Does the Constitution of the United States apply to non-native people?
I have a feeling the answer is “it depends”. If I understand things correctly the Constitution is more a framework which details which laws can be make and which can’t.
But as a general principle when the constitution outlines certain rights does it explicitly say they apply to everyone or just citizens?
How have states generally dealt with this issue?
It depends on the context. Aliens obviously don’t have rights to vote, or a constitutional right to stay in the United States, since those are rights tied to citizenship. However, they do have other constitutional rights, notably the rights set out in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments relating to court process.
Here’s a summary from the Legal Information Institute, operated by Cornell Law School:
I’m reasonably sure that the rights in the First and Third Amendments apply equally to aliens. However, given that it mentions “militia”, I suspect that aliens don’t have Second Amendment rights.
Apologies, but I thought the thread was referring to little green men…
Martian “Greetings, Earthling! We bring many technical advances to share with you.”
US Customs Official “Welcome to the US. Passport please. And take off that silly costume.”
Martian “This is no costume! And what is a Passport?”
US Customs Official “If you refuse to co-operate with the duly designated authorities, you will be refused entry. And a note will go on your Homeland Security file.”
(Summons colleagues)
Martian “Isn’t it always the way. You travel for ages looking for bureaucratic officials, then three turn up at once…”
In general, the due process rights embodied in the Constitution, mostly in the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) and the 14th Amendment, are extended to anybody in the country Even, in large part, to illegal/undocumented aliens, with the exception that undocumented aliens can be detained and deported with very little process at all. (Although even here, it’s my understanding that this is read to comport with due process, it’s just that very little process in due. But it’s not my area, so I’m not sure about that.)
The government is not necessarily bound by those same guarantees when dealing with non-citizens abroad.
–Cliffy
These rights are statutory, though, aren’t they? Has it ever been ruled that the Constitution compels these protections?
I would think the prohibition on protection of jobs for state residents is the negative Commerce Clause, but I have no idea if there’s case law on it.
–Cliffy
Agreed, but I see that as covering state laws that discriminate between state residents and out-of-state residents, not US citizens vs. aliens.
Some parts of the Constitution make clear statements about the rights and privileges of “citizens”, and others about the rights and privileges of “people.” I cannot help but think that the differentiation in wording was intentional. “People” who are not “citizens” are legal residents (or sometimes illegal residents or visitors) who would come under the heading of “aliens”.
Well, if little green men arrived in the USA, I expect the same rules would apply as to a foreign human.
That’s an open question, since American courts and legislators have never faced the issue of intelligent nonterrestrials arriving in the U.S.
On the other hand, if they have the technology to get to the U.S., they probably have the technology to impose their legal system on us. So the question might be, What rights do human beings have in the little green men’s legal system?
A bit of a hijack, but there actually isn’t a right to vote in the federal constitution. Once states choose to extend the right to vote, it cannot be abridged in certain ways (on the basis of race, gender, etc.), but there’s nothing requiring states to offer that right. So voting is largely a question of what states choose to offer. In some places, aliens are allowed to vote on local measures. And indeed, they were allowed to vote in some states for state-level and federal matters until WWI.
No, it’s constitutional. Alienage is a suspect class for the purposes of equal protection law. See Graham v. Richardson.
Wouldn’t the part about “guaranteeing to each state a republican form of government” be read to imply some kind of right to vote?
Yes, one would think so. But very early on the Supreme Court held that questions about whether a state had violated that clause were left to Congress, not the courts. So it is not a right in the sense that a court will enforce it. As importantly, “republic form of government” doesn’t necessarily mean people vote.
There are a number of other clauses that bear on the question of voting rights (putting aside the amendments that prevent abridgment on certain grounds), including Article I Sec. 2 and Sec. 4, Article II Sec. 1, and the Seventeenth Amendment. One might be able to stitch them together to argue for a right to vote in federal congressional elections for some group of state citizens (whomever is empowered to vote for the state congress, which could be very limited indeed). But it is clear that no such right exists for voting for the President, nor does the Constitution guarantee a right to vote for state politicians.