A thread in GD where people were discussing the constitutionality of government action against illegal immigrants in the US got me thinking. I generally understand a constitution to define the relationship between a government and its citizens, and was wondering if there are any equivalent protections for the likes of tourists. If for example I was visiting the US and was accused of a crime, would I be able to take the fifth? In general, what laws are there governing how the government may and may not treat tourists? If you know the answer for a country other than the US, I’d be interested in seeing your response as well.
A lot of the core constitutional rights are there for anyone. You’ll have to scroll down to “Rights and Responsibilities” in this PDF study guide for naturalization candidates but things like freedom of expression and other rights enshrined in the bill of rights apply to everyone who is under U.S. jurisdiction.
This is actually why we shipped people to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We have a U.S. military base there (obviously), and the Bush Administration divined that if they kept terrorist detainees there they would not be afforded many of the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution–for example the right to a habeas corpus hearing and the requirement that in some manner the government must justify holding them. The issues surrounding Guantanamo detainees could fill many threads, but the point being the government did that because it knew that if they just had these detainees in a Federal holding facility or something in the actual United States then it would be much more difficult to deal with the issue in the court system as the detainees would be protected at least in part by our Constitution and 200+ years or jurisprudence governing the government’s ability to keep people locked up.
There are differences in rights between Immigration matters and criminal matters. Generally illegal immigrants are not entitled to an attorney at public expense if they cannot afford one. If charged with a criminal offence the same illegal immigrant would be entitled to a public defender. So a tourist who is accused of committing a crime is entitled to a lawyer at pubic expense. A tourist who overstays his visa and is facing deportation is not entitled to a lawyer at public expense.
Another issue a tourist may face is the need for emergency medical care. In the United States there is a requirement for a hospital to assess and stabilize a patient in an emergency regardless of citizenship status or ability to pay. But there is no requirement to provide ongoing care - a tourist could be stabilized and then deported to receive treatment in his home country. Tourists are not eligible for US or state government funded medical programs for the poor such as Medicaid.
This may be easier if you don’t think of the Constitution as giving rights to (certain) persons, but if you instead think of it as limiting the power of the federal government. In some places this is explicit: “Congress shall make no law . . .” In others, the sentence is passive: “No person shall be . . . compelled to testify against himself.” But in nearly all cases, the object of the sentence is a person, not just citizens. The only constitutional references to citizens are eligibility for office, diversity jurisdiction (where lawsuits can be filed), the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the amendments providing voting rights.