Anonymous #2 4w

Well they could only be Americans if they actually become Americans lol (now if they are in the process of finalizing it, there’s definitely more empathy).

5

Anonymous #3 4w

You should look up what “American” means. It’s more than just the U.S., bud. The constitution is also very clear on what rights a citizen has vs a person on U.S. soil. I’d suggest you give the constitution a read sometime, you seem very confused.

3

Anonymous #4 4w

This doesnt answer the question tho?

4

Anonymous #1 4w

So you dont think the government should protect its citizens first?

3

Anonymous OP 4w

I think the constitution is very clear on this. Have you read it?

3

Anonymous #1 4w

Yeah i have. Now can you answer my question?

0

Anonymous OP 4w

It’s a false premise. It’s never been either or. Citizens enjoy protections and rights like voting, holding certain federal offices. Persons are covered by the rest of the bill of rights + additional amendments. If you actually read the constitution you’d know that.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

The constitution does not grant extra protections to citizens outside voting and holding certain elected positions. To say that the government should “protect” citizens more than non-citizens (outside what the constitution allows for) is a violation of that very constitution. In short, you don’t understand the very document that outlines our government, and that’s clear from your question. QED

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Because prioritizing citizens over persons (outside voting rights/holding federal offices) is a violation of the constitution. You seem confused about that, so I figured I’d spell it out very clearly for you. You cannot create a second class of citizens without a constitutional amendment.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Firstly, thanks for letting me know what i already knew. Secondly, youre still not answering the question. This was a subjective and an opinion based question. I didnt ask you for the legal distinction between the two but youre getting there with what you said. Youre not completely correct either. A person(s) is only covered by the 5, 6, and 14th amendment. So ill ask the question again: Do you think that its the governments duty to protect the people they serve, the citizens before all people?

1

Anonymous #1 4w

That logically makes no sense. The fundamental system of a country’s government is to serve its people, not all people. Thats like saying we should stave the citizens and to feed another country. How can you protect all people if you cant even protect your own?

1

Anonymous #1 4w

You seem confused to think that all people are allowed the full privileges of the US Constitution. If you deny us citizens resources in order to give it away to non-citizens it actively goes against the constitution and works against the point of a government. Its backwards thinking.

1

Anonymous OP 4w

I’m not confused. It’s written out plainly in the constitution. Again: have you read it? If you did you’d know a couple things. Mainly, the word citizen shows up when describing voting and holding office. The writers purposefully used a different word - not “citizen” - when enshrining other rights. So yes. Persons are allowed their constitutionally granted rights. If you don’t like it, amend the constitution. Be sure to read it first.

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Your question presents a false premise, as I’ve already shared. I don’t think you knew that before, and it feels like you still don’t. The founders made a conscious decision to use “citizen” in some cases, “person” in others. That’s well documented. You just don’t like it and that’s OK. Amend the constitution if you want but you should probably read it first, because you don’t have the faintest idea of what you’re talking about.

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Go amend the constitution then. It’s not my fault the founding fathers predicted people like you and spelled it out in very plain and clear terms.

1