# Constitutional Rights: Do they apply to everyone inside the USA or just citizens? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 30, 2019, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030 "2019-09-30T05:35:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/21 "2019-10-01T18:00:49Z")
> [@BrianDime](#): > > My understanding was that the rights enumerated in the constitution were inherent in the nature of man, rather than being granted by any document. That’s clearly nonsense, though. Nature doesn’t give a shit about rights. They’re only something human beings care about, and only exist to the extent that human beings make sure they exist. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/22 "2019-10-01T18:35:26Z")
\*“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land…” \* “Land” means territory, doesn’t it? So I’d say that the Constitution applies to anyone standing on U.S. soil. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/23 "2019-10-01T18:47:38Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > That’s clearly nonsense, though. Nature doesn’t give a shit about rights. They’re only something human beings care about, and only exist to the extent that human beings make sure they exist. Yes, but it’s better to say “people have rights because they are people” rather than “people have rights because of the circumstances of their birth and residence”. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/24 "2019-10-01T19:00:55Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Yes, but it’s better to say “people have rights because they are people” rather than “people have rights because of the circumstances of their birth and residence”. Even though the latter is the statement that’s actually true? ---
**Author:** ![mjmlabs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mjmlabs/32/69_2.png) [@mjmlabs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjmlabs)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/25 "2019-10-01T19:20:28Z")
Well, at least one country has claimed, in writing, that some rights are “inalienable.” ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/26 "2019-10-01T19:26:57Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It applies to citizens of the territories, but not to the territories themselves, except to the extent that Congress chooses. So Puerto Ricans are guaranteed a trial by jury when they are in the mainland U.S., but they are not guaranteed a trial by jury _in Puerto Rico_ (except to the extent that Puerto Rico’s own constitution guarantees one). As an example, Guam has a representative in the US House, but the person is a non-voting delegate. US states on the other hand all have full representatives that can vote. US citizens resident in Guam don’t really have a vote in presidential elections; they are polled to see who they support but since they have no electoral votes they don’t affect the outcome of the race in any way. (I use Guam as an example because I used to live there, so I’m familiar with it.) ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/27 "2019-10-01T19:33:12Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Even though the latter is the statement that’s actually true? I disagree that the latter is true, but that’s probably due to differences in what we mean by “having a right” and “because”. I’ll stipulate it’s true if we use your definitions. But beyond that, the point is “it’s better to say” the former because it stresses that it’s our respect of another’s humanity that demands we treat each other as humans. The latter implies another’s circumstances determine how they should be treated. Or, to put it another way: “people have rights because they’re people” is a moral stance. “People have rights because of circumstances” is a legal stance. I don’t think how people should be treated depends on the law; it depends on doing the right thing. Furthermore, it’s old politics, but still important. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is the liberal, fundamental philosophy of the American revolution. It means everyone has rights, not just those granted by a sovereign power. Even if that sovereign power is the People. We ignore that at our own peril. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/28 "2019-10-01T19:37:54Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > \*“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land…” > \* > > “Land” means territory, doesn’t it? So I’d say that the Constitution applies to anyone standing on U.S. soil. Yes, but why should it extend benefits to Invaders who are standing on U.S. soil by force or deception? You would agree if somehow the Soviet Army had managed to land a massive army on US soil, those combatants would not get the benefit of Constitutional rights, right? Arguably, illegal immigrants are also invaders. ---
**Author:** ![mjmlabs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mjmlabs/32/69_2.png) [@mjmlabs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjmlabs)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/29 "2019-10-01T19:56:04Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Yes, but why should it extend benefits to Invaders who are standing on U.S. soil by force or deception? > You would agree if somehow the Soviet Army had managed to land a massive army on US soil, those combatants would not get the benefit of Constitutional rights, right? > > Arguably, illegal immigrants are also invaders. If you would care to argue that migrants are enemy combatants, feel free. If you would rather rest your case on confusing those two disparate definitions of “invaders,” well, most Dopers will see that for the sophistry it is. (If you copy the phrase “by force or deception” from whatever talking-points website you got it from once more, I shall point and laugh in the privacy of my home.) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/30 "2019-10-01T20:17:37Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > But beyond that, the point is “it’s better to say” the former because it stresses that it’s our respect of another’s humanity that demands we treat each other as humans. The latter implies another’s circumstances determine how they should be treated. > > Or, to put it another way: “people have rights because they’re people” is a moral stance. “People have rights because of circumstances” is a legal stance. I don’t think how people should be treated depends on the law; it depends on doing the right thing. “People have rights because they’re people” is a fairy tale. “Everyone \*deserves \*rights,” is a moral stance. “Not everyone \*has \*rights” is a simple fact. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, it’s old politics, but still important. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is the liberal, fundamental philosophy of the American revolution. It means everyone has rights, not just those granted by a sovereign power. Even if that sovereign power is the People. We ignore that at our own peril. What am I supposed to make of that statement if I don’t believe in a Creator? And I think the bigger peril is forgetting that the rights we have are incredibly fragile, and can be taken away from us from us very, very easily, which is something the concept of “natural rights” elides. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/31 "2019-10-01T20:43:19Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > “People have rights because they’re people” is a fairy tale. “Everyone \*deserves \*rights,” is a moral stance. “Not everyone \*has \*rights” is a simple fact. I think this is a definitional thing. Lots of rights can be defined as negative or positive duties: my rights impose a duty on you not to do certain things, or to do certain things. And duties are inextricably bound up with the word “should.” Saying that everyone has rights doesn’t mean these are things that can be picked up and examined, or even that they are universally respected. It means that everyone **should** be treated in certain ways, whether or not they actually **are**. I’m not always gonna reference Wikipedia, but in this case, the article section [Natural versus legal rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights#Natural_versus_legal) may help clarify the conversation. Constitutional rights, of course, are legal rights, but they’re intended to reflect natural rights. The OP only makes sense if it’s addressing the legal rights. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/32 "2019-10-01T21:29:41Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Yes, but why should it extend benefits to Invaders who are standing on U.S. soil by force or deception? > You would agree if somehow the Soviet Army had managed to land a massive army on US soil, those combatants would not get the benefit of Constitutional rights, right? No, but under those circumstances one would assume that a state of war would exist between the United States and the Soviet Union. That’s the whole point of war - it means you can kill people from another country. To the best of my knowledge, the only country the U.S. is currently in a state of war with is North Korea, and seeing as I haven’t heard of boatloads of North Koreans landing on American shores, I don’t really see how that applies. The people arriving in the United States are not citizens of enemy nations, nor are they crossing any hostile borders (which the U.S. doesn’t have), so in my opinion they cannot be considered invaders. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/33 "2019-10-01T21:34:56Z")
> [@l0k1](#): > > It we say that only citizens have the right to due process, then there is nothing to stop the government from denying someone’s citizenship, depriving them of due process, and executing them. Exactly where an Constitution say only citizen have some right? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/34 "2019-10-01T21:43:40Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I think this is a definitional thing. Lots of rights can be defined as negative or positive duties: my rights impose a duty on you not to do certain things, or to do certain things. > > And duties are inextricably bound up with the word “should.” > > Saying that everyone has rights doesn’t mean these are things that can be picked up and examined, or even that they are universally respected. It means that everyone **should** be treated in certain ways, whether or not they actually **are**. > > I’m not always gonna reference Wikipedia, but in this case, the article section [Natural versus legal rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights#Natural_versus_legal) may help clarify the conversation. > > Constitutional rights, of course, are legal rights, but they’re intended to reflect natural rights. The OP only makes sense if it’s addressing the legal rights. I’m not confused by the definition of “natural rights,” I’m saying the definition is ridiculous, and does not apply to any real world concept or situation. No part of the definition of natural rights is accurate or realistic. Rights are not handed down by God; God does not exist. They aren’t provided by nature; nature does not give a shit about your rights. They are certainly not inalienable; billions of people are deprived of things we call “natural” rights every day. And they are absolutely the product of laws and customs - there’s literally nothing else they could be a product _of_. And I don’t see how the OP makes any less sense if we’re talking about “natural” rights. “Do non-citizens have the right to freedom of speech?” is a perfectly sensible question, and one that has a different answer depending on what nation’s laws you’re looking at. ---
**Author:** ![mjmlabs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mjmlabs/32/69_2.png) [@mjmlabs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjmlabs)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/35 "2019-10-01T21:44:25Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Exactly where an Constitution say only citizen have some right? :dubious: Mockery for a single-adjacent-letter typo seems a bit harsh. Let those without typos cast the first snark, and all that … ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/36 "2019-10-01T21:55:05Z")
> [@mjmlabs](#): > > :dubious: Mockery for a single-adjacent-letter typo seems a bit harsh. Let those without typos cast the first snark, and all that … Yeah, “it we say that” is not a one-letter typo, it signals the incoherence that follows in saying that the government can pretty much execute anybody it wants. Thanks for playing though, always fun to see a spectator jumping in with the adults. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/37 "2019-10-01T21:57:20Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Yeah, “it we say that” is not a one-letter typo, it signals the incoherence that follows in saying that the government can pretty much execute anybody it wants. “It” and “if” are only one letter off… ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/38 "2019-10-01T21:58:56Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Exactly where an Constitution say only citizen have some right? The Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments all explicitly protect the voting rights of citizens of the United States: > [@Fifteenth Amendment](#): > > The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude > [@Nineteenth Amendment](#): > > The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. > [@Twenty-fourth Amendment](#): > > The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. > [@Twenty-sixth Amendment](#): > > The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. As already noted, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments clearly protect the rights of all _persons_ when it comes to the deprivation of “life, liberty, or property” (which can only be done with “due process of law”), and the Fourteenth Amendment also forbids denying any _person_ “the equal protection of the laws”. And also as already noted the protection of many other enumerated rights are phrased as _limitations on government power_: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” _doesn’t_ say “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech [of citizens of the United States]”. ---
**Author:** ![mjmlabs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mjmlabs/32/69_2.png) [@mjmlabs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjmlabs)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/39 "2019-10-01T22:00:55Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > “It” and “if” are only one letter off… … and on a QWERTY keyboard, the keys for “f” and “t” are, in fact, adjacent. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/40 "2019-10-01T22:06:01Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > “It” and “if” are only one letter off… Does it say “if we say that” or “it says that?” or “it we say that?” Why make such a stretch to clarify a bumbling subject of an incoherent and demonstrably wrong predicate? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030.md?page=3)