Irrelevant. They are not US citizens, which means they are not "the people". Besides that, the President, Congress and the fed courts don't agree that they have 4th Amend rights. See the Patriot Act, which mostly refers to non-US citizens, which are not "the people" and rulings on that Act. They also don't agree that the Constitution applies to them, since their political speech is severely restricted in law and they can not vote. Practice in D areas and activities by D sympathizers, notwithstanding.
"Correct? This is what you're asking me to believe Taney was talking about?"
I pointed out clearly what Taney said and what he was referring to. I didn't ask you to believe anything. Taney said what he did in rather plain English. I just made the presentation and laid it out.
Well, now you're just making things up.
"It is important to note that while some provisions of the Constitution employ the term "citizens" other provisions employ the term "persons." Thus, it is safe to say that when the Framers of the Constitution wanted to use the narrow or broad classification, they did so. Supreme Court rulings affirm this plain reading of the constitutional text. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 2500-2501 (2001); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896). Noncitizens have always benefitted from the safeguards of the Fourth Amendment. See Au Yi Lau v. INS, 445 F.2d 217 (1971); Illinois Migrant Council v. Pilliod, 540 F.2d 1062 (1976).
Do more reading.