Does the Bill of Rights apply to non-citizens?

[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]

bingo

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.