Rights of foreigners in the U.S.

‘Everyone knows’ that non-U.S. citizens in the U.S. have the same rights under the law as citizens. The Bill of Rights applies equally to Nguyen as it does to Smith, right? Where does the law actually say this? Is there such a law? Or is it a treaty? Is there a specific SCOTUS ruling that guarantees civil rights to non-citizens?

Amendment 14, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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. **

Sorry to bring this up, but isn’t Guantanamo Bay ‘within the jurisdiction’ of the US?

The courts have ruled that aliens (illegal, legal), visitors and nationals (for example people from American Somoa), have the same BASIC constitutional rights as citizens.

However TSCOTUS has also said not all of the rights in the US Constitution apply to them. It is up to the courts to decided which of those rights do not apply. So it is purposely vauge.

TSCOTUS has also ruled people in this country illegally, legally or visiting OWE the USA temporary allegence while they are in this country and can be prosecuted for failure to do this. In other words you have a duty NOT to spy, to report criminal activites to the police and obey all the laws of this country.

:smack:

silenus The 14th has been so entrenched over the years as being protections for ex-slaves, I completely forgot about that last bit!

It was a debate topic 2 years ago, so I remember it well, and all the arguments that go with it. :smiley:
glee, those at Gitmo are enjoying the protection of the laws. Military law. Which only vaguely resembles the kind enjoyed by the likes of you and me.

Do you have a link?

Not at home. When I get to school, I can find a few.

Thanks.

Not all rights. Non-citizens do not have the right to vote, for example, or to serve on a jury, or to hold national public office.

You knew what I meant.

There is some discussion here.

I wonder how this applies to the I-94W entry form (pdf).

It has a lot of questions in the line of “Have you ever been or is now involved in espionage or sabotage; or terrorist activities; or genocide” and “Do you have a communicable disease; physical or mental disorder; or are you a drug abuser or addict?” I see that they have removed the part about being or having been a communist.

All the times I’ve travelled to the U.S. I’ve snickered and thought “Yeah, right. As if I would answer yes on any of these questions.” But they must be there for a reason, making it possible for U.S. Customs to deport a foreign national without due process, or…

I’ve briefly checked the cbp.gov website, but haven’t really found out what the deal is. Obviously, a terrorist caught in the act who didn’t answer truthfully is gonna end up in Gitmo anyway. But a U.K. hooker deciding to go multinational in Miami? Would she get her day in court or just be thrown out?
Paging Eva Luna.

The US has a right to deny entry to foreigners which is largely unfettered, because they can be denied entry based on a suspicion that they will engage in illegal activities, such as working without the right visa. In addition, foreigners can be deported for committing various crimes. So these are two obvious areas where US citizens have rights that foreigners don’t have.

A foreigner filling out the Immigration and Customs Enforcement entry form who truthfully answers “yes” to any red-flag question could and very likely would be sent back home immediately. A foreigner who lies, and is later found out, could be prosecuted for perjury and/or entering the country under false pretenses, and then would likely be denied naturalization (if she’d applied), deported, and never be permitted to re-enter.

Generally, foreigners in the U.S. have all the rights of citizens as to personal liberty (can’t be beaten up or shot by police, can’t have their books or movies censored, can worship as they see fit, etc.), but none of those as to political rights (can’t run for or be elected to public office, vote, serve on a jury, etc.). Foreigners also have the right, through treaty, to speak to a consular official from their own country if they’re arrested, although this is not always done (as in the recent notorious Texas execution case).

The same rights? Which ones? “You all know what I meant” doesn’t really cut it.

I’m not up to date on the status of the power of customs officers (Eva Luna I imagine will be) but 15-20 years ago, they could grab you and put you back on a plane with nothing resembling due process, no calls to anybody, nothing. This was a power granted to them by a federal law.

On the other hand, I, being a Spaniard, have a certain amount that “doesn’t count” towards my income tax if I’m paying it in the USA. This is a benefit granted to me by a treaty between both countries.

Take a look at the Penn DOT requirements to get a driver’s license. They vary by country of citizenship.

“The same rights”… not quite. And not just the right to vote. Whether this is how it should be or not is a matter for GD, not GQ.

There are tons of instances where people arriving on teh Visa Waiver have been summarily removed - for lying (or failing to mention) previous criminal convictions of whatever sort, for having violated the terms of a previous visa, for lying about the intent of their visit to the U.S., etc.

A few months ago, I had to go out to O’Hare Airport to get a client’s I-94 form corrected (she should have been admitted in H-4 status as a dependent on her husband’s work visa, but the inspector was too busy flirting with her and marked her as a tourist in B-2 status with a 6-month period of admission instead of the 3 years she was entitled to).

While I was waiting, I had a very sad chat with a lady who was trying in vain to keep her Italian boyfriend from being summarily removed. Apparently the fact that he had just spent several months in the States with her (perfectly legally) the previous year, and she had just spent her vacation with him in Italy (perfectly legally) a couple of months before, didn’t lend credence to the idea that he was going to leave the U.S. at the end of his 90 days and go home. The inspector decided that they were just trying to avoid the normal waiting period for fiance or spousal immigrant visas. And yes, they were SOL.

There have also been numerous well-publicized cases of foreign journalists trying to enter the U.S. on the Visa Waiver program to cover stories, when they are in fact required to apply for I visas.

It’s actually a fairly recent development. I worked for Immigration Court until 1994, and INS was just then considering implementing expedited removal (removal without right to a hearing before a judge). Until the implementation of expedited removal, everyone had the right to a hearing before a judge (though there were sometimes disadvantages in requesting a hearing, like you were likely going to be held in detention without bond until your hearing) rather than just requesting to be allowed to go home on the next flight (or turn your car around if arriving via a land border).

Now in most cases the only people who have a right to a hearing before a judge before removal are people who credibly claim fear of persecution if returned to their country of origin.

Well, one way to look at it is that the Visa Waiver program is voluntary; eligible program users are potentially giving up the right to a hearing before a judge in removal proceedings in exchange for the increased convenience (and reduced expense) of not having to travel to a U.S. Consulate and apply for a visitor visa. If you think you may want to change status in the U.S. to another immigration category, or stay longer than 90 days, or if you have previous issues that require you to get special permission before entering the U.S. (previous visa overstays, criminal convictions, etc.) applying for a visitor visa at a Consulate may be the better way to go.

Most people who use the Visa Waiver don’t even know about the possibility of applying for a Visa, though.

And really, being removed because the Customs guy thought that the only reason an “attractive” single female would be visiting Miami was to get herself an American husband is a bit silly. As my cousin (who was a bank branch manager at the time) says when she tells the story “damn, if I’d been there to look for a husband, it would be a Cuban sugar boy, not a sugar daddy!”