# Does the US Bill of Rights apply to foreign visitors? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 18, 2015, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-bill-of-rights-apply-to-foreign-visitors/740749 "2015-12-18T02:36:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2015, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-bill-of-rights-apply-to-foreign-visitors/740749/1 "2015-12-18T02:36:58Z")
That is really pretty much the question. I did search GQ, but the only discussion I found was very brief and discussed the plain text of the amendments. However, is there any case law that establishes that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens within the borders of the United States? ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2015, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-bill-of-rights-apply-to-foreign-visitors/740749/2 "2015-12-18T03:00:30Z")
Much of the Bill of Rights is framed in terms of things Congress may not do. Congress shall make no law… No reason those would not apply to foreign visitors. Not exactly in the Bill of Rights, but there is case law about how the 14th Amendment applies to non-citizens. That Amendment, in part, reads “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Courts have interpreted “person” to include non-citizens. Recently SCOTUS ruled that non-citizens have a right to competent counsel to advise them on how a guilty plea may affect any possible deportation proceeding. See [Padilla v. Kentucky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padilla_v._Kentucky) That right to counsel is rooted in the 6th Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights. And to the extent that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause applies to “any person” then it would cover the protections afforded under the Bill of Rights. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2015, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-bill-of-rights-apply-to-foreign-visitors/740749/3 "2015-12-18T05:29:47Z")
non-citizens who are arrested do not have the right to a court appointed attorney I believe. They have to pay for one themselves or do without. At least that is true of illegal immigrants in detention centres, not sure if the same is true if someone legally in the US on a tourist visa commits a serious crime? > **[Immigration detention in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_detention_in_the_United_States)** > > The United States government holds tens of thousands of immigrants in detention under the control of Customs and Border Protection (CBP; principally the Border Patrol) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Immigrants are detained for unlawful entry to the United States, when their claims for asylum are received (and prior to release into the United States by parole), and in the process of deportation and removal from the country. During Fiscal Year 2018, 396,448 people were booked in... ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2015, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-bill-of-rights-apply-to-foreign-visitors/740749/4 "2015-12-18T05:38:10Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > non-citizens who are arrested do not have the right to a court appointed attorney I believe. They have to pay for one themselves or do without. At least that is true of illegal immigrants in detention centres, not sure if the same is true if someone legally in the US on a tourist visa commits a serious crime? That’s because immigration hearings are civil matters. A non-citizen accused of a _crime_ would have a right to an attorney. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2015, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-bill-of-rights-apply-to-foreign-visitors/740749/5 "2015-12-18T05:41:49Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > non-citizens who are arrested do not have the right to a court appointed attorney I believe. They have to pay for one themselves or do without. At least that is true of illegal immigrants in detention centres, not sure if the same is true if someone legally in the US on a tourist visa commits a serious crime? > > [Immigration detention in the United States - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_detention_in_the_United_States) Immigration hearings, not being criminal proceedings, have different standards about access to counsel. An illegal immigrant accused of a serious crime and charged in state or federal court with a felony most certainly does have the same rights to court-appointed counsel as any other defendant in the United States. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2015, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-bill-of-rights-apply-to-foreign-visitors/740749/6 "2015-12-18T08:58:31Z")
[Yes it does 100%](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html): > [@](#): > > the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants. So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments… > (There are a few rights reserved for citizens. Among them are the right to vote, the right to hold most federal jobs, and the right to run for political office.) > … > But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2015, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-bill-of-rights-apply-to-foreign-visitors/740749/7 "2015-12-18T14:27:52Z")
No, not 100%. For example, non-immigrant aliens may not purchase or possess firearms unless they hold a state-issued hunting license. Most states will not issue concealed handgun licenses to non-citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2015, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-bill-of-rights-apply-to-foreign-visitors/740749/8 "2015-12-18T14:39:41Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No, not 100%. For example, non-immigrant aliens may not purchase or possess firearms unless they hold a state-issued hunting license. Most states will not issue concealed handgun licenses to non-citizens. Have these issues been held by SCOTUS? AFAIK there was nothing limiting non-citizen’s rights in _Heller_ which affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self defense. Second Amendment case law is a bit spartan. \*Heller \*was the first case since United States v Miller in 1939 to directly address the scope of the Second Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![dofe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ba0ec/32.png) [@dofe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dofe)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2015, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-bill-of-rights-apply-to-foreign-visitors/740749/9 "2015-12-18T14:45:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No, not 100%. For example, non-immigrant aliens may not purchase or possess firearms unless they hold a state-issued hunting license. Most states will not issue concealed handgun licenses to non-citizens. It would be interesting to see how such state laws would hold up under a challenge at the supreme court level. My guess would be that under _Heller_ (given SCOTUS’s rationale that the 2nd amendment right is unconnected to militias), such a restriction would likely be held unconstitutional. But then again, I don’t think the 2nd amendment rights of nin-citizens is an issue that the NRA or other gun rights groups are eager to test in courts. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2015, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-bill-of-rights-apply-to-foreign-visitors/740749/10 "2015-12-18T14:47:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Have these issues been held by SCOTUS? > > AFAIK there was nothing limiting non-citizen’s rights in Heller which affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self defense. No. But that’s not how constitutional law works. Legislative acts are presumed to be constitutional. The rights of non-immigrants or non-citizens were not at issue in _Heller_. SCOTUS might very conclude that the Second Amendment applies to non-citizens, but unless it does it would be presumed that it does not. It’s very unlikely that SCOTUS would conclude the Second Amendment applies to non-_immigrants_ since they would not fall within the body from which the militia would be drawn (Scalia’s rather ridiculous prefatory clause claims aside).