Isn’t there possibly something wrong when a world class nation like the United States of America creates a massive out-flux of nationals who claim to be refugees? Is there something else seriously wrong when the receiving nation accepts them, citing that they are in danger if they were to stay?
Seriously, what’s going on down there?
This has actually been in the works for some time, the law firm involved has been dealing with disaffected Americans since shortly after the last federal election.
What’s going on down here? Well, very much like our own Magna Carta, the US originally had a constitution that was designed not only to undergird the general process of running a nation, but also to ensure that the government was never allowed to abridge the rights of its citizens. In particular, a bill of rights was considered very important as a means for protecting the rights of individuals and of states. It came in the form of ten simple amendments to the constitution.
The first amendment has provisions in it which are intended to keep the government out of religion, protect the rights of the public to free expression, and the right of the people to assemble peaceably
The second amendment, which entails the right to bear arms, is a point of much controversy; however, there are many reasonable arguments made that the relatively arbitrary restrictions on what consitutes the difference between legal versus illegal firearms (going so far as to say that having more than x of y particular features makes a weapon illegal to own — implicitly saying that none of these features are leagally troublesome themselves, but somehow in conjunction they are) contravene the more common interpretations of that amendment.
The third amendment prevents the government from hosting soldiers in citizens’ houses against their will. Thankfully, I have no examples of this being disregarded.
The fourth amendment effectively is intended to prevent police-state style random searches. That is, searches have to be for probable cause — and, the items that are intended to be found must be enumerated before any such search is begun. This means, for example, that it would be illegal for any agency to be searching personal items for explosives and take any action based on narcotics found during such a search. See? If it’s not what the police are looking for, the fourth amendment guarantees that it doesn’t legally exist.
The fifth amendment says a lot. It guarantess that no U.S. citizen can be incarcerated without being formally charged with a crime. It guarantess that no one can be forced to testify against themselves. It further guarantees that the govenment cannot take property from citizens unless “just” compensation is offered. Typically, this amounts to pennies on the the dollar for fair market value. Finally, it ensures that no US citizen is deprived by the US government of life or liberty without due process. (Search for “Ahmed Hajari” in that article).
Similar to some of the fifth amendment protections, the sixth amendment ensures that certain procedures are followed, such as informing the accused of his alleged crimes (again, see Jose Padilla).
The seventh amendment guarntees a trial by jury if desired by the accused. Of course, failing to offer trials at all kind of makes this a moot point.
The eighth amendment basically ensures that the punshment for a crime is commensurate with the crime being commited. So, for example, sentencing someone to 25 years of prison for shoplifting videotapes would be a clear violation of this amendment.
The ninth amendment is a nice bit of fluff that just says that the listing of rights in the constitution doesn’t mean that they are the only rights afforded to the population. It’s not really possible to violate this provision, although I think that it may have still kept Ashcroft up at night.
The tenth amendment makes sure that anything that the constitution doesn’t specifically say the federal government is in charge of is left up to the states and the people. So, for example, because the consitution doesn’t set up any provisions for the federal government to interfere with pure intra-state trade issues, the Federal government would be completely out of its jurisdiction to do so.
So, currently, we’re entering another four years with a president who wakes up each morning, shits out the graves of those who sought to protect civil liberties back when the U.S. was first established, and then wipes himself with the bill of rights. That influx of people you’re seeing are willing to give up nearly everything to get into a country that sees its citizens as more than lumps of unruly meat to be whipped into shape. Sometimes I wonder why I’m still here myself.