*Miranda * rights aren’t actually rights you have when you get arrested. They’re conditions for admissibility at trial of statements made to the police during custodial interrogation.
[/quibble]
HE was asking for a citation on the issue of not being able to own firearms. He’d already accepted that there is no right to vote.
Yes, but I’ll have to track it down. In brief - visiting or non-resident aliens are not allowed to have firearms unless they are hunting. State laws frequently prohibit sales to anyone who has not lived in-state for 90 days or more, but that’s not a federal thing and probably doesn’t count.
It’s in here
So there are gun owner restrictions on certain aliens, but there are also restrictions on citizens as well, convicted felon, for example. This is not a blanket, no guns for foreigners, ever, law.
As an alien living in Japan, I’ve got the same basic rights as Japanese citizens, with the exceptions similar to those noted by Giles.
The Fifth Amendment speaks of persons, not of citizens.
I am not an attorney, but my understanding is that the Fifth Amendment is supposed to apply to everyone.
Your English and spelling are perfect – unlike most Americans.
“…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.”
YMMV.
My question, to expand upon the OP’s is:
Has any non-citizen successfully taken to the SCOTUS
a matter of unalienable rights not granted to non-citizens?
Bolding mine:
This is an important fact that many people don’t get. The police don’t have to Mirandize you unless you’re in a custodial situation (under arrest or freedom of movement is restrained) AND you are being questioned.
So, so, sooooo many tv programs and movies show cops fighting with people and don’t even have the cuffs on yet and they’re sputting off “you have the right to remain silent…blah blah blah…” I know it’s for dramatic effect but a lot of people think that’s the way it is.
I don’t read Miranda to a majority of people I arrest. I already have my facts, I don’t need to interview them. But every now and then someone will come skipping out of booking after being bailed out and go “nah nah na nah nah! I’m going to get out of this because you didn’t read me my rights!”
I would absolutely LOVE to see the look on their face when their lawyer tells them I didn’t have to! 
You might want to use the correct text. What you quoted is the Declaration of Independence. The issue at hand here is the Constitution of the United States.
About Miranda I know only from movies and some friends of mine, who unfortunately get arrested often.
About the ammendments that might allow you not to testify at trial I heard from a sleazy lawyer, who was looking for potential clients.Definitely not the one I`ll pick if it gets to that point.
And basically, when I asked about the Miranda rights, if they apply to an alien, I wanted to know if I can stay put until my lawyers arrive, in case of an arrest.Wanted to know if I too have the right to a lawyer before questiong and stuff.
As I don`t have a copy of the US Constitution at hand, I also want to know if there is something there that can allow me to refuse to testify against family members? And to what kind of relatives does that apply ? Only father/mother/brother or does it extend to cousins,etc?
Right now I am asking based only on what I know from un-reliable sources, just to get an idea about this stuff, before I will talk to a lawyer.
Thanks for all the responses.
Well, here’s the link I use, but the only relative you cannot be forced to testify against is your spouse, and even then, the so-called “marital privilege” isn’t absolute. Your other relatives have no such protection and the courts won’t be impressed by your refusal to testify against them.
I can only suggest you distance yourself as much as possible from your relatives’ illegal activities and keep yourself as deliberately ignorant of these activities as you can.
Amusingly, while researching this I found a list of technical reviews of some Law & Order episodes here. Though the writers are generally positive about how the legal procedures are dramatized, what seems to offend them the most is surprise revelations during testimony of facts that should have been uncovered during pretrial investigation.
At the very least, the reviews should encourage you not to believe everything you see on TV.
Thanks! As a Law + Order fan, I liked the actual procedural references.
Aware of the quote being from the DoI.
The SCOTUS has cited the Magna Carta 115 times!
Plenty. Here’s a discussion from a 1990 SCOTUS opinion:
Doesn’t matter how many times they cite anything; the only thing that governs our rights in the United States of America is the Constitution.
They are cited as helping to understand the intent of the framers, or the intent of the legislators, or the intent of the administration, or the intent of the common law (most often the latter, in the case of Magna Carta (notice no “the” in front of it, if you want to use “the”, call it The Great Charter). They are not cited as you apparently cited the Declaration of Independence, as “controlling” authority.
This is a citation to the Declaration of Independence, given in that post for the purpose of responding to the OP, and then proceded to ask if the matter of a non-citizens “unalienable rights” had ever been taken to the SCotUS. This shows a fundamental failure to understand that there are no “unalienable rights” in the US Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence has no controlling value in answering questions of this nature.
This shows a fundamental failure to understand the term “unalienable rights” which is: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred,
by kings or constitutions!
The writers of the DoI believed that the rights in question could not be alienated. And, indeed, no one is asserting that they have been alienated.
But you fail to comprehend that the Declaration of Independence, while an admirable document, has no legal value for anything other than the actual act of declaring the new existence of the United States. It isn’t citable legal authority for any proposition you care to make beyond, “The United States of America came into existence on July 4, 1776.”
Further, while the DoI and its authors may assert that those rights are inalienable, this does not mean that the system we operate under has to agree. You will, I assume, acknowledge that the writers, all admirable men, asserted that “all men are created equal” without meaning anything of the sort. So, too, may the authors of the Constitution have decided that the language of the DoI was a bit too broad, which is why the Bill of Rights speaks of “life, liberty and property,” and leaves out that cute phrase, “pursuit of happiness.”