What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Did Michele Bachmann say foreigners have no rights?

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,365
Reaction score
1,724
Points
205
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?"
 

William Joyce

Chemotherapy for PC
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
9,758
Reaction score
1,154
Points
190
Location
Caucasiastan
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.
 
OP
Kevin_Kennedy

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,365
Reaction score
1,724
Points
205
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.
 

Auxous

Rookie
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
364
Reaction score
29
Points
0
The author of this article thinks so, but to be fair I think she was simply referring to terrorists and not foreigners in general.

You can't legally claim someone as a terrorist until they been tried. Once they are deemed a terrorist, then they lose their rights.

You either support habeas corpus or you don't.
 
Last edited:
OP
Kevin_Kennedy

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,365
Reaction score
1,724
Points
205
The author of this article thinks so, but to be fair I think she was simply referring to terrorists and not foreigners in general.

You can't legally claim someone as a terrorist until they been tried. Once they are deemed a terrorist, they then lose their rights.

You either support habeas corpus or you don't.

Well the rest of my post made that exact point, so I'm not sure why you cut it off.
 

Auxous

Rookie
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
364
Reaction score
29
Points
0
OP
Kevin_Kennedy

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,365
Reaction score
1,724
Points
205
You can't legally claim someone as a terrorist until they been tried. Once they are deemed a terrorist, they then lose their rights.

You either support habeas corpus or you don't.

I guess we disagree that Michelle Bachmann was defending habeas corpus.

No, I don't think that we do, unless you're of the opinion that she was defending habeas corpus. I simply disagreed with the article's premise that she thought absolutely no foreigners had any rights in the U.S.
 

Auxous

Rookie
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
364
Reaction score
29
Points
0
No, I don't think that we do, unless you're of the opinion that she was defending habeas corpus. I simply disagreed with the article's premise that she thought absolutely no foreigners had any rights in the U.S.

I see. It is a bit hyperbolic and sensationalized.
 

tonystewart1

VIP Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
914
Reaction score
159
Points
78
Location
McDowell County, WV
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.
 
Last edited:
OP
Kevin_Kennedy

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,365
Reaction score
1,724
Points
205
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.

Where in the Constitution is that specified, however? Like the article says, "The Constitution limits the government's actions, and makes no exceptions based upon nationality or location. Every "person" is entitled to due process, a trial, and representation by an attorney before the government can take away their liberty and throw them into prison."
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
72,330
Reaction score
18,672
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
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.

The Constitution starts "We the People of the United States." I am not advocating that foreigners should not have rights, only that Bachman's right they don't have Constitutional rights other then what we chose to give them. We meaning congress. In particular that foreigners overseas have Constitutional rights is preposterous. As for Miranda, that's a made up right by the Supreme Court anyway. Even Americans don't have that right in the Constitution. The Constitution was created to protect the rights of the innocent from government harassment. Miranda is designed to protect criminals from their victims.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
72,330
Reaction score
18,672
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
Where in the Constitution is that specified, however? Like the article says, "The Constitution limits the government's actions, and makes no exceptions based upon nationality or location. Every "person" is entitled to due process, a trial, and representation by an attorney before the government can take away their liberty and throw them into prison."

It's "We the people of the United States," not "We citizens of the world legally or illegally physically present in the United States." Again that does not mean foreigners have no rights, congress can regulate it. In no other country do foreigners have the full, automatic rights of citizens of those countries. That doesn't mean we don't have rights overseas or they don't have rights here. But they are not automatic just because they get here legally or not until they are citizens.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,058
Points
0
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.

You are aware that the world doesn't function in accordance with our Constitution, right? It's the US Constitution - not the world's.

Only Americans get their Constitutional rights. Fool.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

Common_Tater

With butter & sour cream
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
30
Reaction score
5
Points
1
Location
Indiana
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.
 

tonystewart1

VIP Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
914
Reaction score
159
Points
78
Location
McDowell County, WV
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.

Where in the Constitution is that specified, however? Like the article says, "The Constitution limits the government's actions, and makes no exceptions based upon nationality or location. Every "person" is entitled to due process, a trial, and representation by an attorney before the government can take away their liberty and throw them into prison."

Its not specified in the Constitution in any specific place. The constitution was written to limit the power the govt has over its citizens.

How can anybody even think that a foreign national has any rights in this country? They dont pay taxes, they dont vote, and if they are here to commit a crime they are just a drain on our society.

I am not advocating taking away someones liberity if they rob walmart. Send them back they are not welcome back anymore. If you come here to wage war; thats what terrorism is; then dont expect to ever see the light of day again.
 
OP
Kevin_Kennedy

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,365
Reaction score
1,724
Points
205
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.

The Constitution starts "We the People of the United States." I am not advocating that foreigners should not have rights, only that Bachman's right they don't have Constitutional rights other then what we chose to give them. We meaning congress. In particular that foreigners overseas have Constitutional rights is preposterous. As for Miranda, that's a made up right by the Supreme Court anyway. Even Americans don't have that right in the Constitution. The Constitution was created to protect the rights of the innocent from government harassment. Miranda is designed to protect criminals from their victims.

"We the people..." is the preamble, and the preamble has no legal authority. It's merely a statement. I think we're looking at this argument from the wrong perspective, however. The federal government has constitutional limits, and it can't do certain things because the Constitution either expressly forbids it or doesn't give it the authority. Now it doesn't make any difference whether the person is American or Canadian that commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the U.S., the federal government is limited by the Constitution in how it can deal with that situation.

As for Miranda rights, that's not an invention that's simply being informed of your constitutional rights. And Miranda rights are given to people suspected of committing crimes, not criminals themselves. Remember in the U.S. we presume innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
 
OP
Kevin_Kennedy

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,365
Reaction score
1,724
Points
205
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.

You are aware that the world doesn't function in accordance with our Constitution, right? It's the US Constitution - not the world's.

Only Americans get their Constitutional rights. Fool.

You are aware that I'm not arguing that someone who is suspected of a crime somewhere else in the world can rely on our Constitution to protect them? Apparently you're not. I'm discussing crimes committed within the jurisdiction of the United States. The U.S. government is not authorized by the Constitution to deal with a suspected crime differently simply because the suspect is not a U.S. citizen.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,058
Points
0
Except that that's nowhere in the Constitution.

The Constitution starts "We the People of the United States." I am not advocating that foreigners should not have rights, only that Bachman's right they don't have Constitutional rights other then what we chose to give them. We meaning congress. In particular that foreigners overseas have Constitutional rights is preposterous. As for Miranda, that's a made up right by the Supreme Court anyway. Even Americans don't have that right in the Constitution. The Constitution was created to protect the rights of the innocent from government harassment. Miranda is designed to protect criminals from their victims.

"We the people..." is the preamble, and the preamble has no legal authority. It's merely a statement. I think we're looking at this argument from the wrong perspective, however. The federal government has constitutional limits, and it can't do certain things because the Constitution either expressly forbids it or doesn't give it the authority. Now it doesn't make any difference whether the person is American or Canadian that commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the U.S., the federal government is limited by the Constitution in how it can deal with that situation.

As for Miranda rights, that's not an invention that's simply being informed of your constitutional rights. And Miranda rights are given to people suspected of committing crimes, not criminals themselves. Remember in the U.S. we presume innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

Libertarians are as bad and damned leftists. Y'all want to bankrupt Americans for the sake of those who have no interest in our country or our Constitution. The preamble defines who 'we' are. It does not pertain to anyone other than Americans. Don't believe me... ask any non Americans. They'll tell you.

Idiot.
 

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,769
Reaction score
6,375
Points
1,830
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.

What is the threshold for determining when a crime officially becomes terrorism?

Plenty of foreigners murder people in this country. It's terrifying whether one person is killed or 3000 people are killed.

Where does a murder end and terrorism begin?
 
OP
Kevin_Kennedy

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,365
Reaction score
1,724
Points
205
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.

Where in the Constitution is that specified, however? Like the article says, "The Constitution limits the government's actions, and makes no exceptions based upon nationality or location. Every "person" is entitled to due process, a trial, and representation by an attorney before the government can take away their liberty and throw them into prison."

Its not specified in the Constitution in any specific place. The constitution was written to limit the power the govt has over its citizens.

How can anybody even think that a foreign national has any rights in this country? They dont pay taxes, they dont vote, and if they are here to commit a crime they are just a drain on our society.

I am not advocating taking away someones liberity if they rob walmart. Send them back they are not welcome back anymore. If you come here to wage war; thats what terrorism is; then dont expect to ever see the light of day again.

And since it wasn't specified the government is limited in what it's able to do.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top