NationStates Jolt Archive

It has occurred to me time and time again that some people seem to be of the belief that "Since X is a foreigner to country Y, then X is not protected by the laws of country Y" In other words: The belief that you must be a citizen to be protected by the law, while you can still be persecuted for it.

In particular, I've noticed this with some americans referring to the US constitution as only applying to US citizens. What kind of bullshit is that? If that's really true, the French have you beaten, as does the UN and most other countries.

Can anyone name any other countries where there is a significant portion of the population that believe this? That is, enough so that they are actually heard. Could just be this forum of course, but hey, who knows.

Yeah, I don't understand that type of thinking either.

Well, I'm not an Australian citizen.

And those bastards therefore don't want me to take advantage of the HECS-Scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HECS) (which is excellent and should be adopted around the world), and make me pay 3000 bucks every semester up-front.
They also don't like me to vote.

But on the other hand, they do allow me to pay taxes, as well as persecute me on the basis of "traffic infringements".

Well, I'm not an Australian citizen.

And those bastards therefore don't want me to take advantage of the HECS-Scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HECS) (which is excellent and should be adopted around the world), and make me pay 3000 bucks every semester up-front.
They also don't like me to vote.

But on the other hand, they do allow me to pay taxes, as well as persecute me on the basis of "traffic infringements".

That wasn't the "traffic infringement" of doing 200 km/h in your Rex was it? ;)

In particular, I've noticed this with some americans referring to the US constitution as only applying to US citizens. What kind of bullshit is that? If that's really true, the French have you beaten, as does the UN and most other countries.

if the u.s. constitution does not only apply to u.s. citizens, then it is not a u.s. constitution, but a world one.

so if i lived in some country and did something wrong, i shoudl expect not to be prosecuted because i'm not protected by those same laws?

That wasn't the "traffic infringement" of doing 200 km/h in your Rex was it? ;)
No, it was only about 20 km/h over the limit. But anyways, I reckon if they don't let me vote, their police shouldn't be bothering me.

No, it was only about 20 km/h over the limit. But anyways, I reckon if they don't let me vote, their police shouldn't be bothering me.
So you believe suffrage should depend on residence, not citizenship? Nice

So you believe suffrage should depend on residence, not citizenship? Nice
Makes sense, doesn't it?

I think national laws apply to all people, both foreign and native, within the borders of that nation. Outside of it, the laws of each particular country applies to those within their borders; however, countries that negotiate extradition treaties can return people who broke laws to the country wherein the law was broken.

Makes sense, doesn't it?
Yeah, but I’d like to see you convince Australia of that. You should have argued it just for fun in court.

I always find the "you can't do this to me, I'm an American" (for example, as it's one people will recognise) idea stupid.

Go to a country? Follow their laws.

Yeah, but I’d like to see you convince Australia of that. You should have argued it just for fun at the trial.
There was no trial. They had the evidence.

They gave me the choice, pay the fine or argue at the courts - but if I had lost the case, I'd also have had to pay the costs of that.

So I just paid. :(

if the u.s. constitution does not only apply to u.s. citizens, then it is not a u.s. constitution, but a world one.

so if i lived in some country and did something wrong, i shoudl expect not to be prosecuted because i'm not protected by those same laws?


Uh, I'm pretty sure the Constitution applies to any person currently residing within the borders of the United States. As a Canadian citizen living in Phoenix, I don't usually think twice about exercising freedom of speech, or worry about being subjected to cruel or unusual punishment, or arbitrary search or arrest.

It's true that parts of the Constitution only apply to citizens (i.e. anything dealing with voting), but they explicitly say so within the text.

Here's how it breaks down:

illegal immigrant-no rights. They are here illegally. They used an illegal shortcut. We like knowing if someone entering our country is a terrorist or not and if they come here illegally, we can't find out.

visitor-some rights. They are garanteed protection and health stuff. Not much beyond that.

immigrant-more rights than visitor, since they are living here.

Citizen-full rights. They can vote. They have a bigger chance of emplyment than immigrants.

Here's how it breaks down:

illegal immigrant-no rights. They are here illegally. They used an illegal shortcut. We like knowing if someone entering our country is a terrorist or not and if they come here illegally, we can't find out.

visitor-some rights. They are garanteed protection and health stuff. Not much beyond that.

immigrant-more rights than visitor, since they are living here.

Citizen-full rights. They can vote. They have a bigger chance of emplyment than immigrants.

For the illegal immigrant: Is he not going to be allowed to have freedom of speech? Protection from cruel and unusual punishment?

As far as voting, why not allow residents to vote?

Well, I'm not an Australian citizen.

And those bastards therefore don't want me to take advantage of the HECS-Scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HECS) (which is excellent and should be adopted around the world), and make me pay 3000 bucks every semester up-front.
They also don't like me to vote.

But on the other hand, they do allow me to pay taxes, as well as persecute me on the basis of "traffic infringements".

Actually HECS has been increasing for a while and is also indexed to inflation. The current government is trying to get uni courses to be become full-fee paying but forcing unis to get private money.

For residents, they are not CITIZENS. Therefore, they should not be deciding policy for the U.S. or any country of which they are not citizens. That's why, for instance, you don't see American soldiers of military bases in Germany voting in German elections.

That said, I agree: even illegal immigrants deserve rights such as free speech and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Sure, they should be punished for what they've done, but should be offered the same rights we give to any other criminal. We cannot just pick and choose; that's not fair. In fact, doing so, I think, is unAmerican.

For the illegal immigrant: Is he not going to be allowed to have freedom of speech? Protection from cruel and unusual punishment?

As far as voting, why not allow residents to vote?

resident implies you are a citizen of another country here legally for an extended eriod of time.

since that period is finite and you can vote where the problems truly affect you, that is why residents can't vote.

oh, and so other countries can't flood the u.s. to puppet vote. :)

Makes sense, doesn't it?Not really. I could be biased in this issue because I have dual citizenship, but I disagree with that. I feel a connection to both Germany and the U.S. due to my parentage and upbringing. Giving up one of my passports on account of residence would feel like giving up part of my personality, something which I'd prefer to avoid.

resident implies you are a citizen of another country here legally for an extended eriod of time.

since that period is finite and you can vote where the problems truly affect you, that is why residents can't vote.

oh, and so other countries can't flood the u.s. to puppet vote. :)

:P It's not that easy to become a U.S. resident. Don't worry about flooding.

Here in Belgium you get to vote in communal/municipal elections, but not in regional or federal elections.

You have to make in effort if you want to live abroad and vote in Denmark.

As far as free education and healthcare:
Denmark uses the system that you need to be a Danish citizen and you need to have lived in Denmark for two years before you get the free education (alternatively, be from any other EU country, Norway or Iceland, that works too... as well as Greenland and the faroes.)

Healthcare is free for everyone, but there's a lot more bureaucracy for non-residents, as they don't have a CPR number, therefore making it harder in non-emergency cases (they'll get treated, after the hospital gets an address, name, etc...).

If a person can be convicted for a crime in another country, (s)he should sure as fuck be covered by the law's protection.

If a person can be convicted for a crime in another country, (s)he should sure as fuck be covered by the law's protection.

so if they're not covered by the laws, the laws don't apply?

so i can go to canada and shoot up a bank and get away with it because i'm not protected by the laws that prosecute me?

Originally posted by Fleckenstein so i can go to canada and shoot up a bank and get away with it because i'm not protected by the laws that prosecute me?

Well in theory i suppose you could, you would just be extradited to your nation of citizenship and then be prosecuted for the crime of robbing a bank in their courts, assuming that said nation has a law for such a thing. In the case of the US, yep you'd still be getting in all kinds of trouble, but good ol' American justice, none of this Canadian law.

if the u.s. constitution does not only apply to u.s. citizens, then it is not a u.s. constitution, but a world one.

so if i lived in some country and did something wrong, i shoudl expect not to be prosecuted because i'm not protected by those same laws?

The US constitution applies to all people present in the USA, except for where it specifically states citizens.

Thus it is still a US constitution, not a world one, but applies to non US citizens.

so if they're not covered by the laws, the laws don't apply?

so i can go to canada and shoot up a bank and get away with it because i'm not protected by the laws that prosecute me?
You got me wrong. What I meant was that if a person can be prosecuted in another land at any moment, (s)he can surely be under the protection of the law at any moment: if the country you inhabit or travel through does not feel responsible for things that affect you (since you "live under some other law"), then it should have the decency not to prosecute you when you commit a crime. I'm sure there's no country out there that would be consistent in this way.

A country's laws apply to everyone within that country. Some of those laws may apply to a specific group (i.e. citizens, foreign nationals, people with criminal records, smokers, etc.), but if it doesn't say then it applies to everybody. In liberal countries the specific laws for citizens are usually just for voting and running for public office.

It has occurred to me time and time again that some people seem to be of the belief that "Since X is a foreigner to country Y, then X is not protected by the laws of country Y" In other words: The belief that you must be a citizen to be protected by the law, while you can still be persecuted for it.

In particular, I've noticed this with some americans referring to the US constitution as only applying to US citizens. What kind of bullshit is that? If that's really true, the French have you beaten, as does the UN and most other countries.

Can anyone name any other countries where there is a significant portion of the population that believe this? That is, enough so that they are actually heard. Could just be this forum of course, but hey, who knows.
that was the decision of the US Supreme Court in case brought against the state of california regarding anti illegal immigrant bill prop 187 in which the court overturned a lower court's ruling that 187 was unconstitutional.

It has occurred to me time and time again that some people seem to be of the belief that "Since X is a foreigner to country Y, then X is not protected by the laws of country Y" In other words: The belief that you must be a citizen to be protected by the law, while you can still be persecuted for it.

In particular, I've noticed this with some americans referring to the US constitution as only applying to US citizens. What kind of bullshit is that? If that's really true,

The US constitution does only apply to US citzens thats why it starts with "We the people ot the United States" not we the people of the world. Its not bullshit it what the constitution says if you dont believe me read it.

For residents, they are not CITIZENS. Therefore, they should not be deciding policy for the U.S. or any country of which they are not citizens. That's why, for instance, you don't see American soldiers of military bases in Germany voting in German elections.
Although that's a bit of a special case, seeing as to how US soldiers in Germany are not really affected by German politics. They don't pay taxes, they don't generally take advantage of various government projects and so on and so forth.

But if that American was not in the military, but just living in Germany on a residency visa - he'd be paying taxes, he'd feel the results of German policies, yet he wouldn't get to decide where his money goes.

I think I recall a certain war being started about that sort of thing...

Not really. I could be biased in this issue because I have dual citizenship, but I disagree with that. I feel a connection to both Germany and the U.S. due to my parentage and upbringing. Giving up one of my passports on account of residence would feel like giving up part of my personality, something which I'd prefer to avoid.
No one would be asking you to give up a passport. The question is just whether I should pay taxes without getting to decide where my money goes, while I vote for German politicians who can't do anything that affects me.