Jerome,
>Dale...the following article explains the rights of foreign nationals...Our constitution states that all persons
shall be treated equally. It does not differentiate between foreign nationals or others.<
I see nothing in the article that "explains" the rights of foreign nationals, nor evidence that the constitution was written for everyone fortunate enough to get his toe out of the water and onto our shores. Having said that, I can't prove that it doesn't pertain to them, either. I guess I'd like to know one way or the other.
But even if it does (the constitution) cover everyone, I question the sanity of such an interpretation, especially in light of recent events and the ongoing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the world. There are really many issues involved here:
1. The interpretation of just who should enjoy the rights given by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
2. What additional laws, (immigration or otherwise), cover the rights of foreign nationals.
3. What rights does this nation have regarding the enactment of new laws to protect itself from uncontrolled entrance and movement about by people bent on our destruction?
4. When do the rights of the masses override the rights of the individual?
It is often quoted that our Constitution is a "living document" that has to be constantly interpreted to address societal and technological changes. I agree with that, and would suggest that some new interpretations may be in order right now to ensure our continued survival. I say that because I am not at all convinced that we have seen the worst of the terrorists.
Just because we are having some success in Afghanistan doesn't mean the terrorists are through with us. One of the ways I remind myself of their seriousness is by telling myself that "If the WTC would have been full that day, and 50,000 innocent American people would have been killed, it would have made no difference to the terrorists. In fact, they would have rejoiced a lot more than they did". There are estimates that nearly 70,000 terrorists have been trained in camps, and that most of them are still alive and well. Someone also said that they "Don't have much of a retirement program" and cannot be expected to simply melt away. I expect that is also true, and that the future holds more horror and death for our country before they are removed from this earth. But I see I'm starting to run on, and need to get my thoughts back in order, so let me try to get back on track.
In regards to the questioning of the 5000 Middle Easterners, I have no personal problem with this. I read somewhere that most of the candidates for questioning are students, here on visas, and the FBI is attempting to determine whether or not, they are in fact attending school. If these people are here on visas only, answering these questions should be mandatory, not discretionary. If the Constitution says that we cannot even ask them such a simple question to help ensure our own safety, then it should be, in my opinion, burned.
If selecting 5000 Middle Easterners for questioning is racial profiling........so be it. Since all the terrorists were Mid-Easterners, would it seem intelligent to question to Vietnamese, or Laotians, instead? To me, it seems more like the application of simple logic rather than racial profiling, and should give all people with a lick of common sense, reason to question the spreading outlawing of racial profiling.
One other issue also under fire is the issue of military tribunals to deal with suspected terrorists. Liberals are falling all over themselves decrying the legality of this concept, in spite of past precedent. Again, my personal opinion is, thank God for a person of such resolve as Bush, who is willing to accept the heat for implementing these military courts. I doubt that it was really his idea, since he is pretty much a lightweight when it comes to creativeness, but he at least has the guts to implement the heavy-handed policy that tribunals represent. To me, they seem the ideal venue to handle people such as terrorists, who deal not in ethereal concepts of individual rights such as addressed by the Constitution, but in down and dirty, realistic, and effective implementation of ways to destroy as many people as they can.
I guess you might say that I favor a common sense approach to dealing with the issues arrising from 9/11. IMHO, the courts, with little of real consequence to consider, other than their navels, have, in the past decades, gone too far in their protection of individual rights. The evil and barbarism that exists in the world today, and the ease with which its ramifications can be brought to our country, demands more wide-ranging and realistic thinking.
Thanks for giving me the forum.
Regards,
Knip
P.S., I'm an independent, though I lean toward conservative thinking on most issues. I'm especially proud not to be associated with either party, which gives me the opportunity vote the way I want to, not what they might want. |
