# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Does the Bill of Rights apply to non-citizens?

## eduardo89

As a foreigner, am I protected by the Bill of Rights?

For example, if I were stopped at an border patrol stop INSIDE the US, not at a border, and I identify myself as a foreign national, am I still covered by the 4th Amendment to not have my vehicle searched if there is no probable cause or warrant?

Something like this: 

YouTube - Abusive Border Patrol Agents w/ Nun Chucks at NM Checkpoint
YouTube - Papers Please Nazi "SS" Gestapo Check Point inside the USA,

----------


## Kludge

No ("People of the United States" has been "interpreted" to mean U.S. citizen), but you're still subject to our laws even when outside of the U.S., since the NSA was permitted to wiretap people outside the U.S.

Edit: Harry Browne has an "ought to be" article on who the Bill of Rights ought to apply to ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne27.html )

----------


## eduardo89

So foreign nationals are not protected by the 1st amendment for example? Are they entitled to any rights?

The article you linked to states that the Constitution bars the federal government from unreasonable searches, per the 4th amendment. So does it mean its only barred from doing that to citizens or to everyone?

----------


## acptulsa

Once upon a time, the Supreme Court was in the habit of saying that the inalienable rights of the Constitution applied to everyone within our borders--at least to a degree.  These days, the government seems determined to deny them to everyone but members of the Executive and Congress and their pet lobbyists...

----------


## nate895

The Bill of Rights should apply to foreign nationals for criminal affairs at least, assuming they are not an active combatant in a foreign military we are at war with.

----------


## Njon

What most people don't know is that the Bill of Rights actually comes with its own preamble. See http://www.billofrights.org/

This preamble refers to the Bill of Rights as "declaratory." In other words, these rights are not given to us by the Constitution; these are natural rights and we are declaring that we have them regardless of what government says.

That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. But in practicality, even U.S. citizens are often denied their rights by tyrants.

----------


## Danke

> Once upon a time, the Supreme Court was in the habit of saying that the inalienable rights of the Constitution applied to everyone within our borders--at least to a degree.  These days, the government seems determined to deny them to everyone but members of the Executive and Congress and their pet lobbyists...


Yep.  It still does, but it is getting muddled.

----------


## ewizacft

PEOPLE.  A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in its collective and political capacity.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

The constitution has a clear definition of who is a citizen, but being a US person doesn't mean you are a US citizen.  The bill of rights applies to all US persons and that applies even to "illegal" immigrants.  After all, you are innocent until proven guilty, and until someone has proven you are here illegally, you are presumed to be a legal resident, whether temporary on a Visa, or permanent residency.

Personally, I think the whole illegal immigration thing would not be an issue if it weren't for Welfare and other social programs.  When my grandparents came to this country through Ellis Island there was no such thing as illegal immigrants.  True, some people denied them jobs because they had accents, but they didn't ask for social assistance, and indeed there was none to be had.  If we eliminate the social programs, there would still be people posting "We don't hire Mexican" signs just like the "We don't hire Polish" signs my grandparents faced.  But if they didn't find work, they would either starve, or stowaway on the next ship somewhere else.

----------


## Staupostek

> What most people don't know is that the Bill of Rights actually comes with its own preamble. See http://www.billofrights.org/
> 
> This preamble refers to the Bill of Rights as "declaratory." In other words, these rights are not given to us by the Constitution; these are natural rights and we are declaring that we have them regardless of what government says.
> 
> That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. But in practicality, even U.S. citizens are often denied their rights by tyrants.


If our rights are are granted by our creator, then every person has those rights.  The Bill of Rights merely declares those rights.  The constitution is to establish a government to protect those rights while also restricting it from infringing on them.  And those rights don't cost anyone anything to exercise them.  Therefore health care, education, etc. is not a right.  But that's just my opinion.

----------


## UnReconstructed

f the bill of rights.  you have rights because you are a human being not because of some words on paper

----------


## bill50

Until proven that you are not a citizen, you have all the rights of any citizen.  If we only applied the Constitution to citizens, then everyone would have to prove their citizenship before they were allowed their rights.  That is clearly not the case as of yet.

----------


## BKV

I would guess no, because BoR and Con are government documents that only apply to US government, those who participate and  those defined by the government as to who it applies to (in this case, citizens). The same reason our laws do not apply overseas, they do not protect non-citizens who have not consented to it, however, with respect to the government as an  authorized protector of land & borders, people who trespass are subject to jurisdiction no less.

----------


## BKV

> Until proven that you are not a citizen, you have all the rights of any citizen.  If we only applied the Constitution to citizens, then everyone would have to prove their citizenship before they were allowed their rights.  That is clearly not the case as of yet.


Can we change the word citizen to "guilty"? Who has the burden of proof?

----------


## DamianTV

How about this?  Lead by example.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Personally, I think the whole illegal immigration thing would not be an issue if it weren't for Welfare and other social programs.


That and having the border secure. If the border were secure, and if two of the magnets that draws them here (free handouts) were eliminated, it would be a lot less of a problem. However we don't fix the problem by turning the US into a police state.

----------


## torchbearer

rights aren't given to us by the constitution, but by our creator.
If all humans are created by this Creator, then all humans have the same rights.

----------


## Zeeder

So, we can't put the national guard on the border and shoot whover comes across illegally? We have to arrest them and give them all trials?
  At what point can the government use force to defend the country then? This thread isn't sounding right to me.

   It makes more sense if only citizens are covered. Otherwise invaders can't be delt with with force. Mexico orders it's citizens and military across the border and brings us to our needs by demanding trials for everyone.

----------


## eduardo89

So let me get this straight...if I'm a foreign citizen in the US, even if I'm there legally, I have no rights, because the Constitution doesn't count me as a person??

----------


## Bradley in DC

> No ("People of the United States" has been "interpreted" to mean U.S. citizen)


The Framers chose their words carefully.  When they said people, it meant "people" citizens and non-citizens alike.  When they meant "citizen" they said citizen.  This has been reaffirmed consistently by the courts, etc.

http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatri...s.shtml%20copy

The proposals to suspend the Constitutional protections of non-citizens in this country under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act procedures threaten all of us [see US v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)]. The Bill of Rights guards the rights of all "people" here, citizens or not. If the holdover Clintonistas think they can suspend some people's rights here, they would have that prerogative to suspend the rights of all of us.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> So let me get this straight...if I'm a foreign citizen in the US, even if I'm there legally, I have no rights, because the Constitution doesn't count me as a person??


No.  ALL people here, citizen or not, "illegal" or not (where does the Constitution grant the Feds any power over immigration?!), are protected by the BoR.

----------


## Matt Collins

> The Framers chose their words carefully.  When they said people, it meant "people" citizens and non-citizens alike.  When they meant "citizen" they said citizen.  This has been reaffirmed consistently by the courts, etc.


What's also interesting is that until the 14th Amendment was "passed" *there was no such thing as a US citizen!* Everyone was a resident of a specific state. When the Constitution spoke about citizens prior to the 14th Amendment it was not referring to US citizens, it was referring to state citizens because US citizens didn't exist.



On a second note, I wonder if anyone sells passports from the Republic of Texas? I know the Conch Republic has passports but the Conch Republic's sovereignty is questionable.

----------


## fisharmor

> The constitution has a clear definition of who is a citizen





> What's also interesting is that until the 14th Amendment was "passed" there was no such thing as a US citizen!


Article I, section 2: "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States"

Article I, section 3: "No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States"

Article II, section 1: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

Clear references to US citizenship existed in the constitution before the 14th amendment.  All the 14th did is clear up some of the confusion (although judging by McCain's campaign, there is still cleanup to do).


Now, as far as non-citizens not having rights, I think it's up to those of you claiming this to prove how that's not crazy talk.

The word "citizen" doesn't occur in the bill of rights.  It occurs in other parts of the constitution, but not in the BOR.  The aforementioned preamble says "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers... further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added".

That means that the purpose of the BOR (original intent) was to declare rights of the individual and also to bind the actions of the government.  Citizenship doesn't enter into that equation.


Now let's jump straight to a stellar example: the guns.  Why not let illegal immigrants defend themselves?  The specious reasoning we employ to deny them firearms is the same that we use when passing and enforcing drunk driving laws.  If the potential to kill others doesn't stop an individual from engaging in an activity, then additional slap-on-the-wrist laws won't, either.

Illegal immigrants who are here merely to try to provide for their families have every bit as much right to defend themselves and their families from predators as I do.  The majority of them are also as likely to fire randomly as I am.  Moreover, the bad ones who are likely to actually fire on other law-abiding citizens or INS officials are likely to have guns to do it with despite our current draconian firearms laws.  If citizens can get them illegally, why can't illegal immigrants?

So the only effects denying illegals their human rights can possibly have is to 1) needlessly endanger their lives, 2) make the entire issue more confusing for everyone, as the law applies only to a privileged caste of individuals (citizens), and 3) the unintended effects nobody will contemplate - such as the slippery slope question of who the BOR really applies to.  

Our work should be to get it to apply to everyone.  Anything less is a reduction in liberty.

----------


## dsarver88

> rights aren't given to us by the constitution, but by our creator.
> If all humans are created by this Creator, then all humans have the same rights.


was going to post something similar but he beat me to it.  your rights are inherit to you and do not turn on/off with a switch

when you enter "Yuckystan" and they take away your freedom of speech, freedom of self incrimination, etc., then you have decided to travel somewhere that does not respect your rights -- you stilll *HAVE* them... they are just not being acknowledged by the regional power structure (govt, militia, etc)

remember, nobody in North America had "American rights" until someone declared it so but the rights were always there.

to deny the existence of an individual's rights until some EVENT happens is the exact opposite of our founder's intentions - the public acknowledgement of those rights is all the founders did initially followed by setting up the rules for government

{however, i will concede that the execution of that intention was poor - see slaves, native americans, etc.  had the founders signed the documents to form this country and immediately set slaves free and honored agreements with the native americans then I wonder where we would be now????)

----------


## Mosheh Thezion

edwardo89,

no...  because most americans dont have the protection of the bill of rights anymore.

if you accepted a visa... then its a contract between you and the Federal government, meaning you must obey their 66 million laws.

If you have social security.. same thing... contract.
 bank account.. same thing.. contract.
 federally regulated insurance...  contract.
 etc..

only an american born here, has those rights.

Which he lost... if he has any of the above, and if he has a birth certificate.. etc.

because they are all contracts which the courts use to justify convicting people in statute courts, rather than in a common law court.

if.. however.. your an illegal... with no papers.. no contracts...  nothing..

then.. they are suppoed to try you in a common law court..

but since 99% of illegals dont know...  it doesnt matter because you have to object, and you can only object if you know what your talking about.. and LAWYERS.. WONT TELL YOU.

MOST LAWYERS DONT KNOW.

-memat

----------


## torchbearer

if your read the original 10 amendments you will notice that they are written to apply to the federal government, not to the people.
Government shall make no law abridging...

----------


## Mosheh Thezion

> if your read the original 10 amendments you will notice that they are written to apply to the federal government, not to the people.
> Government shall make no law abridging...



ABSOLUTELY..

but since, there is an emergency declared in 1933, by FDR.. in place, using the war and emergency powers act of 1873..

the Fed is no longer limited to any of the rules of the constitution...

WHICH IS WHY THEY WRITE LAWS FOR EVERYTHING NOW A DAYS..

because legally..  they can.. during an emergency.

only by ending the emergency, can the Federal government again be limited to the rules of the constitution.

The supreme court knows this.. which is why they let it happen.


now you know..

-MEMAT

----------


## Objectivist

> No ("People of the United States" has been "interpreted" to mean U.S. citizen), but you're still subject to our laws even when outside of the U.S., since the NSA was permitted to wiretap people outside the U.S.
> 
> Edit: Harry Browne has an "ought to be" article on who the Bill of Rights ought to apply to ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne27.html )


Not true, because it's "under the jurisdiction of" that counts. My mother was a legal resident alien that had rights just like you or I.

----------


## sharpinla

> So foreign nationals are not protected by the 1st amendment for example? Are they entitled to any rights?
> 
> The article you linked to states that the Constitution bars the federal government from unreasonable searches, per the 4th amendment. So does it mean its only barred from doing that to citizens or to everyone?


The Constitution is not applicable to a U.S. citizen either (they are Statutory 14th Amendment citizens), rather only state Citizens. U.S. citizen rights come from the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amend.

State Citizens rights come from their Creator and may not be taken away by man.

----------


## brandon

The bill of rights doesn't apply to anyone. Every single one of the "rights" given in the bill of rights has been violated countless times.

Furthermore, none of us ever signed the constitution. How can a contract be valid between two people or a person and a government if neither of them have signed it or agreed to its terms?

----------


## torchbearer

> Every single one of the "rights" given in the bill of rights has been violated countless times.


There are no rights given in the bill of rights.

----------


## brandon

> There are no rights given in the bill of rights.


"Rights" don't even exist. It's just some fairy tale concept to make people feel okay about giving over some of their independence and freedom to a government.

----------


## Mosheh Thezion

rights.. would exist... if the emergencies were ended, and the constitution restored.. and everyone restored as a constitutional state citizen..  again...

there is no other way..

Many people have gotten out.. of fed citizenship.. and regained state citizenship..

but..  they have left everyone else behind in the dark.

Its time to shine the light, and free everyone.

if everyone is NOT constitutional free.. then no one really is.

And today.. no one really is...  especially..  foriegners.

-MEMAT

----------


## Kludge

> "Rights" don't even exist. It's just some fairy tale concept to make people feel okay about giving over some of their independence and freedom to a government.


I thought it was the other way around...

----------


## sharpinla

> "Rights" don't even exist. It's just some fairy tale concept to make people feel okay about giving over some of their independence and freedom to a government.


Yes they do. My rights were provided to me by my Creator. The Constitution just guaranteed and made "public" my god-given rights.

When we establish a "relationship" with government and accept their bogus benefits however, we relinquish our natural born rights as free people.

I don't acknowledge man made law and live my life based on respect of my fellow man's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

It is not a fairy tale and free people never give up their rights. Free people also do not fear government.

----------


## brandon

> Yes they do. My rights were provided to me by my Creator. The Constitution just guaranteed and made "public" my god-given rights.
> 
> When we establish a "relationship" with government and accept their bogus benefits however, we relinquish our natural born rights as free people.
> 
> I don't acknowledge man made law and live my life based on respect of my fellow man's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
> 
> It is not a fairy tale and free people never give up their rights. Free people also do not fear government.


What is a right? It seems totally meaningless.

Once upon a time people thought they had the right to bear arms. Now in most states they don't have the right to bear arms, or they need to get a license first and then they can only bear certain arms.

So what was this "right"? If it was a god given right, then how can man take it away? And what meaning does it have if it's that easy for someone to take it away from you?

----------


## Mosheh Thezion

if you all care about rights... which you do..


then join with me in pressuring all persons running for congress to commit to ending the states of emergency, and restoring the constitution as law again, and setting the people free.

challnege them... make them commit.

they either want it restored.. or dont.

And those who dont... will be traitors... plain and simple!!!!

because they all take an oath to uphold it.

Which they cannot do, if they know it is not in effect, and do nothing about it.


CaLL THEM OUT ON IT,
.

THEN DEMAND THEY ARE ARRESTED, if they do nothing to restore it.

if they do not uphold it..  they are violating their oath of office, which is treason!!!!!

-MEMAT

----------


## Danke

> "Rights" don't even exist. It's just some fairy tale concept to make people feel okay about giving over some of their independence and freedom to a government.


Did TW hijack this account?

----------


## DAaaMan64

> What is a right? It seems totally meaningless.
> 
> Once upon a time people thought they had the right to bear arms. Now in most states they don't have the right to bear arms, or they need to get a license first and then they can only bear certain arms.
> 
> So what was this "right"? If it was a god given right, then how can man take it away? And what meaning does it have if it's that easy for someone to take it away from you?


Rights supposedly come from the mutual understanding between humans to work together and be productive, I.E. reason.  

This is as per The Atlus Society's Definition:




> ...In fact, rights are principles. Properly understood, they are objective moral principles that provide the foundation for a political-legal order. No law should violate rights. Rights are “self-evident” and “unalienable” because they are derived from facts about human nature. They are principles defining the fundamental freedoms and responsibilities that people need to have in society, if we are to live and flourish.
> 
> Rights pertain to individuals, not groups. They derive from the basic nature of each individual human. So, they do not pertain directly at the “group” level of, say, country, tribe, religion, or race, because all those groupings are made up of individuals. Individuals can change the groups they belong to, but the groups can’t make do without individuals. Most fundamentally, it is individuals who think, act, and choose, not groups. Moral responsibility lies within individuals first, and with groups only by aggregation. It is individuals who live and die, suffer or achieve happiness. Find a happy club, town, office, or school, and you’ll find happy individuals there...


Source


Though I am no objectist, I certainly don't object to this reasoning

----------


## Richard A Hamblen

Keep in mind that your federal courts, who have staked claim to being the sole arbiters of the meaning of the Constitution, do not necessarily think that anyone who is not a resident and therefore a citizen of a state has any rights under the Bill of Rights. See the dissenting opinion in the DC Circuit on the *Parker/Heller* gun case, where the judge argues, with a straight face, that DC residents really have no rights because they are citizens of the District of Columbia, a federal entity. The same logic was used in *Cases* in 1942, which upheld the federal ban on possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the defendant being a resident of a US Territory, Puerto Rico, and therefore judged in part to have no rights at all under the US Constitution. This kind of turns the 14th Amendment (which is a major problem in itself) on its head, but then again, when the Constitution cuts in the government's favor they obey it; if not, they ignore it. See my case, posted at eSnips, and elsewhere on this site.
We have requested oral arguments on the current habeas corpus appeal. It's been an interesting ride, and it's not over yet.

----------


## Matt Collins

> See my case, posted at eSnips, and elsewhere on this site.
> We have requested oral arguments on the current habeas corpus appeal. It's been an interesting ride, and it's not over yet.


I think it's critical, we have just got to get people out there who become more aware of it.

----------


## SimpleName

I think we have gone off course in an argument about Bill of Rights vs. Natural Rights. Going through all 5 pages, I haven't seen any definitive answer besides maybe something in the Harry Browne article as to whether the Bill of Rights, under current laws (forget libertarian philosophy for a moment), would apply to non-citizens. I would like to know the answer myself. It seems as though the Bill of Rights, although being more of a protection of natural rights than given rights, still doesn't apply to non-citizens. I tried to find a government site that would state their policy, but no such luck. 

Despite the lack of luck with actual Congressional/Constitutional law, there very well may be treaties that protect non-citizens. 40 countries (i think) approved the United Nation's 'Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live' in 1985. There isn't much information I've found about it, but take and run with it. If you can count such a thing as a treaty and not just declaratory (the word "declaration" gives it away), well then the United States (if it were one of the 40) would probably grant you all such rights. But again, beyond this, there are probably a few treaties granting certain rights to non-citizens who enter. 

Maybe the OP just wanted discussion. I don't know. But if you really wanted to know current laws (no matter the Constitutionality), I hope somebody can find something.

----------


## eduardo89

> Maybe the OP just wanted discussion. I don't know. But if you really wanted to know current laws (no matter the Constitutionality), I hope somebody can find something.


Yeah I was more interested in what current law and legal rulings say as to whether non-citizens have the same legal protections under the Bill of Rights as US citizens.

I'm not a US citizen, I have Mexican (birth), Canadian (naturalized) and I'm applying for Spanish (descent) citizenship, so I was curious as to my rights when I'm in the states. I'm curious to know if I have the same *legal* rights (meaning what's currently law, not what should be law) to things such as speech and the right against improper search/seizure.

Any info would be appreciated and interesting to look at.

Also, does anyone know what rights you have at the airport with regards to having you bags searched by TSA agents?

----------


## torchbearer

> Yeah I was more interested in what current law and legal rulings say as to whether non-citizens have the same legal protections under the Bill of Rights as US citizens.
> 
> I'm not a US citizen, I have Mexican (birth), Canadian (naturalized) and I'm applying for Spanish (descent) citizenship, so I was curious as to my rights when I'm in the states. I'm curious to know if I have the same *legal* rights (meaning what's currently law, not what should be law) to things such as speech and the right against improper search/seizure.
> 
> Any info would be appreciated and interesting to look at.
> 
> Also, does anyone know what rights you have at the airport with regards to having you bags searched by TSA agents?


you'd have the same rights as citizens here, meaning- none.

----------

