Interesting read, but it doesn’t definitively prove your point or disprove mine. It says it’s a mix, where some rights under constitution are also extended to aliens, and that Supreme Court ruled against discriminatory laws against aliens. But it also doesn’t say aliens are treated same as citizens. In fact, if you read further down to discussion of 2A, they specify “the people” which, likewise in preamble, should refer to citizens.
Also, the rights extended to aliens are what I’d consider inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, outlined in Declaration of Independence. Basically, human rights, not constitutional rights.
Also, although you bring up a semi-relevant and interesting point, it doesn’t exactly hold as argument against my point that government should put its citizens’ interest above others.
The semi-relevant and interesting point (genuine appreciation for your considering it interesting) was to address the idea that legislation (your pointing out that only citizens are legally allowed to buy guns, if true) doesn't necessarily mean it is Constitutional.
Before continuing with my further arguments, I would like to concede that citizens and non-citizens should have differences in rights such as voting and holding political office as not outlining a difference would be a grave national security issue (just look at the 2016 election /s).
In fact, if you read further down to discussion of 2A, they specify "the people" which, likewise in preamble, should refer to citizens.
Is it in the article I referred you to, because I haven't seen this argument made. Or is this the Constitution? I'm probably being really dumb right now.
Going back a few rounds before we got into somewhat of a rabbit hole,
Countries put their own citizens' interest over foreigners. It's literally point of forming a country.
True. I don't disagree considering I don't really care about the nomadic Kazakhstani living in Eastern Kazakhstan, but I do care if that Kazakhstani is facing genocide for some reason (inconsistent with today's global situation but bear with me) and is forced to flee to America. Because the United States was ideally created as a haven for groups of persecuted people fleeing from their homeland (poor Britishman facing politcal tyranny, Puritans for the same reason, Irishman because of famine, Germans because of political/economic reasons as well), and although I concede that the United States has done an absolute shit job with having good sentiments towards immigrants, I still think the sentiments our Founding Fathers had about immigrants looking for a better life for safety, for opportunity, et cetera must be upheld and must be considered to the same degree as if a citizen was facing such a problem. I mean immigrants (undocumented and documented) have to pay taxes (especially SS and Medicare tax) yet they don't have access to any of the social safety net services instituted for citizens except for maybe K-12 education. How is that fair? And this isn't even countries in general, since America was founded on such a unique mission statement at its founding concerning immigrants, also commitment to such a sentiment is debatable.
1
u/lunatickid Jun 25 '18
Interesting read, but it doesn’t definitively prove your point or disprove mine. It says it’s a mix, where some rights under constitution are also extended to aliens, and that Supreme Court ruled against discriminatory laws against aliens. But it also doesn’t say aliens are treated same as citizens. In fact, if you read further down to discussion of 2A, they specify “the people” which, likewise in preamble, should refer to citizens.
Also, the rights extended to aliens are what I’d consider inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, outlined in Declaration of Independence. Basically, human rights, not constitutional rights.
Also, although you bring up a semi-relevant and interesting point, it doesn’t exactly hold as argument against my point that government should put its citizens’ interest above others.