Does the U.S. Constitution apply to non citizens?
No.
Not to say we can’t enforce the laws of our land against someone who is not a citizen. But it has no bearing on what rights the rest of the world has, from us or for themselves.
That’s what I thought, because if it did, people in China would have the same rights we have. See, I’m in a debate on another forum and was trying to tell this one guy that non cit. don’t have the same rights.
This is the basis of the debate:
Thanks
Noncitizens in the U.S. enjoy all the protections of the Bill of Rights.
As for noncitizens under U.S. authority outside our borders . . . that’s not going to be clearly settled any time soon.
Just the Bill of Rights? None of the other amendments? Certainly the 13th must apply.
Also, I meant the question to say : Non citizens living in the U.S.
That pesky 2nd Ammendment kind of throws them for a loop though. 
Yes; they are for the most part.
Cool, interesting responses. I guess some still debate this issue.
I really don’t think that there is much debate. I’m pretty sure that it applies them. Except for the 2nd Ammendment that is pretty bastardized for even US citizens.
I don’t know Bull, according to that article I posted above, they don’t have any rights.
*It depends. * For example, they still have most of the Rights under the BoR. However, non-Citizens can be evicted out back to their native lands without any sort of jury trial, etc.
So, a Non-Citizen still can’t be put in prison for using their 1st Ad rights. But for no real good reason, they can be extradited out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/15/n...n/15detain.html
"But Professor Neuman cautioned that “it’s only a district judge’s decision.”
“The decision encourages the government to behave this way without fear of financial liability,” he said, but it does not carry the weight of a ruling by an appellate court. “This interpretation is attackable even among other judges in Brooklyn, let alone Lower Manhattan.”
But David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University and a co-counsel in the lawsuit, said the ruling was the only one of its kind and made New York “an equal protection-free zone” because the government can detain immigrants wherever it chooses."
I don’t think all your eggs are hatched yet.
I was thinking about that as well a few minutes ago. I was like, “well, I know people can be deported out of here with no explanation if they are illegal, so how DO THEY have Constitutional rights?” Do they just have selective rights under the Consitution, then?
Well, I hope not, Bull. But you have to admit, that that ruling does in fact leave a lot of doors open for some Neo-Con Judge
Don’t be confused by state gun laws, though. The SCOTUS has not agreed yet that the 2nd amendment applies to the states. Most people assume that the states have to abide by the BoR, too, and for the most part they do. There are a few exceptions, though, and the 2nd amendment is one of them.
And Bull, if that was an insult, you don’t know a thing about me. I’m asking questions and not even really stating my opinion or stating it as fact.
Sorry 
There is nothing special about the Bill of Rights that would make it applicable to the exclusion of the rest of the Constitution.
Someone here on vacation, for example, as someone already mentioned, couldn’t be enslaved because of the 13th Amendment, which is not part of the Bill of Rights.
A good remaining chunk of the amendments wouldn’t apply to such a person, because they either aren’t “rights” issues (like the restructuring of the swearing in dates of a new President, or the change in the way Congressional salaries are modified) or because they would only apply specifically to citizens (giving 18 year olds the right to vote, making Senators elected directly by the people.)
But, still, there’s nothing about the Bill of Rights that makes it necessarily special in being applied to people who are within the jurisdiction of the United States but not citizens of the United States.
No problem, didn’t mean to sound like I was attacking you, but I kept thinking about what you said and how you could’ve meant it. I was like, “Well, he could’ve meant that I shouldn’t worry about the situation YET, becasue it was only a small decision” or “He could’ve meant that I was sounding like a looneytoon that doesn’t have any reading comprehension skills” and decided you probably meant the latter.
Either way, it’s no big deal. 
I appreciate your reponse.