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? 
Lib, go back to your strange world; the giant squid is looking for you.
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.
>> 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. 
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?)
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
I can’t see any distinction being made between citizens and non citizens.
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.”
Weren’t you the one talking about your great public education a few days ago? Did your school skip Civics?
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.
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.
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
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
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
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!
You and tomndebb make a good case for this POV, Monty.
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.
I am sure the Supreme Court will be relieved to hear you think they may not have been mistaken all along.
As I said before, december, it’s because it’s based on fact. “Try it, you’ll like it.”
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