Does the US Constitution apply to non-citizens?

[Luddly Neddite]

Susan Collins spreads central myth about the Constitution - Salon.com

Edited Note that non-citizens do not have exactly the same rights as US citizens do.

This is from Salon so its very well referenced and very informative. As always, anyone who disagrees with the source or content is more than welcome to post their own.

The claim that the Bill of Rights applies only to Americans is increasingly made, but patently false

 

[martybegan]

Susan Collins spreads central myth about the Constitution - Salon.com

Note that non-citizens do not have exactly the same rights as US citizens do.

This is from Salon so its very well referenced and very informative. As always, anyone who disagrees with the source or content is more than welcome to post their own.

The claim that the Bill of Rights applies only to Americans is increasingly made, but patently false

The US graciously extends some of the rights citizens enjoy to those visiting, but not all. If you would apply a blanket "everyone is protected by the constitution" statement then what stops visitors from voting?

It is up to the appropriate level legislature to determine what privlidges are extended to non citizens, unless such a right is given explicitly only to citizens. (voting in state/federal elections is a good example)

 

[theHawk]

Most of the rights are God given to all people. The US constitution just prohibits the government from infringing on those rights.

 

[ohaern]

Directly quoted from the Constitution, via National Archives.

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

And more Specifically,

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."


So as I read this, the framers of our country would say, yes. A terrorist should be tried in court, as directed by the Congress. specifically for the crime of Treason. Since this crime is apparently not restricted to being levied only against our own citizens.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals need Salon to tell them what to think. Read the Constitution. Where it says persons the provision applies to citizens and non citizens. Where the reference is to citizens it applies only to citizens and non citizens are excluded.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So as I read this, the framers of our country would say, yes. A terrorist should be tried in court, as directed by the Congress. specifically for the crime of Treason. Since this crime is apparently not restricted to being levied only against our own citizens.

"Treason" against the US requires the betrayal of an allegiace to the US, and so someone without said allegiance cannot be tried for treason.

Millions of people have been held by the US w/o any chance of a trial without violating the constitution - the right to trial does not extend to everyone.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Parts of the Bill of rights apply to non citizens, parts of the Bill of Rignts do not. For the most part, citizens and resident aliens have the same protections of the Bill of Rights while they are inside the USA. Outside of the US is another issue entirely. A citizen would have 4th Amend rights while in the UK so that the US Governement can not monitor their calls without a warrant. The governement can spy on non citizens as much as they want when such non citizens are out of the country.

A case of some import is United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990). In that case a Mexican drug lord was arrested and brought to the US for trial. The US then had his home in Mexico searched and evidence from that search was employed at trial ove the 4th amendment objections of defendant. SCOTUS ruled that the search did not violate the 4th amend because his involuntary presence in the US did not give rise to him being considered part of the "people" to which the 4th amendment protections attach. Actual quote:

This suggests that "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

Illegal aliens present in the US are not afforded the same protections as US citizens or legally resident aliens. Aliens on a temporar visa have greater but still not full rights.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

People that are not citizens that re captured outside the Country re nolt protected by the Constitution. Even if moved to the States they remain military prisons subject to the UCMJ and any agreements made by treaty for military trials.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Susan Collins spreads central myth about the Constitution - Salon.com

For those who missed it, the assertion was made in a thread in the Politics forum that non-citizens have no rights under the US Constitution. Note that non-citizens do not have exactly the same rights as US citizens do.

This is from Salon so its very well referenced and very informative. As always, anyone who disagrees with the source or content is more than welcome to post their own.

The claim that the Bill of Rights applies only to Americans is increasingly made, but patently false

The US graciously extends some of the rights citizens enjoy to those visiting, but not all. If you would apply a blanket "everyone is protected by the constitution" statement then what stops visitors from voting?

It is up to the appropriate level legislature to determine what privlidges are extended to non citizens, unless such a right is given explicitly only to citizens. (voting in state/federal elections is a good example)

Actually, there are certain rights that are not extended to everyone but, for the most part, the Constitution is the law of the land, not of the people. Its not a matter of being "gracious". Its our law, a schematic or blueprint for everything we know and treasure. Its what sets us apart from all other countries.

Most of the rights are God given to all people.

[Edited out my true opinion to make this suitable for the clean zone] There are dozens of different "gods" and not one of them gives away rights. If gods gave away rights, there would be no wars fought in order to get rights.

You may have heard of a little dust up known as the American Revolution. If a "god" had been doling out "rights", all those people would not have had to die. Same with every other war.

When some [edited out] says that rights are given by god, it pisses me off because I know that millions have died for the rights we treat no better and value no more than used kitty litter.

 

[legaleagle_45]

[Edited out my true opinion to make this suitable for the clean zone] There are dozens of different "gods" and not one of them gives away rights. If gods gave away rights, there would be no wars fought in order to get rights.

You may have heard of a little dust up known as the American Revolution. If a "god" had been doling out "rights", all those people would not have had to die. Same with every other war.

When some [edited out] says that rights are given by god, it pisses me off because I know that millions have died for the rights we treat no better and value no more than used kitty litter.

Edited "God given rights" are incapable of being violated? They obviously can be violated, as is attested to by the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Whether you call them "god given rights" or "natural rights" the concept is the same and natural rights theory works quite nicely in a Darwinian world. However, I will state that a majority of rights found in the Bill of Rights are not "unalienable natural rights", but are what Blackstone termed as "auxillary rights" which protect preserve and enhance underlying unalienable rights.

Whether you believe in natural right theory or not is also irrelavant as our constitution and our Bill of Rights are based upon same and thus controls their legal impact.

 

[Circe]

Most of the rights are God given to all people. The US constitution just prohibits the government from infringing on those rights.

No.......

We are said to have the right to Life.

However, we don't because we all die. So much for God's "rights."

Also, the government allows many forms of death, such as execution. So the Constitution doesn't protect the right to life either.

So much for rights. There aren't any.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Most of the rights are God given to all people. The US constitution just prohibits the government from infringing on those rights.

No.......

We are said to have the right to Life.

However, we don't because we all die. So much for God's "rights."

Also, the government allows many forms of death, such as execution. So the Constitution doesn't protect the right to life either.

So much for rights. There aren't any.

You are assuming that god given rights are not subject to violation?

 

[Circe]

The fallacy of your argument is that you are assuming that god given rights are not subject to violation.

You are assuming that god has given us rights that we plainly do not have: most clearly, the right to life? Since we all die, He didn't, and so much for the concept of God-given rights.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Most of the rights are God given to all people. The US constitution just prohibits the government from infringing on those rights.

No.......

We are said to have the right to Life.

However, we don't because we all die. So much for God's "rights."

Also, the government allows many forms of death, such as execution. So the Constitution doesn't protect the right to life either.

So much for rights. There aren't any.

This was discussed at GREAT length a while back and I doubt there's anything new to add to that unending thread. But, I do agree that there are no rights - except those we fight for and win.

Any and all of those rights can be taken away at any time.

 

[legaleagle_45]

You are assuming that god given rights are not subject to violation?

You are assuming that god has given us rights that we plainly do not have: most clearly, the right to life? Since we all die, He didn't, and so much for the concept of God-given rights.

You make the assumption that I am assuming god has given us any rights? The theory of natural rights works quite as well in a Darwinian world. The idea of of unalienable natural rights goes hand in hand with the concept of the social contract. That being best expressed thusly:

"all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."

An unalienable right is a something we are incapabale of giving our consent to when we form the social compact... That if a law were passed which prevent us from exercising that "unalienable right" we would be incapable of complying. For example, we have an unalienable right to breathe because if a law was passed that made it illegal for us to breathe on Tuesdays in an effort to cut down on CO2 emmissions we could not comply with that law even if we wanted to.

 

[Intense]

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation. -James Madison

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

 

[Intense]

[14] I believe that the State will soon be able to take all my work of this sort out of my hands, and then I shall be no better a patriot than my fellow-countrymen. Seen from a lower point of view, the Constitution, with all its faults, is very good; the law and the courts are very respectable; even this State and this American government are, in many respects, very admirable and rare things, to be thankful for, such as a great many have described them; but seen from a point of view a little higher, they are what I have described them; seen from a higher still, and the highest, who shall say what they are, or that they are worth looking at or thinking of at all?

[15] However, the government does not concern me much, and I shall bestow the fewest possible thoughts on it. It is not many moments that I live under a government, even in this world. If a man is thought-free, fancy-free, imagination-free, that which is not never for a long time appearing to be to him, unwise rulers or reformers cannot fatally interrupt him.

[16] I know that most men think differently from myself; but those whose lives are by profession devoted to the study of these or kindred subjects, content me as little as any. Statesmen and legislators, standing so completely within the institution, never distinctly and nakedly behold it. They speak of moving society, but have no resting-place without it. They may be men of a certain experience and discrimination, and have no doubt invented ingenious and even useful systems, for which we sincerely thank them; but all their wit and usefulness lie within certain not very wide limits. They are wont to forget that the world is not governed by policy and expediency. Webster never goes behind government, and so cannot speak with authority about it. His words are wisdom to those legislators who contemplate no essential reform in the existing government; but for thinkers, and those who legislate for all time, he never once glances at the subject. I know of those whose serene and wise speculations on this theme would soon reveal the limits of his mind's range and hospitality. Yet, compared with the cheap professions of most reformers, and the still cheaper wisdom and eloquence of politicians in general, his are almost the only sensible and valuable words, and we thank Heaven for him. Comparatively, he is always strong, original, and, above all, practical. Still, his quality is not wisdom, but prudence. The lawyer's truth is not truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrong-doing. He well deserves to be called, as he has been called, the Defender of the Constitution. There are really no blows to be given by him but defensive ones. He is not a leader, but a follower. His leaders are the men of '87.(6) "I have never made an effort," he says, "and never propose to make an effort; I have never countenanced an effort, and never mean to countenance an effort, to disturb the arrangement as originally made, by which the various States came into the Union." Still thinking of the sanction which the Constitution gives to slavery, he says, "Because it was a part of the original compact — let it stand."(7) Notwithstanding his special acuteness and ability, he is unable to take a fact out of its merely political relations, and behold it as it lies absolutely to be disposed of by the intellect — what, for instance, it behooves a man to do here in America to-day with regard to slavery, but ventures, or is driven, to make some such desperate answer as the following, while professing to speak absolutely, and as a private man — from which what new and singular code of social duties might be inferred? "The manner," says he, "in which the governments of those States where slavery exists are to regulate it is for their own consideration, under their responsibility to their constituents, to the general laws of propriety, humanity, and justice, and to God. Associations formed elsewhere, springing from a feeling of humanity, or any other cause, have nothing whatever to do with it. They have never received any encouragement from me, and they never will."

[17] They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.

[18] No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?

[19] The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher (8) was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
-Thoreau

Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 3

 

[Intense]

Sorry guys, I just needed something to read and share that is not so limiting and painful to read. Anyone here care to try to write something that does not offend sensibility? There are major lessons in Madison and Thoreau.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Susan Collins spreads central myth about the Constitution - Salon.com

Note that non-citizens do not have exactly the same rights as US citizens do.

This is from Salon so its very well referenced and very informative. As always, anyone who disagrees with the source or content is more than welcome to post their own.

The claim that the Bill of Rights applies only to Americans is increasingly made, but patently false

When the new question is asked, the question has actual meaning. The Bill of Rights applies to persons or people. It is not limited to citizens, as a general rule. There may be some exceptions.

I just looked around and discovered that in MA a law that (loosely speaking) prohibits LEGAL resident aliens from owning guns or obtaining permits or licenses is getting challenged in Court. http://saf.org/legal.action/ma.alienage.lawsuit/complaint.pdf

The basis? Among other things, the suit complains that it violates equal protection and the second amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Most of the rights are God given to all people. The US constitution just prohibits the government from infringing on those rights.

No.......
We are said to have the right to Life.
However, we don't because we all die. So much for God's "rights."

This is an absurdly silly statement, so much so that it is impossible to believe that you are serious when you make it.

Also, the government allows many forms of death, such as execution. So the Constitution doesn't protect the right to life either.

This statement denotes a impressive lack of knowledge regarding the constitution and how it specifically allows for the removal of any and all rights thru due process.

So much for rights. There aren't any.

Presuming that your conclusion is based on the arguments, above, it goes without saying that your conclusion is unsound.