A question, Do non-citizens in the U.S. have Constitutional Rights?

[still_one]

I don't want to get into the patriot act, because as we know because of that, even citizens do not have the right of due process

Any information on this is appreciated


Thanks

[Warpy]

1. Yes, our rights are INALIENABLE

meaning no laws can be passed to curtail them. The rights apply to all of us, whether or not we are here legally, because they are HUMAN rights.

That's something no right winger understands.

[hobbit709]

2. Unfortunately

the (mis)administration thinks the Constitution doesn't even apply to citizens.

[still_one]

5. That is so true, and very little is being done to fight that

If we are so fortunate to win the midterms, and the Democrats DO NOT pursue that, we have a far greater problem

[William769]

3. not only right wingers, but people in our own party.

[still_one]

4. I was always under the impression that the Bill Of Rights applies

to everyone, even illegal immigrants. In fact I thought the only rights not afforded non-Citizens was voting, federal jobs, and running for political office

I got into a discussion about this with associates, who believed that only citizens had rights, and I tried to argue the point that was not the case, and that everyone who is in the country had rights.

Country is definitely shifting in a dangerous way

[endarkenment]

6. The Constitution uses consistent language

When a right is restricted to citizens, it uses the term 'citizen(s)', when the right is held BY ALL PEOPLE, it uses the term 'people or person'. The original document also institutionalized slavery and counted slaves as 3/4 of a person for determining allocation of representatives and electoral colleagues to keep the slave states slave states, so just 'cause it is in the document doesn't neccesarily make it right, however in this specific case, inalienable rights are inalienable to people, all people, end of story.

[still_one]

8. excellent, thanks

[sweetheart]

7. They have human rights

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

The US is a human rights black hole, where these
rights are not recognized, but that said, these rights
are endemic to all humanity no matter what a
state of corporate shills has to say.

[Liberal Veteran]

9. I thought the 14th Amendment spelled that out pretty nicely.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Notice how it switches from the word "citizen" to "person"? From my reading of that, it seems that they made a clear distiction between the two words. They could have said used the word citizen throughout the amendment if it was meant to apply only to citizens.

[Asgaya Dihi]

12. Between you and endarkenment that about covers it

I'm no legal expert but civil rights is an area I've been interested in and studied for a while, my understanding agrees with what these two said. Where a right is specific to a citizen it's spelled out. Other rights such as due process apply to everyone. They did till Bush came along at least.

[Toots]

10. "Constitutional Rights"

What a unique concept. I wish some country would create something like that. :shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. Here's a good article on the topic

http://www.slate.com/id/1008367/

The answer is "mostly yes".

[Freedom_Aflaim]

13. Yes they do, but our constitution is not a protector for non-citizens

The rights are inalienable, and the constititution was written to guarantee that those rights are recognized by the American government for American Citizens.

The US doesnt have the right nor the power to guarantee those rights for citizens of other countries.

It would be nice if every citizen of every country on Earth enjoyed these inherent rights, but sadly that isnt the case, and there isnt much we can do about it.

[bluemarkers]

15. sure it is

read the above answers.


Obviously, when a US citizen travels, they are then subjected to the rules of the country they are visiting. Same thing for everyone in the the US. What other rules or laws would they be subjected too? We don't have a subset for "noncitizens"

[Freedom_Aflaim]

17. Im opposed to invading countries to "impose" rights

Take for example the 1st amendment.

It guarantees that we enjoy our inherent freedom of speech.

However a large number of countries on Earth do not allow their citizens this right.

Clearly the consitutition guarantees that you and I have enjoy this right. Does it guarantee that citizens of China enjoy it as well? Of course not.

While in theory citizens of China HAVE the inherent right to free-speech, there is nothing that secures that right for them, not even the US constitution.

Now if a Chinese citizen comes to America, whether on a visa or as an immigrant, they enjoy and are guaranteed that right the instant they step on American soil.

[endarkenment]

16. Just because they keep saying that on rightwing radio

doesn't make it true. Consider the logical extension of the theory that only US citizens have rights in this country. For example, consider property rights. If non citizens do not have rights why may I not take their property?

The reason why our lovely government keeps its worst official prison offshore on foreign soil is so that it is very difficult to find a court that agrees that it has jurisdiction over that prison, and thus very difficult to get cases related to what occurs in gitmo heard. However, once such a case does manage to get into the courts the argument that the non-citizens held in that torture center have no rights is not made as it is without merit. By their own actions they betray their lies.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

18. Read my above post for clarification (#17)

I've never heard what I just said repeated on rightwing radio.

What Im saying is that everyone *HAS* basic inalienable rights.

However not everyone *enjoys* basic inalienable rights.

In my clarification above, I talk about China and freedom of speech. Clearly Chinese citizens do not enjoy freedom of speech.

However the United States Constitution does nothing to empower citizens of China Free Speech. That is just basic tenets of sovereignty.

Once a citizen of China steps on American soil, or is otherwise under the jurisdiction of US Laws, then they are guaranteed to enjoy free speech.

I hope that helps.

[endarkenment]

19. No actually it doesn't help.

You said:
(the constitution) "guarantee(s) that those rights are recognized by the American government for American Citizens"

Nobody here is disputing that we have no power to enforce the rights of Chinese in China. The rightwing justification for abusing foreigners is what you stated above: that the constitution applies only to American Citizens. It doesn't, except where it explicitly does. Non-citizens have almost all the rights of citizens and the constitution makes that very clear.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

20. Best of luck to you then

I don't support America imposing its will on the world.

Too many have died in Iraq and other countries from us imposing our will on everyone.


p.s. please check your message, you just reposted a fragment with a bunch of lines. I have no idea what you want to say.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Please re-read the OP.

Are non-citizens IN THE US protected by the constitution.

It is unequivicably 'yes'. The 14th amendment, as posted above, specifies 'persons in US jurisdiction.' That would include Gitmo, and even US foreign prisons like at Bagrahm AFB.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

27. I would agree with that.

I muddied the waters a bit in my 1st post and I tried to clarify in my followup, but I guess I wasnt successful.

To use layman terms, if a person is under US government control, for any reason, then they are entitled to the protections of our constitution.

I also feel that EVERYONE is entitled to the rights as outline in the B.O.R. however there is not much we can do for folks outside of US jurisdiction who are denied them.

[EFerrari]

24. You must be reading that other Constitution. n/t

[Freedom_Aflaim]

28. read the followups.

no need to be snarky unless it makes you feel good.

[flordehinojos]

14. just the fact that people were HUMAN BEINGS gave them some rights a few

years ago. these days HUMAN BEINGS amounts to NOTHING in this bush world.

[Igel]

21. "Constitutional rights", sure.

But not all rights are constitutional.

FISA makes a distinction between US persons and, I think the terms is "foreign powers" (which can include an non-citizen working on behalf of some foreign entity, not necessarily a government). FISA covers the former. It's fuzzy on the latter, and at least one such FISA case said warrantless surveillance was constitutional. Not accidentally, such authority, when acknowledged, has been inferred from the national-protection duties of the president, as well as from his inferred authority in conducting foreign affairs. Note the language used by Gonzales et al.

(Used wrong words ... must consume more caffeine.)

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Yes.

The constitution clearly, repeatedly refers to 'persons' not 'citizens'.

The only place where it refers to 'citizens' is in those sections refering to people holding public office.

The constitution protects everyone within US jurisdiction -- including Gitmo.

[BlueCollar]

25. technically

aren't all individuals on US sovereign soil entitled to the basic Constitutional protections?

[treestar]

26. The Bill of Rights was an expression of human rights

And the US had, back when it was still a decent nation, signed onto various International Covenants Regarding Human Rights.

Anyone is entitled to justice.

The argument that certain people are born not entitled to it is aristocratic.

Traditionally, anyone accused of a crime in the US has all the same rights to counsel, to be heard in their defense, etc., no matter who they are. Because they are people and they are here.

I believe in medieval times the nobility got better "justice" than the common people - they had more of a right to defend themselves. Today, you have Saudi Arabia, where certain groups are deemed not worthy of justice.

But the US always fought against that elitist position. The US was founded on the very concept of doing away with nobility - all men are created equal before the law -

So I consider it at least very bad faith when people, usually freepers, claim that a person by cause of birth outside the US can be charged and punished without proof or a chance to defend themselves.

Most of the crap justifying Gitmo is based on the "war" motif, however, the fact there is no individual justice in war is due to the disorder, so that the relatively calm situation at Gitmo would mean decent people would at least give these people some sort of a hearing.