# My new cousin can't get back from Canada **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 21, 2003, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997 "2003-01-21T16:41:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997/161 "2003-01-25T12:15:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eva Luna \* > thanks, **sailor** and **Truth Seeker,** for defending my honor Oh, it is nothing. Don’t even mention it. As a knight errant is my duty to come to the defense of those who are wronged and much more so in the case of a fair damsel such as yourself. But, I say, after a day of tilting at windmills I feel weary and my suit of shining armor feels heavy. Would you like us to stop at this Starbucks and chat over a cup of espresso? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997/162 "2003-01-25T12:18:18Z")
Lib, go back to your strange world; the giant squid is looking for you. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997/163 "2003-01-25T14:23:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eva Luna \* > And \*\* december, \*\* until you can come up with a single cite that indicates that non-citizens under U.S. jurisdictions do not, by law, enjoy the same freedom from arbitrary detention and access to legal counsel, (underline added) When you say “by law,” do you mean to distinguish between _legislation_ and _Constitutional interpretations_? Do we agree that Constitutionally, there _can_ be differences in the freedom enjoyed by citizens and non-citizen visitors? As far as legislated law goes, I don’t know. You may be correct that all legislation related to arbitrary detention and legal counsel applies equally to non-citizens. We know this was not always the case, given the sad example of the internment of Japanese people during WWII. (Although, come to think of it, both American citizens and non-citizens were detained, so that’s a bad example.) ISTM that many of the rules giving citizens protection from arbitrary detention and access to legal counsel are court rulings. These are interpretations of the Constitution, rather than legislation. It would be interesting to review all those rulings and try to determine whether or not they apply to non-citzens. However, I know little about this area, and I do not intend to do the research. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997/164 "2003-01-25T14:33:51Z")
\>\> ISTM that many of the rules giving citizens protection from arbitrary detention and access to legal counsel are court rulings. These are interpretations of the Constitution, rather than legislation Wow, now _that_ is weaseling of the highest order. So when the courts interpret the Constitution and laws to apply to aliens, it does not mean they are really meant to apply to aliens but that the courts just “interpret” them that way even though they were not written to mean that? \>\> I know little about this area, I believe that. It doesn’t keep you from talking though, does it? \>\> I do not intend to do the research. I believe that too. It’s your standard MO. Have a hot cup of tea and go to sleep now. It’s past your bed time. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997/165 "2003-01-25T14:55:48Z")
This is hilarious! \*\*december, \*\* as I stated before, I’d prefer a snippet from the Constitution clearly stating that citizens and non-citizens have differential rights to freedom from arbitrary detention and/or access to legal counsel. SInce I strongly suspect there is no such thing, my next choices, in order of preference, would be 1) court-tested Federal legislation stating such, and/or 2) a Supreme Court case that is directly on point (and not a hypothetical future one!). So if you want me to define “by law,” I’ll take whatever I can get. But since you’ve already stated that you aren’t going to bother supporting your POV with facts, I don’t know why I’m wasting electrons clarifying myself. Someday in my spare time I may do some research in Constitutional law, but given that I have a job and am trying my best to have a life, that may not be soon. In the meantime, I see no reason to disbelieve **minty green** as to the current state of Constitutional law, barring contrary evidence, which you’ve already stated you’re not in a position to provide. (Oh, and **sailor** kind sir, thanks for your lovely offer, but I’m going for coffee in a bit with the Chinese-Canadian guy, so my dance card is momentarily full. And \*\*Libertarian, \*\* what the heck was that all about?) ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997/166 "2003-01-25T15:49:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Amendment V > > No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. As december said in another thread about the judicial system “the liberals messed it up”. You see, in his interpretation of the above text, the word “person” does not include non-citizens who, as december knows well, cannot be considered proper “persons”. It is only by the corruption of the judicial system that the term “person” has been extended to foreigners. Reminds me of Judge Roy Bean > [@](#): > > At Langtry, Tex., Squire Roy Bean, who administers justice and keeps the leading saloon, had to sit in judgment of a man who shot and killed a Chinaman because he charged too much for his laundry or something serious like that. > > The man was arrested and brought before magistrate Bean, who listened to the evidence, which was given by the accused himself, and then proceeded to turn the pages of the revised statutes: “This here book, which is a Texas law book,” he announced, "says that hommyside is th’ killin’ of a human, male ur female. They is many kinds of hommyside --murder, manslaughter, plain hommyside, negl’gent hommyside, justifiable hommyside an’ praiseworthy hommyside. They is three kinds of humans - white men, niggers, and Mexicans. It stan’s to reason thet if a Chinym’n was human, killin’ of him would come under th’ head of praisworthy hommyside. > > “And there she is, gentlemen,” says Roy Bean, when he’d got through. “That’s the full unexpurgated law of the great State of Texas up to 1813, and it ain’t noways likely there’s been any fundamental changes run into since. The complete statutes of this here state from the Alamo on ahead, and there ain’t a damned line in it nowheres that makes it illegal to kill a Chinaman. The defendant is discharged on condition that he pays f’r havin’ th’ Chinee buried.” ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997/167 "2003-01-25T16:15:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Amendment VI > > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. I can’t see any distinction being made between citizens and non citizens. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997/168 "2003-01-25T16:27:34Z")
> [@](#): > > When you say “by law,” do you mean to distinguish between legislation and _Constitutional interpretations_? Do we agree that Constitutionally, there can be differences in the freedom enjoyed by citizens and non-citizen visitors? Certainly we can agree to that. That is exactly why the U.S. Constitution uses the word _citizen_ when the issue is particular to citizenship and _person_ when the issue is not related to citizenship. (This is clearly expressed in the unamended original document where the words citizen and person are found, even in the same articles, and used separately.) That is why the Fifth Amendment (quoted by **sailor** ) says “person” and why the Fourteenth Amendment addresses “persons” when identifying the qualifications of who will be a “citizen.” > [@](#): > > and I do not intend to do the research. Weren’t you the one talking about your great public education a few days ago? Did your school skip Civics? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997/169 "2003-01-25T16:29:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eva Luna \* > I see no reason to disbelieve **minty green** as to the current state of Constitutional law, I agree with you. **sailor** , the Constitutinal distinction is in the very beginning, “We the people of the United States.” The entire document was understood as applying to citizens of the United States. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997/170 "2003-01-25T16:49:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **sailor** , the Constitutinal distinction is in the very beginning, “We the people of the United States.” The entire document was understood as applying to citizens of the United States. Umm, let me see if i got this right. “We the people of the United States hereby declare that no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, etc” means it only applies to persons who are US citizens? Why not only the persons signing the document? Man, your reading comprehension is truly bad. So I guess, according to you, Judge Roy Bean was right in his verdict? Whatever you say, the interpretation of the constitution is up to the SCOTUS and they seem to have a bit more common sense and understanding of the English language than you do. _nobody_ who knows _anything_ about law shares your interpretation. You have been challenged several times to produce a cite so please put up or shut up. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997/171 "2003-01-25T16:58:51Z")
Now, that’s just horse apples, december. If “people” meant to only apply to citizens of the United States, then there would’ve been no need to append “of the United States” after it. You’re confusing (and my bet is that you’re doing this knowingly and intentionally) the people who set up the new government with all people of the planet. The Constitution is quite clear when it says > [@](#): > > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. It’s obviously talking about the body politic of the US who are those folks who get to participate in enacting laws and such for a designated area {that would be that part at the very end of the quote above}. Now let’s look at the Amendments and shoot down your bullshit before you let it fly: Amendment III > [@](#): > > No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Do you see where it says “any house” right there in the text? It doesn’t say jack about the amendment applying only to the houses of citizens. Amendment IV > [@](#): > > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Right there it says “the people” without making any distinction as to citizenship. I’ll leave it to you to get off your duff and check out the rest of the amendments. & also to check out the bit about qualification to hold certain offices (President, Senator, etc.). The Constitution doesn’t say person and leave it at that–it says that the person must be a citizen. Yet again you are wrong. Good grief, man! ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997/172 "2003-01-25T17:12:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\* If “people” meant to only apply to citizens of the United States, then there would’ve been no need to append “of the United States” after it. \*\* You and **tomndebb** make a good case for this POV, **Monty**. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997/173 "2003-01-25T18:22:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eva Luna \* > \*\*Libertarian, \*\* what the heck was that all about?) Shhhhhhh [whispering] He’s kind of _weird_. Just ignore him and he’ll go away. [/whispering] Eva Luna, enjoy your date. The rest of us will guard the fort during your absence. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > You and **tomndebb** make a good case for this POV, **Monty**. I am sure the Supreme Court will be relieved to hear you think they may not have been mistaken all along. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997/174 "2003-01-25T18:48:12Z")
As I said before, december, it’s because it’s based on fact. “Try it, you’ll like it.” ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997/175 "2003-01-25T19:37:05Z")
Why do you people even waste your time? Now he’s got you trying to prove that the thoroughly lame assertion he’s made regarding his interpretation of the word “person” is utterly without foundation. Well, duh. You guys must have a real taste for herring. Anyway, once you’ve thoroughly trashed this ridiculous idea, you know there will be a post along the lines of, “I see now this was the result of a misunderstanding. What I said was that the word “people” in the Constitution doesn’t apply to aliens from outer space. All of the evidence you have offered actually supports this proposition so we’re both right!” I, for one, will not be distracted. **December** , we’re still waiting . . . Oh, and **Eva** , I think **Lib** sometimes keeps multiple screens open. He probably just posted that to the wrong forum [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-new-cousin-cant-get-back-from-canada/149997.md?page=8)