During the red scare, did leftists and the foreign-born enjoy constitutional protections?
442263
No they didnt. They were jailed on false charges, discriminated against, bothered at every possible opportunity, and the government was always trying to silence them.
27094
liberals protect freedom (liberty)\n\nconservatives protect property (conservation)\n\ngenerally speaking... the terms were coined in the French revolution of 1789.  \n\ngenerally higher educated people vote Left, and the more rich people vote Right.\n\nBut they're both part of the same problem.
361458
I can't think of any benefits...can you?\n\nTheodore Roosevelt's ideas on immigrants and on being an AMERICAN in 1907. \n\n "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here  in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be  treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to  discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.  But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American,  and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man  who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.  We have room for but one flag, the American flag....We have room for but one  language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one  sole loyalty, and that is a loyalty to the American people."\n\n Theodore Roosevelt  1907  Every American  citizen needs to read this!
224627
The founding fathers feared that interest groups would form  when they were making the constitution.
904267
In Britain we do not have a 'bill of rights' but we are given 'free speech'......well that is if you're an immigrant.....as for the rest of us....we just have to grin and bear it....oh what a joy to live in a dictatorship dressed up in 'democratic clothes'!!
1055651
First, you make the common right-winger fallacy of confusing yourselves with America.  You're only part of America.  Liberals and moderates are the other part.  Taking shots at your leaders and their policies is not the same as taking shots at America.  I don't recall it stopping anyone from impeaching Clinton, not even while we were fighting in the Balkans.  It is arrogance to confuse one's party with one's country no matter what side you're on, so I am sure you did not intend it to seem like that.\n\nIt seems the basic problem is that many right-wingers assume that strength lies in all of us agreeing with them or surrendering our citizenship (or at least the rights that used to go with it).  Liberals offend people like you because they understand that strength comes from diversity of viewpoints and opinions, not from uniformity.  That used to be one of the good arguments for states' rights, back when you guys believed in that.  Most sensible people understand that no one is right about everything all the time, so we need to ensure that ideas are tested by open, fair debate (no name-calling).  If your ideas can't stand to take a few shots, maybe your ideas aren't so good and we should be following someone else.  If you have confidence in your ideas, you should have no problem with people taking shots at them.  (Similarly, if your ideas keep crashing into the Constitution, maybe the answer isn't amending the Constitution -- maybe it's changing your minds.)  Only ideas that can withstand criticism are ideas that can persuade others, and persuasion is the only weapon properly wielded against one's own countrymen.\n\nAs for sinking the ship, I would not worry too much.  Remember that liberals by definition love their liberty and have always been willing to fight for it when necessary (not just desirable, like you guys).  The only time we ever had a civil war, it was basically southern conservatives who started it, fired the first shots, keep flying the flag, etc., so the real risk to the republic is your side, not the liberals.  Liberals don't shoot judges -- or doctors.  Liberals didn't bomb the Olympics.  Again, consider how often right-wing ideas these days seem to call for changing the Constitution.  That is why I will not flatter today's right-wing with the name of conservative, as they have apparently passed over into radicalism.  Yet you worry over America being sunk by a party that controls no part of the government!
1170730
section one says that all people born in the US  are automatically citizens (even if their parents are citizens of another country, or illegally in the US).  More importantly, this section holds the equal protection clause, which ensures that in the eyes of the law, that no person can be treated better or worse then another.  Its kind of like saying that justice is blind, and that everyone will be treated with the same justice.\nsection two says that congressmen's districts will be chosen by evenly dividing the state into districts of similar populations (number of people).\nsection three says that no government employees can participate in a rebellion (in this case the civil war), and that congress may remove the said person with a 2/3rds vote from each house.\nsection four says that the US government isnt going to cover any debts incurred as part of the Civil War. (in other words, the slave owners wont be compensated for their losses of land and labor because of the war.)\nsection five clarifies that congress can make any law helping in administering the 14th amendment
711977
Only natural born citizens can be President.\nI agree with this because someone born here has more reason to defend the US then someone born elsewhere
317873
I can only relay what my parents told me about my great grandparents.\nThey all landed on Ellis Island with the clothes on their backs.  They did not receive any welfare money or food stamps or free medical care.  They did not fly their country of origin flags, nor did they have t shirts that said i love mexico.  They were just glad at the thought of enjoying the American dream.  They learned how to speak English gladly.  They obeyed the laws and took their citizenship test proudly.  Most of them farmed this land and gave birth to the greatest generation ever, my parents.
222698
It was in the 1920's.  It's a type of dual citizenship where they are autonomous, but yet fall under federal jurisdiction
373627
It depends how the egress was granted.  You must allow them, but that doesn't mean you must allow people other then them depending on how the egress was worded.  Without that it's sort of hard to determine what "rights" she was granted.
323769
The U.S. was one, a newly discovered continent.  It was a grand adventure.  Also, the newly formed government was a grand experiment.  Never before had a government been formed on the theory of democracy in such a large scale.  It afforded freedoms almost unheard of around the world.  Freedoms like, no matter what economic status you came from, you could make yourself better in America.   And, no matter what status you were born to, whether a prince or a pauper, you could succeed in America.  The struggles over racism weren't only over blacks, but included Irish, and Italians, and Asians.  Even with these racial struggles the opportunities afforded every individual were far better than most folks could find in their home countries.
983785
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." \n\nTheodore Roosevelt 1907 \nTwenty-sixth President of the United States
425918
It was not just immigrants who were protesting, it was mainly informed American citizens. Even if we disagree on the matter of protests, or who protests, it is something you will have to bring up with our founding fathers. (1st Amendment) Also, in the mid 1970's, there were organized protests by neo-Nazis in the middle of largely Jewish communities that didn't garner this much outrage.  Sad, isnt it?
463768
Immigration is a natural social occurence even before the Paleo Indians came over via Beringia.\nAt this time we are engaged in reforming or more plainly stated formulating a workable solution for Immigration regulation for security and economical reasons.\nImmigration or Migration of the human is a natural occurence that will consistently achieve and prosper until the end of time. Check below!\n\nAmended Laws and Ways of a Democratic Republic Nation\n\n Weaknesses in the Articles of the Confederation:\n1.The Articles of Confederation (AOC) established a loose confederation of states.\n2.The central government was not given authority to act directly on individuals and states.\n3.The enforcement of federal laws and treaties was left to the states.\n4.Unanimous consent of the states was required for amendment of the AOC.\n5.Each state was given one vote in Congress.\n6.Congress was not authorized to raise money by taxation.\n7.The Federal Government was not given sole power to coin money, states also kept that right.\n8.Congress was not empowered to regulate trade among the states.                                                                          \n\nManner by which the U.S. Constitution (USC) overcame these weaknesses:\n1.The preamble to the USC leads us to believe that the people of the U.S. decide how their government should be run.\n2.Article 6: Clause 2> States that the laws found in the Constitution must be abided by.\n3.Article 1: Sec. 8; Clause 15> The militia can enforce the law (Marshall Law).\n4.Art. 1; Sec. 8; Clause 1> Four methods by which an amendment can be made or ratified w/out requiring unanimous consent of states.\n5.Art. 1; Sec. 3; Clause 1> each state is given two votes in Congress.\n6.Art. 1 Sec 8; Clause 1> Congress is given power to collect taxes in order to provide for National Defense.\n7.Art. 1; Sec. 8; Clause 5: Sec. 10; Clause 1> Federal Govt. can create money, states cannot.\n8.Art.1; Sec. 8; Clause 6> Gives the Fed. Govt. the right to regulate trade and other forms of business between the states and/or nations (and inclusions of immigration reform?).\n\nJose
1118201
First secret prisons, maybe for terrorest who are arrested outside the US,  there are no civil rights people who are not american citizens outside the US.  Only those rights of the Geneva Convenction, (human rights)\n\nWe are trying to judge military prisons or prisioners of war under the wrong idea of what they are, they do not, never did get consititional rights.\n\nEven in WWII, the US took away the constitutional rightrs of Japanise americans and put them in camps and they lost thier property in the US during this time.\n\nAnd no people are not spying on liberals, why they tell more than they know to start with.  The only spying is to track and trace telephone calls of posible terroest links ( and emails and regular mail)  \n\nMerely alot of issues taken out of context by the opposing public party that cares little about destroying our war effort if they can win an election.
978106
In other words, should be amend the Constitution to eliminate the "natural born" requirement?\n\nLet's break it down. First, I think that anyone born of two US citizens should be allowed to run for president, even if they were born overseas. So, those whose citizen-parents were on vacation, or serving or traveling overseas, should not be precluded.\n\nAs to those who are born of non-citizens, if they are born in the US (regardless of where they are raised), then they are eligble, under the 14th Amendment. But if they are born overseas, regardless of where they are raised, they are not.  Personally, I think that where someone is raised is more important than the first few minutes of their life. And the risk (if any) arises from their beliefs and personality, not the geography they happened to be in before they were able to speak or walk.\n\nThen again, history has shown that simply being born in the US certainly doesn't make someone competent to be President, even if they happen to be legally qualified to run.