# US Constitution and non-citizens **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 24, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-and-non-citizens/313924 "2005-07-24T14:41:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![NinjaChick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@NinjaChick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinjaChick)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-and-non-citizens/313924/1 "2005-07-24T14:41:58Z")
Simple constitutional question: What, if any, legal precedent is there saying that the Constitution does or doesn’t apply to non-citizens living in the US? Citations of specific cases are okay, but seeing how I don’t quite understand a lot of legalese, a basic summary would be appreciated too. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-and-non-citizens/313924/2 "2005-07-24T15:12:21Z")
The Fourteenth Amendment says: > [@](#): > > 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; \*\* deny to any person within its jurisdiction \*\*equal protection of the laws. The Constitution defines itself as the supreme law of the land. So we start wi th that general proposition that all persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws. There are specific laws that apply to citizens, such as serving on juries or voting, but in general, the law applies to citizens and non-citizens. ---
**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:** [July 24, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-and-non-citizens/313924/3 "2005-07-24T15:14:21Z")
It ain’t called “the law of the land” for nothing. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-and-non-citizens/313924/4 "2005-07-24T16:52:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So we start wi th that general proposition that all persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws. There are specific laws that apply to citizens, such as serving on juries or voting, but in general, the law applies to citizens and non-citizens. Which is not to say that there are any Constutitional protections against passing _more_ such laws that apply only to citizens, or against passing laws which make things tougher on non-citizens. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-and-non-citizens/313924/5 "2005-07-24T16:58:40Z")
The Constitution is the organic law of the United States. All other laws derive from it. So different laws and rights for non-citizens are because that’s how the Congress has set things up. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-and-non-citizens/313924/6 "2005-07-24T18:00:56Z")
One of our more learned lawyers or law students might speak to the _ius soli_ as opposed to law which is applicable to specific people considered to be within its ambit. As I understand it, the _ius soli_ is the body of law that relates to whatever happens within the bounds of the body of land which it is deemed to cover, regardless of who does what where within it. A city police force might have jurisdiction over an assault that happened on the municipal airport (extraterritorial part of the city, outside its normal boundaries) committed by an Afghan citizen on a North Dakotan, simply because the assault happened “on city land” even though outside the city limits and with two “foreign” persons (one from another state, one from another nation altogether) the parties involved.