Restriction of basic human rights - I can't believe someone thinks this...

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Siege]

First of all, you do have to become a test to become a US citizen. You also have to pay a fee and go through several months of bureaucratic hassle. As part of the requirements, you are required to demonstrate that you can read, write, and speak English.

Legal residents of the US also don’t have all the same rights and requirements as US citizens. Most notably, non-citizens aren’t allowed to vote. I think you also have to be a citizen to be eligible for jury duty. There are also some government agencies which won’t hire non-citizens, even if they’re in the process of becoming citizens (I found that one out the hard way).

[/QUOTE]

Months of hassle? Most of my friends who became citizens went through years of hassle.
It is true that there are many government and national security type jobs which require citizenship. When we sold some software to a government lab, only a small subset of my group could go to install it and train users.

I’m trying to remember if there was a question about citizenship on my jury form. There is no inherent reason why the set of peers wouldn’t include non-residents. Where I live a significant number of defendents would be non citizens, not from any proclivity to crime but just from demographics.

42

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Sorry, I’m going to pile on against the basic underlying premise of the OP.

Human beings do not have any inherent “right” to freedom of expression.

And while the two participants in the discussion were quick to drop it in apparent agreement, the point remains that, if you declare that you are offering freedom of expression, then you impose limits on that freedom, you are not any morally different than someone else who offers the freedom, but puts more severe limits on it. You’ve simply drawn the line differently. Which is all that the person who asserts that non-citizens should be more limited is doing. And while I may disagree with his opinion, one must point out that being a citizen does bring with it certain advantages already. I think you can make a very cogent case that everyone should have the right to vote in the case of decisions that affect them substantially. So resident aliens perhaps should be allowed to vote as a right in elections here, by such thinking.

I doubt the opinion expressed by the antagonist mentioned in the OP is popular here, but I’d bet out on the street, you’d get a surprisingly large number of people to agree with it. Which, in a way, shows the danger of allowing democracy to run free.
[/QUOTE]
If I read you right, your position is absolutist. Either a right is totally unrestricted or it is not a right.

As I understand your argumernt, freedom so speech isn’t a basic right because everyone agrees that it can be limited. Isn’t that true of all rights? It is considered more important to maintain civil order than to have complete individual freedom so you are forbidden to exercise any right in violation of a law restricting it. And there are laws restricting all rights.

It seems to me that all rights are expedient in the sense that government works better for the benefit of more people if the people have the right, and are free to, move about as they wish, speak as the wish and so on and so on.

That assumes that the purpose of government is to benefit most the most people. I suppose that you would get an argument about that in some quarters.

43

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
It might be impolite for a non-citizen to criticise the US when in the US, but illegal? Get outta here.
[/QUOTE]

Sounds like us getting outta here was what the OP’s friend had in mind :smiley:

Seriously, though, there’s a huge gap between criticizing the US over all (rather impolite, agreed, if you’re here voluntarily) and criticizing the US Government.

While I try to be diplomatic in matters of politics and religion, I would expect it to be a hallmark of civilized society that legal residents - citizens and non-citizens alike - share the same rights under the law. Voting is obviously a privilege reserved for citizens - and I believe the current interpretation of the 2nd makes it legal to make gun ownership dependent on citizenship, as well, but that one leaves most foreigners cold, anyway.

In almost every particular, I shoulder the same obligations as do US citizens - although I’m exempt from jury duty, I work for a living, pay my taxes, obey the laws - and in return, I’ll feel free to offer (mostly) constructive criticism. If I had to look over my shoulder for the Loyalty Police, I’d be sure to take my skills (such as they are) elsewhere.

Of course, the practical implications of outlawing criticism would be - interesting.

Academic papers with contributions from foreign scholars screened for content before submission? Submit proof of citizenship to the relevant authorities before a letter to the editor could be approved? Proving the actual authorship of critical texts?

Censorship can’t be enforced selectively. To enforce this particular kind of idiocy, true-blue 100% US citizens could be required to present credentials to the authorities when engaging in debate. The OP should perhaps ask his friend how he’d feel about that…

44

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Which, in a way, shows the danger of allowing democracy to run free.
[/QUOTE]
A dëmøcräcy ønce bit my sistër…

45

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
No, because the US is a member state of the UN.

ETA: I suppose the US could grant rights to its citizens that are over and above those defined by the UN.
[/QUOTE]

So the U.N.'s idea are legally binding on the United States, regardless of local jurisdiction or the fact that the U.N. is not a government? Fascinating.

46

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
So the U.N.'s idea are legally binding on the United States, regardless of local jurisdiction or the fact that the U.N. is not a government? Fascinating.
[/QUOTE]

They are if the US has entered into a treaty providing for this to happen.

47

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Would you force non-citizens to wear something on their outer clothes?
[/QUOTE]

I hear some jurisdictions used tattoos.

48

While it might seem that a right to free speech is a benefit to the speaker, the real benefit of free speech is that it benefits the country as a whole. Although unpopular or anti-government speech will often be wrong, on the occasions when it is right it helps us to make needed improvements. Unfettered debate helps us to make our country the best it can be. It seems extremely unwise to prevent people from engaging in this productive process simply because they are not citizens.

49

[QUOTE=Spiny Norman]
Sounds like us getting outta here was what the OP’s friend had in mind :smiley:

Seriously, though, there’s a huge gap between criticizing the US over all (rather impolite, agreed, if you’re here voluntarily) and criticizing the US Government.

While I try to be diplomatic in matters of politics and religion, I would expect it to be a hallmark of civilized society that legal residents - citizens and non-citizens alike - share the same rights under the law. Voting is obviously a privilege reserved for citizens - and I believe the current interpretation of the 2nd makes it legal to make gun ownership dependent on citizenship, as well, but that one leaves most foreigners cold, anyway.

In almost every particular, I shoulder the same obligations as do US citizens - although I’m exempt from jury duty, I work for a living, pay my taxes, obey the laws - and in return, I’ll feel free to offer (mostly) constructive criticism. If I had to look over my shoulder for the Loyalty Police, I’d be sure to take my skills (such as they are) elsewhere.

Of course, the practical implications of outlawing criticism would be - interesting.

Academic papers with contributions from foreign scholars screened for content before submission? Submit proof of citizenship to the relevant authorities before a letter to the editor could be approved? Proving the actual authorship of critical texts?

Censorship can’t be enforced selectively. To enforce this particular kind of idiocy, true-blue 100% US citizens could be required to present credentials to the authorities when engaging in debate. The OP should perhaps ask his friend how he’d feel about that…
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think we have any serious disagreement. I already agree that any criticism of any aspect of US people, culture, government and anything else you can think of is and should be allowed. And that would by anyone anywhere any time, from a resident alien who has lived here for 50 years or someone who drops into New York City on the Concorde for a quick lunch.

Personally, though, I really would like people to become citizens who live here, work here and have been here for years.

50

[QUOTE=John Mace]
It’s no accident that Freedom of Speech is listed in the 1st amendment to the US Constitution, and not the 10th.
[/QUOTE]

This is maybe a technical thing, but if all the original amendments to the Constitution that had been proposed had been adopted at the time, the Freedom of Speech Amendment would have been third. The first amendment proposed was one to change the apportionment of house seats, but because that amendment (and the second proposed amendment, which limited Congressional pay raises) weren’t ratified at the time by enough states, they didn’t make the cut. That second amendment would go on to be ratified and is now the 27th amendment.

51

Isn’t it fun watching your fellow Americans turn into pre-World War II Germans in their attitudes? Godwin aside, is this attitude of different rights for different folks all that unfamiliar? (And I’m not blaming this on our government.)

52

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Isn’t it fun watching your fellow Americans turn into pre-World War II Germans in their attitudes? Godwin aside, is this attitude of different rights for different folks all that unfamiliar? (And I’m not blaming this on our government.)
[/QUOTE]

No need to invoke NAZI Germany. There has always been an undercurrent of this in the US, and there are many times in the modern era that wer much worse than today, even if we’re talking only about US citizens. The treatment of American citizens of Japanese, German and Italian heritage during WWII comes immediately to mind, as well as the horrible legacy of the way Blacks and other racial minorities were treated right up until a few decades ago. And those are just the actions of our government… not to mention the actions of individual Americans.

At any rate, I don’t believe there was ever a time when citizens and non-citizens were treated equally in this country. Nor do I think there ever will be.

53

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
I don’t think we have any serious disagreement.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all, and re-reading my post, I regret if it looks that way.

54

I’m wondering how many of the people who support the restrictions on freedom of speech for non-citizens also support the reverse side of that coin - increasing government power to tell people what they can and cannot say, and punish them for what they do say.

It seems to me that the government has enough power already in this regard, and I’d be wary of giving it any more.
I’m also really curious: what do people think is the benefit to society of such a plan? The benefits to the government are obvious (less criticism), but what’s good for the government and what’s good for society are often different things.

How does society benefit if, say, an Iranian medical student in New York can be deported if he says “George Bush sucks??”

How would society benefit if, say, Rupert Murdoch between 1973 and 1985 (when he became a US citizen,) had not been allowed to say “you shouldn’t vote Democratic on this issue, the Democrats are wrong?” Or “this government plan is a bad idea?” Would it extend to his not being allowed to own media companies that criticize the government?