Egyptian Students Vanish In NYC

[Sarge]

I was on the highway right before the bridge. Love the tin hat comments.

I was on the grassy knoll

[The King]

Sigh....into the rabbit hole we go again.

So where is the plane, and the passengers?

There wasnt one. You have been tricked into believing that there was. Use your mind son. Use your mind.

[The King]

Time to get off work. I will hook up with you guys later and give you the real s*it. On whats going on.

[Popeman38]

There wasnt one. You have been tricked into believing that there was. Use your min son. Use your mind.

[Sarge]

Time to get off work. I will hook up with you guys later and give you the real s*it. On whats going on.

Yeah, because they are watching you on your work computer.

Of course, they might be watching you at home too :doh:

[Sarge]

Obviously an al reuters photoshop job

[cjcdaman]

Time to get off work. I will hook up with you guys later and give you the real s*it. On whats going on.

:munchout: I cannot wait for this.

[cjcdaman]

I was on the grassy knoll

:rotflmao: I LOL'd

[Larry]

Read the rest of the preamble. It establishes these things to what? to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Um, it doesn't say just for Congress as you claim. It says for the United States of America. What makes up the United States of America? People; US citizens. Not foreign born students.

That is what is wrong in this country. I can make an argument that one part of the Constitution applies to this and that. It has to be taken in context.

Context is nice, but given a choice between what something says and what somke people later claim it implies, I'll go with what it says.

What it says, among other things is:

• This document was created by the people of the United states. It's purpose is to establish a government, and to specify the nature, powers, operations, and limitations of that government.
  
• No other documents can grant powers to the government.
  
• The government will have certain powers, which are listed herein.
  
• The government will be prohibited certain actions, which are listed herein.
  
• Any powers not listed herein are denied to the government.
  
• Any rights not listed herein are reserved to the people.
  

Nowhere in there does it make provisions for any other, mythical, places, people, or things, where all rules cease to exist and the government suddenly goes from having only those powers specifically mentioned to having unlimited authority to do whatever it wants.

• The Constitution says that any power not specifically granted to the government is denied to the government, and that any rights not mentioned are reserved to the people.
  
• But some people have somehow decided that, for example, since the word "fizbin" (or "enemy combattant") doesn't exist in the Constitution, then the government can do anything it wants to, to anybody who's suspected of being a fizbin.
  

[Popeman38]

Context is nice, but given a choice between what something says and what somke people later claim it implies, I'll go with what it says.

What it says, among other things is:

• This document was created by the people of the United states. It's purpose is to establish a government, and to specify the nature, powers, operations, and limitations of that government.
  
• No other documents can grant powers to the government.
  
• The government will have certain powers, which are listed herein.
  
• The government will be prohibited certain actions, which are listed herein.
  
• Any powers not listed herein are denied to the government.
  
• Any rights not listed herein are reserved to the people.
  

Nowhere in there does it make provisions for any other, mythical, places, people, or things, where all rules cease to exist and the government suddenly goes from having only those powers specifically mentioned to having unlimited authority to do whatever it wants.

• The Constitution says that any power not specifically granted to the government is denied to the government, and that any rights not mentioned are reserved to the people.
  
• But some people have somehow decided that, for example, since the word "fizbin" (or "enemy combattant") doesn't exist in the Constitution, then the government can do anything it wants to, to anybody who's suspected of being a fizbin.
  

Take away context and all you have are words.

[Larry]

Take away context and all you have are words.

Ignore the words and all you've got is opinions.

[Popeman38]

Ignore the words and all you've got is opinions.

I'm not ignoring the words. I am taking all the words as a whole, not just snippets that suit my argument.

[Larry]

I'm not ignoring the words. I am taking all the words as a whole, not just snippets that suit my argument.

There are no words that say "this applies only to US citizens".

(Or "only within the geographic boundries of the US". Or "only citizens who aren't talking to foreigners". Or "but not if the President writes a memo to himself with the words 'enemy combattant' on it". Or "doesn't apply if the citizen is using a device that wasn't invented when this paper was written". Or "only in peacetime". Or "well, the government can't do this for law enforcement purposes, but they can do it for national security purposes, and once they do that then they can use whatever they find for law enforcement purposes". Or "but if it's done in a prison that's classified". Or "well, it doesn't say the government can't hire a contractor to do it.")

(Or any of the other 27 reasons that have been given for "Why The Constitution Doesn't Count Any More".)

I'm pointing out that there is absolutely nothing that says or even implies your assertion that the government can do whatever it wants to non-citizens.

You're pointing out that the preamble says "We the people of the United States . . . establish this Constitution". Then you're ignoring the second half of the sentance, and claiming that the first clause really means "This document only applies to . . . and everywhere else government has unlimited power".

And you have the gall to claim that I'm "taking snippets to suit my argument"?!?!?!

What's your fallback position? Are you going to claim that the "context" of "for ourselves and our posterity" really means that the First Ammendment only applies to people who can trace a direct ancestry to one of the original signers?

(Or maybe what it really means is that the signers were covering a portion of their anatomy.)

[Popeman38]

There are no words that say "this applies only to US citizens".

(Or "only within the geographic boundries of the US". Or "only citizens who aren't talking to foreigners". Or "but not if the President writes a memo to himself with the words 'enemy combattant' on it". Or "doesn't apply if the citizen is using a device that wasn't invented when this paper was written". Or "only in peacetime". Or "well, the government can't do this for law enforcement purposes, but they can do it for national security purposes, and once they do that then they can use whatever they find for law enforcement purposes". Or "but if it's done in a prison that's classified". Or "well, it doesn't say the government can't hire a contractor to do it.")

(Or any of the other 27 reasons that have been given for "Why The Constitution Doesn't Count Any More".)

I'm pointing out that there is absolutely nothing that says or even implies your assertion that the government can do whatever it wants to non-citizens.

You're pointing out that the preamble says "We the people of the United States . . . establish this Constitution". Then you're ignoring the second half of the sentance, and claiming that the first clause really means "This document only applies to . . . and everywhere else government has unlimited power".

And you have the gall to claim that I'm "taking snippets to suit my argument"?!?!?!

What's your fallback position? Are you going to claim that the "context" of "for ourselves and our posterity" really means that the First Ammendment only applies to people who can trace a direct ancestry to one of the original signers?

(Or maybe what it really means is that the signers were covering a portion of their anatomy.)

Nice ramble. Please go through all the pages of this thread and explain to me where I said the govt could do whatever they want to non-citizens. I argued that we could change the whole student visa situation and control the influx of "bad" guys. I said that the Constitution applies to US Citizens and I will stand by that, but I also specifically said that it does not extend the protections offered within to foreign-born students wishing to apply for a student visa. Furthermore, how can you say that "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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" does not specifically state that we established this Constitution for ourselves and not to the rest of the world.

[Larry]

Nice ramble. Please go through all the pages of this thread and explain to me where I said the govt could do whatever they want to non-citizens. I argued that we could change the whole student visa situation and control the influx of "bad" guys. I said that the Constitution applies to US Citizens and I will stand by that, but I also specifically said that it does not extend the protections offered within to foreign-born students wishing to apply for a student visa. Furthermore, how can you say that "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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" does not specifically state that we established this Constitution for ourselves and not to the rest of the world.

I don't have to go through all the pages of this thread. Your statement (highlighted in green) specifically makes the statement that you say (in red) you haven't made.

(Now, actually, I'll admit: I don't think the Constitution applies to non-citizens, either. I also don't think it applies to citizens. It applies to the government, and to people. What it says is "This is what the government can do", and "this is what the government can't do.")

-----

You like to talk about "context". Here's one:

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Now to me, the "context" of those ammendments is that the framers specifically anticipated attempts to extend the powers of the government over time. What they clearly intended was to declare, in advance, that the "default condition", the rules that apply in cases of ambiguity or conflict, was: No power to the government, all rights to the people.

The problem with the argument of "Well, 'terrorist' doesn't appear in the Constitution, therefore terrorists have no rights", is that it's an attempt to claim that something not being mentioned implies unlimited power to the government. When that very document flat-out states that if some person or place isn't mentioned, then the "default condition" is no government power.

The Preamble states why the Constitution was created. It does not create a condition of "does not apply to anyone except".

(And, if you were truly correct, and the Constitution didn't apply to non-citizens, then the 9th Ammendment says that the US Government would have no authority over them. Either the Government has Constitutional authority, or it has none.)

-----

Edit:

Now, if you want to claim that "There is no Constitutional Right to a student visa", then I'd agree with you.

I'd argue that denying student visas to people based on their religion, or because they come from anti-american countries, is a stupid idea; that allowing those people to come visit our country is the best weapon we can possibly use against them.

But that's a different argument.

[michael_33]

Yeah, all Muslims are terrorist that hate our freedom and want to kill us

Ya...That about sums it all up...

Nobody wants to admit it...? :2cents: But I will go with this one-liner...

Because of the blacks...Discrimination Laws and such!But it may be true...

[michael_33]

Great Points DjTj, but I think there is another argument as well.

People come to the US to learn and they pick up on our values. You want to spread democracy in the middle east? Bring students to the US who will see how f'd up their own countries are in comparison. Student Visa programs are a trade. We import the productivity and export a taste for democracy. Are there negatives? absolutely, but the positives far outweigh them.

We taught them alot while they were here?They learned to use ATM cards,They learned to live in a democratic state /Country and to use our public transportation ...They even learned how to take Flying lessons and learn to fly a plane for public service!!

Then those innocent Arab men all seperated into 4 or 5 groups and smashed a plane into the WTC,Pentagon and the fields of Pennsylvania :doh: :doh:

Those beautiful Muslims...Alright now people...Letm' through...Letm' through!

I think it's time to wip out ole' Reagons arsenal!Don't you?

[Popeman38]

1. (Now, actually, I'll admit: I don't think the Constitution applies to non-citizens, either. I also don't think it applies to citizens. It applies to the government, and to people. What it says is "This is what the government can do", and "this is what the government can't do.")

-----

2. You like to talk about "context". Here's one:

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Now to me, the "context" of those ammendments is that the framers specifically anticipated attempts to extend the powers of the government over time. What they clearly intended was to declare, in advance, that the "default condition", the rules that apply in cases of ambiguity or conflict, was: No power to the government, all rights to the people.

3. The problem with the argument of "Well, 'terrorist' doesn't appear in the Constitution, therefore terrorists have no rights", is that it's an attempt to claim that something not being mentioned implies unlimited power to the government. When that very document flat-out states that if some person or place isn't mentioned, then the "default condition" is no government power.

4. The Preamble states why the Constitution was created. It does not create a condition of "does not apply to anyone except".

(And, if you were truly correct, and the Constitution didn't apply to non-citizens, then the 9th Ammendment says that the US Government would have no authority over them. Either the Government has Constitutional authority, or it has none.)

-----

5. Edit:

Now, if you want to claim that "There is no Constitutional Right to a student visa", then I'd agree with you.

I'd argue that denying student visas to people based on their religion, or because they come from anti-american countries, is a stupid idea; that allowing those people to come visit our country is the best weapon we can possibly use against them.

But that's a different argument.

I am enjoying an honest debate for the first time in a long time!

1. I think we have a technical misunderstanding, probably brought on by my lack of clear expression. I think the Constitution grants powers to the gov that the gov uses to govern the people of the US (in my opinion, citizens). Hence why the gov makes laws making certain people illegal immigrants (breaking the laws established by the gov established by the Constitution). I hope this clarifies my stance.

2. I agree 100%. However, I do not thinkthis applies to people entering the country (a privelidge, not a right). Therefore I consider this the national defense, which is a specifically mentioned power.

3.I guess this falls under my statement in #2 above.

4.I do not claim that the US Gov has any power over non-citizens. I think she has power to institute a national defense that I feel should extend to thoroughly screening all foreign born individuals before they are granted permission to enter the US.

5. I agree thatit used to be the best weapon against terror. However, after the hijackers came here and used our openness to learn to fly and then crashed planes I think we need to be extremely careful who we extend this honor to. And I do not want blanket Muslim rejection, as the majority are peaceful persons who like America. I do not care if you are red, yellow, black, white, brown, green or blue. If your screening reveals any dealings with anything remotely tied to terror, big X on denied....