill him. With no trial.

Why cant we defend our own country anymore. If world war 2 where to happen today most americans would just learn german and japanese and welcome our new overlords.

This country for all its flaws is precious to some of us and will be defended at all costs.

Yeah... I'm not sure giving an American citizen his constitutional rights is really comparable to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, or counts as not defending the country. In fact, giving people their constitutional rights defends the ideals upon which this country was founded.

 

[mudwhistle]

Does Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann really believe foreigners have no rights under American law? Apparently so, according to her remarks during the Ames, Iowa debate August 11.

Fox News' Chris Wallace asked her why Rep. Ron Paul was wrong to insist that trials be held for terror suspects: "You say that we don't win the war on terror by closing Guantanamo and reading Miranda rights to terrorists. Congressman Paul says terrorists have committed a crime and should be given due process in civilian courts. Could you please tell Congressman Paul why he is wrong?"

Bachmann, who calls herself a "constitutional conservative," responded: "Because, simply, terrorists who commit acts against United States citizens, people who come from foreign countries to do that, do not have any right under our Constitution to Miranda rights."

GOP Debate: Michele Bachmann Says Foreigners Have No Rights

The author of this article thinks so, but to be fair I think she was simply referring to terrorists and not foreigners in general. That being said, Ron Paul's response to this was correct: "She says that the terrorists don't deserve protection under our courts. But therefore, a judgment has to be made. They are ruled a terrorist. Who rules them a terrorist?"

Two things......they are enemy combatants....they are taking up arms in a war against us. You don't read Miranda rights to armed aggressors.

They also are breaking rules set forth in the Geneva Convention by wearing civilian clothing. They have no protections under the convention.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Does Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann really believe foreigners have no rights under American law? Apparently so, according to her remarks during the Ames, Iowa debate August 11.

Fox News' Chris Wallace asked her why Rep. Ron Paul was wrong to insist that trials be held for terror suspects: "You say that we don't win the war on terror by closing Guantanamo and reading Miranda rights to terrorists. Congressman Paul says terrorists have committed a crime and should be given due process in civilian courts. Could you please tell Congressman Paul why he is wrong?"

Bachmann, who calls herself a "constitutional conservative," responded: "Because, simply, terrorists who commit acts against United States citizens, people who come from foreign countries to do that, do not have any right under our Constitution to Miranda rights."

GOP Debate: Michele Bachmann Says Foreigners Have No Rights

The author of this article thinks so, but to be fair I think she was simply referring to terrorists and not foreigners in general. That being said, Ron Paul's response to this was correct: "She says that the terrorists don't deserve protection under our courts. But therefore, a judgment has to be made. They are ruled a terrorist. Who rules them a terrorist?"

Two things......they are enemy combatants....they are taking up arms in a war against us.

They also are breaking rules set forth in the Geneva Convention by wearing civilian clothing. They have no protections under the convention.

Where is the enemy combatants designation in the Constitution?

 

[tonystewart1]

The constitiution gives the federal govt the responsiblity to defend our country.

 

[mudwhistle]

GOP Debate: Michele Bachmann Says Foreigners Have No Rights

The author of this article thinks so, but to be fair I think she was simply referring to terrorists and not foreigners in general. That being said, Ron Paul's response to this was correct: "She says that the terrorists don't deserve protection under our courts. But therefore, a judgment has to be made. They are ruled a terrorist. Who rules them a terrorist?"

Two things......they are enemy combatants....they are taking up arms in a war against us.

They also are breaking rules set forth in the Geneva Convention by wearing civilian clothing. They have no protections under the convention.

Where is the enemy combatants designation in the Constitution?

You tell me.

You're the one trying float this lie. Tell me why we must read Miranda rights to POWs.

 

[Caroljo]

It's unfortunately murky legal waters. If a foreign national comes here and steals from Wal-Mart, he's treated like any other criminal defendant. If a foreign soldier shoots and kills an American solider in the sands overseas, he's treated like an enemy combatant. But there's this whole realm in between...

I think that there SHOULD be a difference. Only American citizens should have any standing in American courts. Everyone else is either dealt with militarily or diplomatically/administratively. That's not to say "unfairly", just differently. Should be another whole body of jurisprudence.

Except that that's nowhere in the Constitution.

Well...there can be amendments made to the constitution. I don't believe in making amendments for just any reason, but for something like this, especially the way the world is now, i think it needs to be done. It needs to be in black and white what we will do to terrorists, how they will be tried and where, and it should be voted on by the people.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The constitiution gives the federal govt the responsiblity to defend our country.

But not in any way they want to.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Two things......they are enemy combatants....they are taking up arms in a war against us.

They also are breaking rules set forth in the Geneva Convention by wearing civilian clothing. They have no protections under the convention.

Where is the enemy combatants designation in the Constitution?

You tell me.

You're the one trying float this lie. Tell me why we must read Miranda rights to POWs.

I'm not trying to float any lie, if the enemy combatant designation isn't in the Constitution then it's unconstitutional. I've been explaining my position in this thread pretty clearly, but somehow I don't think constantly repeating myself is going to change your mind.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's unfortunately murky legal waters. If a foreign national comes here and steals from Wal-Mart, he's treated like any other criminal defendant. If a foreign soldier shoots and kills an American solider in the sands overseas, he's treated like an enemy combatant. But there's this whole realm in between...

I think that there SHOULD be a difference. Only American citizens should have any standing in American courts. Everyone else is either dealt with militarily or diplomatically/administratively. That's not to say "unfairly", just differently. Should be another whole body of jurisprudence.

Except that that's nowhere in the Constitution.

Well...there can be amendments made to the constitution. I don't believe in making amendments for just any reason, but for something like this, especially the way the world is now, i think it needs to be done. It needs to be in black and white what we will do to terrorists, how they will be tried and where, and it should be voted on by the people.

The Constitution certainly can be amended, but so far it hasn't happened and I doubt the federal government is going to bother when they can simply do whatever they want regardless.

 

[grunt11b]

It's unfortunately murky legal waters. If a foreign national comes here and steals from Wal-Mart, he's treated like any other criminal defendant. If a foreign soldier shoots and kills an American solider in the sands overseas, he's treated like an enemy combatant. But there's this whole realm in between...

I think that there SHOULD be a difference. Only American citizens should have any standing in American courts. Everyone else is either dealt with militarily or diplomatically/administratively. That's not to say "unfairly", just differently. Should be another whole body of jurisprudence.

Except that that's nowhere in the Constitution.

I love how liberals scream "Constitution" when they feel it's convenient for them, then turn around and bash the Tea Party for wanting the constitution to be followed. Hypocrisy anyone?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's unfortunately murky legal waters. If a foreign national comes here and steals from Wal-Mart, he's treated like any other criminal defendant. If a foreign soldier shoots and kills an American solider in the sands overseas, he's treated like an enemy combatant. But there's this whole realm in between...

I think that there SHOULD be a difference. Only American citizens should have any standing in American courts. Everyone else is either dealt with militarily or diplomatically/administratively. That's not to say "unfairly", just differently. Should be another whole body of jurisprudence.

Except that that's nowhere in the Constitution.

I love how liberals scream "Constitution" when they feel it's convenient for them, then turn around and bash the Tea Party for wanting the constitution to be followed. Hypocrisy anyone?

What's that old saying about making assumptions?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Except that that's nowhere in the Constitution.

Here:

Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?

s the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?

Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?

Can the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review?

Conclusion:

A five-justice majority answered yes to each of these questions. The opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that if the MCA is considered valid its legislative history requires that the detainees' cases be dismissed. However, the Court went on to state that because the procedures laid out in the Detainee Treatment Act are not adequate substitutes for the habeas writ, the MCA operates as an unconstitutional suspension of that writ. The detainees were not barred from seeking habeas or invoking the Suspension Clause merely because they had been designated as enemy combatants or held at Guantanamo Bay. The Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's ruling and found in favor of the detainees.

Boumediene v. Bush | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

The constitiution only protects American citizens; native or naturalized.

What if she did say that foreigners have no rights? The Constitution applies to American Citizens. The Contsitution does not apply to illegals or nationals from other countries. So, in a sense, the statement would be accurate.

Incorrect.

Illegal and legal aliens are entitled to habeas and due process rights:

Facts of the Case:

A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens. This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child.
Question:

Did the law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion:

Yes. The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.

Plyler v. Doe | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Consequently Ms. Bachmann is wrong. Again. The evidence that she is unfit to serve as president (or in Congress for that matter) continues to mount. So much for Oral Roberts ‘law school.’

 

[NoNukes]

The constitiution only protects American citizens; native or naturalized.

Miranda is not in the constitiution. Its some of the legislation that the SCOTUS has handed down to us.

American courts are for american citizens. Foreign nationals should be deported after commiting a crime unless it is terrorism then they are and enemy combatant and subject to the rules of war.

Bachman was doing what all politicians do. She was sidestepping the issue and put her foot in her mouth.

Do you not have to prove they committed a crime?

A foreign national is a guest in our country. We dont need proof just a presumption of guilt. A guest can be asked to leave anytime the host wants to.

One of the many reasons that I no longer live in America.

 

[Sallow]

The constitiution only protects American citizens; native or naturalized.

Miranda is not in the constitiution. Its some of the legislation that the SCOTUS has handed down to us.

American courts are for american citizens. Foreign nationals should be deported after commiting a crime unless it is terrorism then they are and enemy combatant and subject to the rules of war.

Bachman was doing what all politicians do. She was sidestepping the issue and put her foot in her mouth.

Absolutely incorrect.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. 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.