Cicero

1. But by simply being in a country, you have agreed to abide by it's laws, legally speaking; therefore, you would be covered by it's laws, including protections.

2. All constitutional protections granted to citizens are likewise granted to citizens, unless directly specified otherwise.

comrade009

I don't think that simply residing in a country means that you have agreed to abide by its laws and be governed by it. I mean, there are a lot of other reasons that a person could try to enter a country besides desiring citizenship (such as being a fugitive). That's why I think attaining citizenship is necesary to state your desire to have your rights protected by government and in turn to subject to being governed.

And BTW, sorry bout confusing Hobbes and Locke. I haven't really been thinking about them since the last time we even mentioned them in my history class, like a year ago or something.

Evangelion

Rousseau also. See The State of Nature and Society (1762), where he writes:

• The passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces a very remarkable change in man, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly lacked.

Sue Sponte

In other words, as long as the government CLAIMS (true or not) that you are a terrorist, you have no rights.

That anyone would willingly concede such power to the government is terrifying. I trust you will revisit the issue once accused, with or without reason, of aiding or abetting terrorism. Unfortunately, you will have no lawyer, visitor or phone call on which to express your complaints. And at that moment, I presume you will convince yourself that it is all for the good because you feel safer from yourself.

Cicero

Remember when America had the guts to stick to it's principles?

Loren Pechtel

I'm describing the reality.

I do think those caught on terrorism charges are entitled to more rights than they get. Those convicted, though...

ohwilleke

I don't think citizenship is a valid ground for denying people civil rights (e.g. the enemy combatant thing). Civil rights are really human rights.

I'd be willing to go so far as to take the position adopted by New Zealand, that allows residents of the country to vote even if they are not citizens. The E.U. has come close by allowing E.U. citizens who are not citizens of the country where the reside to vote in municipal elections.

Quite frankly, I think that the notion of citizenship at all, is an outdated one. Creating a class of people who are allowed or suffered to live in a country, who are not citizens, and another who are citizens, is generally a practice that leads to discrimation, exploitation, and serves few useful purposes.

Why should a person born in Mexico to Mexican parents be treated so differently from somone born across the border to Mexican parents. Why should someone born in Mexico to Mexican parents who has lived in the U.S. for decades, perhaps most of his or her life, be treated differently than someone born in the U.S. or born outside the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents?

I think that the next big free trade issue, already a matter of right within the E.U. will be freedom of immigration and freedom to work without regard to citizenship.

People are simply people. They are not pawns of the governments whom they, usually through no voluntary act, happen to end up associated with.

Corwin

Not true. Civil rights are rights you have by virtue of being part of a given civil society, and they (usually) carry specific responsibilities along with them. (Such as taxes, voting, and being subject to certian laws.) Noncitizens don't have these particular responsibilites, so why should they get the same rights?

Human rights are rights that we have decided are just general. Not part of being a part of a particular society, and in general we feel other societies should respect those rights as an inherent part of being human.

John Hancock

I think that I agree with Corwin on this one.

Martin

Silent Acorns

What the hell is wrong with you people? Of course non-citizens have civil rights (with the exception of a few, like the right to vote). Are you seriously trying to tell me that if you came to visit me in Canada, and the RCMP beat you up and held you in jail indefinitely for no other reason than because you could not prove Canadian citizenship, you would just shrug your shoulders and say, "oh well, serves me right - after all I'm not a citizen"?

Basic human rights should be universal. The right to an attourney, to a trial, to not be randomly beat up by roaming thugs, etc. Citizenship shouldn't have anything to do with it.