Who has Constitutional rights? Is it only citizens, or lawful residents, or any resident, or are they universal rights? Does it depend on the particular right?
For example, the First Amendment: 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. No mention of citizenship. The Amendment is a restriction on the government rather than an assertion of rights. So a simple interpretation is that the U.S. federal government may not deprive anyone of those rights (thus, universal rights). What’s the correct interpretation?
Keep this in General Questions: factual answers only. Start your own thread in Great Debates if you feel the need to make snarky comments about presidents, judges, etc.
Yes, they apply to all. An illegal immigrant cannot be jailed for making statements that a citizen would be able to make.
But … You could still have your green card revoked and be deported as undesirable. Perhaps not the distinction you were loking for.
Actually, some rights enumerated in the Constitution do paply only to citizens:
Amendment XIV, Section 1, gives “Citizens” slightly more protection than “persons,” specifically extending to them the proviso “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,”
Amendments XV, XIX and XXVI give equality of voting rights only to citizens.
Amendment XXIV, banning poll taxes, applies only to citizens.
And of course the Constitution limits to citizens the right to hold the offices of President, Vice-President, Senator and Representative (but not specifically Supreme Court justice or federal judge)
I also think the Constitution is generally considered to only apply to Americans or to people within the United States. I don’t think anybody would argue the First Amendment would prohibit the government from taking some action like giving foreign aid to Pakistan despite the fact that the Pakistani government doesn’t allow freedom of speeach.
There are really only two sets of legal rights (legal rights in general, not just constitutional rights) which U.S. citizens may enjoy but noncitizens do not:
Political participation, i.e., voting; and even that is not an absolute right and there are many legal disabilities that may apply (insufficient length of residence; failure to register to vote within the allowable time prior to election; mental illness; in some states, conviction of felony).
Residence in U.S. territory. If you are a citizen, you can be imprisoned for crime but you cannot be deported; only a noncitizen can be deported. (The ancient Romans, by contract, greatly preferred exile as punishment for crime; it was much cheaper.)
But even noncitizens (if lawfully resident in the U.S.) enjoy the rights to, e.g., control their own earnings, dispose of their own property, etc. And even incarcerated convicts, who have been deprived of most of their civil rights by due process of law, do retain some legal rights – e.g., the right of access to the courts.
I agree that Constitutional rights are generally considered to apply only to U.S. citizens. Why, though? For rights enumerated in certain Amendments, it specifically says citizens only. But what about the Bill of Rights? Citizenship is not mentioned in those.
Maybe not for aiding a foreign government, but I could see arguing against the U.S. government being directly involved in violations of rights in foreign jurisdictions.
Does that mean that the Bill of Rights applies to actions of the U.S. government when dealing with all people (no matter nationality or location)?