What about prisoners vs illegals?

Question

If war combatants incarcerated at Gitmo are granted rights based on the U.S. constitution, should illegal immigrants also have rights under the constitution?

I'm hearing some (usually liberals) saying they want it both ways. I believe that both should be given human rights but have no U.S. consititutional rights. What are your thoughts?

Answer 1

Illegals do now have rights under the constitution. They are entitled to hearings as to whether they should be deported etc.

I don't even think there is an issue about human rights, both prisoners and illegals should get those without question. The problem is who defines them? Bush & Cheney? or flaming liberals? Personally I would hope human rights fall somewhere in between.

I do not have a problem with non citizens being entitled to all of the rights that citizens have (travelers from other countries on vacation should stil have them...) I do have a problem with those who have broken the laws being afforded ALL of them. The illegals should get their hearings QUICKLY and if determined appropriate, returned to where they came from IMMEDIATELY.

I think that the combatants also should have some kind of reslolution, I don't like that they can be held at what appears to be the whim of powerful people without any kind of checks, but I also acknowledge there is a war.
I think the Geneva convention should rule (not open to Bush's interpretation - it's NOT an ambiguous document - and if OUR people were being treated that way - WE'D be up in arms immediately complaining...)

But basically, we have gotten so far afield from where the founding fathers expected us to be, I am not sure ANYONE really knows who should get what under what circumstances anymore.