Rights of Foreign Nationals

Granted we, as American Citizens have certain unalienable rights, but, do Aliens have unalienable rights? This is a hard question. I believe if a foreign country affords Americans in their country all the rights we have here, then yes its citizenry should be afforded those same rights here. However, the line in the sand is right there. We should never extend our rights to those who 1) don't have those rights in their country or 2) don't grant those rights to us when we are there. Maybe we should Mirandize each Foreign National, as he gets off the plane. They have no right to privacy here in our country, therefore their phone calls can be monitored (they act is if they are anyway). Remember they are not Citizens, they are Visitors. If a neighbor comes over to your house, he does not have the right to use your phone, unless you extend that right to him. He does not have the right to sleep in your bed if you don't offer it to him. He does not have the right to even use your toilet, unless you allow him to. Why do we treat aliens like they have every right we do? We have every right to throw them out of the country without even an explanation. But, remember, if we do, then we can't complain when they throw us out of their country. When I was overseas, I respected their Police, I followed their rules, and I did as I was expected to. Why then shouldn't they when they are here.

When Voting Becomes A Conflict of Interest

I know this will stir up a hornet's nest, but, I really believe this needs to be said. "People on public assistance, should not be able to vote." It is a matter of conflict of interest. Politicans will pander to these people promising them more aid, more money, for their votes. If people on welfare are restricted from voting, these same politicans will be more likely to help them with workable programs to get them off the public dole, instead of keeping them there. For instance, I have had single mothers working for me, who when given a raise, asked me to cut their hours, because they would earn too much and would lose benefits. A mere dollar increase, was causing them to lose two dollars in benefits. Why should we punish these people and make it harder to alleviate their situation. We should set up the system which gives them every opportunity to get free of the system. What should have happened is for every two dollar increase in earning they should have only lost one dollar in benefits. In so making it easier to get off the welfare wagon, and building self sufficient members of society, contributing to the GNP. That won't happen until politicans stop seeing the poor as a voting block, so they will have no interest in keeping them poor. I have no problem with giving assistance to those who need in the short term, but, we have created welfare as a career choice.

What's Wrong With Miranda?

One of the most frustrating problems we have with our criminal justice system, is the Miranda Act! I don't mean the Act itself, but how it has created a loophole for criminals. If I comment a crime, and I am arrested for it, and the Police don't read me my rights, or take the time to explain them to me... I can get off the hook. That's right we have all seen it on TV, and heard about it on the news. If the Police violate your rights during an arrest you can walk away a free man. This is an outrage! Think of it this way, you are shot down by a criminal, he just violated your rights, the right to life! Under the Justice System's Logic that means you should be set free allowed to live a normal life, but, you can't because you are dead. When this happens we prosecute the killer, the man who violated your right to life. We don't raise you from the dead. So when a criminal is arrested and his rights are violated, then we prosecute the man who violated his rights, the police officer. Now lets take this another step; If the police violate your rights in an investigation and you are innocent, then it should be a felony, if you are guilty, then it is a misdemeanor. One case the Police are punished as directed by a Judge, the other they are repremended. As far as Miranda should be concerned any convict (someone who has been judged guilty) has had his rights read to them the first time he was arrested and therefore has had his rights read to him (even if they were not read to him the second time he was arrested). Trust me criminals know their rights better than you do. Also as far as I am concerned, even if your rights are violated and you are guilty you are guilty nuff said.