• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?

Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • No

    Votes: 14 56.0%
  • Somewhere in between

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • Not sure, but I'm interested in what others have to say

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Some should, yes.

The right to life. The right to one's legally owned property.

But some should not...such as the right to vote.

We do recognize that everyone has the right to vote. Just not in the US elections.
 
Some should, yes.

The right to life. The right to one's legally owned property.

But some should not...such as the right to vote.

The right to life is inherent without the Constitution.
Standards for property ownership by non US citizens should be handled by treaty with the person's country not our Constitution.
 
This link is also posted in the immigration forum, but that thread is intended for the immigration aspects. This thread and poll is intended for a different sub-topic that is contained within the story. I have also seen this sub-topic mentioned in other news stories as well, so it's not exactly a rare issue.

Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?


The question isn't how things are done now. We may be doing them correct, or we may be doing them incorrect. The question is: What do YOU think should apply to non-citizens regarding specifically Constitutional rights and protections?

Should something like the 1st Amendment right to free speech and expression apply to non-citizens (who are in this country)?

The First Amend says
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since the 1st Amend does NOT say that congress can make laws establishing a religion for non-citizens, or prohibit the free speech of non-citizens, or abridge the freedom of speech of non-citizens, or the press of non-citizens, or the right of non-citizens to peaceable assemble, or the right of non-citizens to petition the govt, then the only way one could think that constitutional rights should not apply to non-citizens would be if one thinks the actual text of the constitution should be ignored, and replaced with whatever nonsense that person would like it to say
 
We do recognize that everyone has the right to vote. Just not in the US elections.

No we don't. There are countries that don't hold elections with whom we don't interfere.. We support a democratic republican model, but we do not recognize it as a universal human right.
 
Some should, yes.

The right to life. The right to one's legally owned property.

But some should not...such as the right to vote.

Right, or even more accurately, some *do* and some do *not*

The Framers of our constitution deliberately and intentionally granted our govt the power to protect rights - in some instances only the power to protect those rights for citizens (ex voting) and in others, for every person regardless of citizenship
 
Right, or even more accurately, some *do* and some do *not*

The Framers of our constitution deliberately and intentionally granted our govt the power to protect rights - in some instances only the power to protect those rights for citizens (ex voting) and in others, for every person regardless of citizenship
How do you know that? Because you want to believe it? There are a great many things that have been interpreted by the Supreme Court because they are specifically not clearly defined in the Constitution. The notion that everything is always "clear" in what it says and doesn't say is absurd, as evidenced by the countless court cases seeking correction and definition over the life of the country.

What is also absurd is the idea that, because it is not addressed (as others have mentioned), it somehow automatically applies. Quite the opposite. The 10th Amendment specifically says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". Hence, unless there is very precise wording that says non-citizens are covered, then the people are free to decide.
 
How do you know that? Because you want to believe it? There are a great many things that have been interpreted by the Supreme Court because they are specifically not clearly defined in the Constitution. The notion that everything is always "clear" in what it says and doesn't say is absurd, as evidenced by the countless court cases seeking correction and definition over the life of the country.

If you are asking that as an epistemological question, I'd say you are being obtuse. If you are asking about how I know how the constitution is applied (wrt to the rights of non-citizens) the answer is that the Supreme Court (which the constitution expressly gives the power to decide such things) has clearly stated that the words "person" and "people", as used in the constitution (including the 1st amend), apply to citizens and non-citizens.

What is also absurd is the idea that, because it is not addressed (as others have mentioned), it somehow automatically applies. Quite the opposite. The 10th Amendment specifically says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". Hence, unless there is very precise wording that says non-citizens are covered, then the people are free to decide.

No, it doesn't "automatically apply". It applies because SCOTUS says it applies, and SCOTUS is the institution which the Constitution says gets to decide such matters.

The 10th refers to the powers of govts, and says nothing about whether non-citizens have rights. In fact, your quote says nothing about the rights of persons. You are conflating the powers of govt (which are delegated to it by the people) and the rights of people. The difference between the rights of people, and the powers of govt, are a subject taught in Constitutional Law 101.
 
Constitutional rights apply to those on U.S. soil. The only rights specific to citizens on U.S. soil are those that the constitution specifically reserves for them. For example, you have a constitutional right to the freedom of expression. That right only applies while you are on U.S. soil. The fact that you are a citizen has nothing to do with it. If you flew to North Korea you would have no right to freedom of expression even though you are a U.S. citizen. Conversely, if a North Korean traveled here, they would enjoy the same freedom of speech you enjoy despite the fact they are not a citizen and despite the fact that in their home country they don't have that right.

This is constitutional law 101.
 
What is also absurd is the idea that, because it is not addressed (as others have mentioned), it somehow automatically applies. Quite the opposite. The 10th Amendment specifically says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". Hence, unless there is very precise wording that says non-citizens are covered, then the people are free to decide.

The constitution largely does not grant rights to anyone. All it does is limit the power of the government. In most cases it does not state what you may do, it states what the government may not do.
 
Constitutional rights apply to those on U.S. soil. The only rights specific to citizens on U.S. soil are those that the constitution specifically reserves for them. For example, you have a constitutional right to the freedom of expression. That right only applies while you are on U.S. soil. The fact that you are a citizen has nothing to do with it. If you flew to North Korea you would have no right to freedom of expression even though you are a U.S. citizen. Conversely, if a North Korean traveled here, they would enjoy the same freedom of speech you enjoy despite the fact they are not a citizen and despite the fact that in their home country they don't have that right.

This is constitutional law 101.

What? What of foreign military forces, terrorists and illegal aliens? Must we simply let them roam freely, unless there is "probable cause" to suspect that they may mean us "real" harm?
 
Framing the question in "should" terms, my answer is that if we were to do what SHOULD be done, we wouldn't be following the Constitution in the first place, as it has never received the consent of the governed. It was imposed by force, crafted without the the awareness or input or approval of over 99.99% of the population subjected to its rule, and in many cases deliberately constructed so as to preclude implementation of the political will of the people (no matter how much flowery language was used to suggest the contrary).

In short, the U.S. constitution was only trivially more responsive to the political will of the population it was imposed upon than, say, a randomly chosen set of laws from any part of the world at the time.

We can do better. I reject on its face the notion that the best we can do is to resign ourselves to the laws of long-dead white supremacists, slaveholders, rapists, plutocrats, and commissioners of genocide.

Ironically, the original framing and passage of the Constitution, in letter, spirit, and implementation, violates most of the principles rightly or wrongly associated with it today.
 
Last edited:
What? What of foreign military forces, terrorists and illegal aliens? Must we simply let them roam freely, unless there is "probable cause" to suspect that they may mean us "real" harm?

An illegal alien is not breaking the law by expressing their opinions or writing an article in a newspaper that is critical of the government. They are breaking the law because they are in violation of immigration law. The government can detain or deport them because they are in violation of immigration law, not because of their stated opinions, any art they create, what articles they may write in a local newspaper and so on.

Similarly, a terrorist is in violation of the law because they have harmed others or are plotting to do so. They are not in violation of the law because they have Islamist views.

A foreign military is in violation of U.S. sovereignty if they are on U.S. soil conducting operations that are unauthorized by the U.S. government.

This is constitutional law 101. It is also the core libertarian constitutional philosophy. I am surprised that so few people understand that.
 
The constitution largely does not grant rights to anyone. All it does is limit the power of the government. In most cases it does not state what you may do, it states what the government may not do.

And I would add - the constitution doesn't grant anyone rights. Rights are inalienable and everyone has rights. When people speak of "constitutional rights", what they are really referring to is the govts *power* to protect the rights of people (sometimes all people, and sometimes only citizens)
 
Our rights are inalienable. They do no originate from the Constitution.

Correct, and the purpose of government is to protect those rights.

But, we have no control over how other people in other nations see their government. The best we can do is to make sure our own government fulfills its purpose. That is a difficult enough task for right now.
 
No we don't. There are countries that don't hold elections with whom we don't interfere.. We support a democratic republican model, but we do not recognize it as a universal human right.

Just because we do not interfere, does not mean we do not recognize the right.
 
Correct, and the purpose of government is to protect those rights.

But, we have no control over how other people in other nations see their government. The best we can do is to make sure our own government fulfills its purpose. That is a difficult enough task for right now.

Yes. But when those other citizens are here, we should respect their rights.
 
Yes, absolutely, so long as they're here legally.
But even if they're here illegally, I'd still expect them to be safeguarded from unreasonable search and seizure. I'd be fine with free speech and criticizing the government, but I would stop short at allowing them to march and protest*, even is it is peaceable.

*-Conceptual point, presuming you could tell a legal from an illegal.
 
But even if they're here illegally, I'd still expect them to be safeguarded from unreasonable search and seizure. I'd be fine with free speech and criticizing the government, but I would stop short at allowing them to march and protest*, even is it is peaceable.

*-Conceptual point, presuming you could tell a legal from an illegal.
That is quite an assumption.

We seem to have a stereotype of the illegal alien who doesn't speak English and who is hanging around Home Depot hoping for a job, or perhaps out picking fruit. That just isn't always the case. I've known illegals up close and personal, so I can tell you that some of them speak perfectly good English and don't fit the stereotype at all. On the other hand, there are legal residents who don't speak English. You can't tell by looking or listening.
 
That is quite an assumption.

We seem to have a stereotype of the illegal alien who doesn't speak English and who is hanging around Home Depot hoping for a job, or perhaps out picking fruit. That just isn't always the case. I've known illegals up close and personal, so I can tell you that some of them speak perfectly good English and don't fit the stereotype at all. On the other hand, there are legal residents who don't speak English. You can't tell by looking or listening.
I seriously have no idea how what you said here even remotely applies to my post that you responded to. I made no reference or inference regarding language or work status.
 
I seriously have no idea how what you said here even remotely applies to my post that you responded to. I made no reference or inference regarding language or work status.

I was responding to this:

Conceptual point, presuming you could tell a legal from an illegal.

Which is, as I said, quite an assumption.
 
I was responding to this:



Which is, as I said, quite an assumption.

Right. I was stating that you cannot tell a legal from an illegal simply by looking at them. The asterisk related to a previous point. Awkwardly phrased maybe, but not what you interpreted it to be.
 
Yes, absolutely, so long as they're here legally.
So, how do you find out without violating their rights in the first place? And what happens when the inevitable mistake is made? "Oops, my bad" doesn't cover it, and it ends up being the taxpayers who foot the bill for such mistakes.
 
No, things like the right to vote are Constitutional rights and should not be extended to non-citizens. Non-citizens deserve human rights and many human rights are also Constitutional rights. However, Constitutional rights should be specific only for US citizens.
 
So, how do you find out without violating their rights in the first place?

The same way we do it for any form of criminality (Hint: It's called "probable cause")

And what happens when the inevitable mistake is made? "Oops, my bad" doesn't cover it, and it ends up being the taxpayers who foot the bill for such mistakes.

The same thing happens when any mistake about a criminal occurs
 
Back
Top Bottom