Interesting. Does federal policy need to be constitutional if it is directed at non-citizens?
I am surprised you would even ask such a question. Of course it need be. At the very least, it can be shown that it needs to be if the actions directed at non-citizens effects citizens in unconstitutional ways. This all assumes, of course, the validity of the notion of citizenship, which is eminently questionable when a certain operating definition is in effect.
Better that we apply all this argumentation to Sovereign Individuals.
In a far, far better world, there would still be border control. This is a necessary evil because there are people out there who want to hurt the people in here. Whether cleaning up "governments' acts" globally would eliminate this hazard, one cannot assume. Therefore, so long as people who are anti-liberty work to violate the freedoms of others, the establishment and protection of borders appears to be at least partially necessary. This is a terrible thing, but people are what they are. So be it... for now.
In that better world, however, there would be nothing to attract parasites as we now suffer; no welfare, for example, or "free" schools, and so forth. That would then mean that the most likely reason for people to come here would be the proverbial ability to breathe the air of freedom. Such people arrive here with very different intentions and, IMO, are less likely to be of a troublesome nature. This is especially true where the people of the land are well armed, well educated, and well disposed to take matters into their rightful hands where issues of criminality are in question. If we would play the stereotypes for the pure sake of illustration and use Mexicans as the easy example, how many criminals do we think would be coming here and causing trouble if they knew they were likely to be gunned down like dogs if caught committing crimes? Probably not nearly so many as we now have, because the incentives to do so would be nearly extinct. No high-profit illicit drug trade; no welfare - a prime motivator for having "anchor" babies, etc.
In such a world the "government" would be compelled at the ends of the guns of those living here to treat all people properly. The hazards would be too terrible to risk anything else for those in positions of governmental power. When those in "government" shiver at the very thought of displeasing those to whom they swear their oaths, the chance of them engaging in violations of the rights of the sovereign goes down dramatically. After all, where's the incentive? If I, as a sworn agent of governance, violate the rights of those to whom I am so sworn, risk a long prison sentence, grave injury, or event death at the hand of those defending against my trespass upon them, then why would I risk it?
Imagine, then, that in that world every free and sovereign man, upon his majority, were required to swear such oaths to his fellow men such that he gives his bond in that way. By that, or some similar instrument, is every man
explicitly agreeing to behave himself properly. At the very least, I would require any man working in any governmental capacity whatsoever, to so swear before assuming any duties to that effect. For example, all contractors to "government" would, unlike today, swear their oaths to uphold... and so forth. They would have to post a bond to that effect and would be strictly liable for any actions they took as agents of governance. Any free man would be centrally within his rights to take whatever means he deemed necessary to defeat improper trespass upon his rights, up to and including slaying those trespassing. This is a very simple deal, requiring no extraordinary training or gift of intellect. If you act as an agent of governance, directly or otherwise, you must act in strict accountability to your fellows. If you trespass improperly (serving a warrant is also trespass, but it is a proper intrusion, all else equal) then you hazard loss of life, limb, or freedom for having done so. This would go a very long way toward correcting the circumstances under which we now suffer.
This world will not likely come to pass; almost certainly not in the lifetime of anyone living today over the age of 40 or 50. We are so profoundly steeped in trouble, the knot of which is terribly convoluted, that it will require a political will such as I daresay the world has yet to see to make the corrections necessary for placing the world of men onto a better path.
