Who is covered by the Bill of Rights

Self | October 18, 2001 | Self

[RebelDawg]

I have seen several posts lately where people have made statements that illegal immigrants as well as those persons from abroad visiting here on student, work and travel visas are NOT protected by the Bill of Rights. I have also seen posts by people vehemently opposing that view. I thought about it a while and decided to side with the first group: that is that those individuals who ar enot citizens of this country are not granted the rights listed in the Bill of Rights of the United States of America. My reasoning is quite simple. If you take the stance that the Bill of Rights covers ALL people then what about the gvernments of other countries? does our Bill of Rights supercede those governments? Should we overthrow other governments who violate their citizens first and second ammendment rights? What about China? Good you say??? Well what about England, Canada and Australia? they have clearly violated their citizens second ammendment right! Or is it that they do NOT have those rights and that the Bill of Rights ONLY covers citizens of the United States of America?

Here is a quick quote that I pulled from a sight about the Bill of Rights of the United States of America:

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

Bill of Rights

I see several mentions of “Citizen” or “people of the United States” contained withinin the United states Constituion but absolutely no references to “non-citizens”.

Examples:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

From Article IV

Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Ammendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Ammendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Ammendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ammendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ammendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Are some of you telling me that the term “the people” as written in the Bill of Rights refers to a global notion of people? I think that is completely absurd, it has the same meaning as in the opening paragraph of the United States Constitution and that is We the People of the United States.

My final thoughts.
I see absolutely nothing in these documents staing that anyone other than citizens of the United States of America are covered and protected by them. I also find it to be absurd to think that our forefathers set out to write documents that would cover and if you believe that then also govern the entire world. If this were the case they would have been stating that no government in the world was no longer valid except for the new American government. I think it is quite clear that this was not their intention but I see that others disagree...

[RebelDawg]

Open for discussion. I really want to hear the arguments on both sides of this issue.

Please post what stance you take on this issue and any facts that you have to support that stance.

[RasterMaster]

I believe your assessment on only CITIZENS have rights guaranteed by Constitution and Bill of Rights to be the correct one. How can we protect rights of those under dictatorships and wacko-elitist Arab rulers?

[The Shootist]

In general, SCOTUS has held that Constitutional Protections extend to resident and non-resident aliens, which is why a deportation hearing is held before sending an illegal home. It is why arrestees are read their Miranda rights. It is why attorneys are provided by the State if the alien cannot afford one.

All Rights pertain but rights do not extend beyond the border so your statement about foreign governments is moot.

[Bommer]

Should we overthrow other governments who violate their citizens first and second ammendment rights? What about China? Good you say??? Well what about England, Canada and Australia? they have clearly violated their citizens second ammendment right! Or is it that they do NOT have those rights and that the Bill of Rights ONLY covers citizens of the United States of America?

First of all the ONLY people who have Admendment rights are here in the united States. They have no 2nd rights to infringe in Britian, because there are no gun rights in Britain.
Secondly your highlighted words mentions "the people" not the "People of the united States" If they are here they are protected by the rights of this country. Why? I don't know! I guess it keeps us from murdering foreigners!

[alpowolf]

Mmmmmm...my first thought is that it would cover anyone who is on U.S. soil. After all, aren't foreign visitors obliged to obey our laws when they're here? If the BOR doesn't apply to them, how do any other laws?

That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. Any legal eagles out there?

[artios]

The constitution enumerates rights to the federal government and limits its power - It conferes no rights to any person or group, but states that the governments purpose to to protect or God given rights. All the rights granted to thegovernment are detailed, all othwers are retained by the states and the people.

Not really contradicting you but adding another angle.

[HarryKnutszacke]

So all the references in the Bill of Rights to "the people" really means "the citizens"?

Look, I'm not sure I know what the answer is, but consider the following. Many over the years have argued that what is important about the bill of rights is that it didn't GRANT rights, it RECOGNIZED rights, rights that inherently belonged to people, by virtue of their being, well, people. As the Declaration says, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". Notice that the common construction of the amendments is "the right of . . . the people to . . . shall not be infringed", not "the right to.. . is granted to"

However, I don't see where it says we can't control who comes into the country, and deport non-citizens as we see fit.

Disclaimer:
I'm not a constitutional lawyer.
I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Harry K.

[RebelDawg]

Ok, thanks for that info. i was wondering if there was a government document stating for a fact that these rights were extended to "visitors".

Could someone please post this for me?

Thank you! ;-)

[BikerNYC]

Do you conclude that "the people" really means "the citizens?"

[CharacterCounts]

All persons within the borders of the USA are protected by our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. This is why the Constitution refers to the people and persons and not citizens.

[dhuffman@awod.com]

The BoR only enumerates Rights granted by GOD to all of mankind. The differentiation lies, for instance, in the Second Amendment. Only AMERICANS enjoy the RKBA legally! Dissenters must cite the document, of equivalent weight as the BoR, granting legal RKBA to any other nation. The only Rights we enjoy are the Rights we defend from abrogation by the government.

The terrorists likely exercised their First Amendment Right to political expression when they wrapped them selves in the American Flag. American flag wavers merely confuse the issue about patriotism. Exercise your uniquely American LEGAL RKBA!

[rogers21774]

Very compelling thoughts. I've always sided with those who think that constitutional rights are guaranteed only to citizens.

It does appear that the SCOTUS has interpreted the constitution to apply to anyone on US soil. But what does this mean to US citizens traveling to other countries? If I visit Canada, do I in effect forfeit my constitutional rights?

[RebelDawg]

First of all the ONLY people who have Admendment rights are here in the united States. They have no 2nd rights to infringe in Britian, because there are no gun rights in Britain.

Thanks that is exactly what I had said. I hope you didn't think I was saying that they did have a second ammendment. That was the exact opposite of my point.

Secondly your highlighted words mentions "the people" not the "People of the united States" If they are here they are protected by the rights of this country. Why? I don't know! I guess it keeps us from murdering foreigners!

I don't read it that way. Do you have some other insight as to what "the people" refers to or just your own opinion?

Also you may wnat to read the Bill of Rights again. Theres nothing in there that even mentions murdering people foreign or otherwise. I think you must have been referring to the 10 commandments...

[camle]

Since these rights are inalienable, they don't coem from the government, therefore cannot be limited to the governments jurisdiction. They come from God, and are limited to HIS domain.

[thtr]

Correct. And it is for this same reason that when Americans travel abroad they do not carry their “rights” with them. Many countries treat resident and non-resident aliens as they would their citizens (except those with diplomatic immunity).

[gjenkins]

From the constitution ... "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Our future generations surely would include others other than our children who are currently not citizens. If it doesn't then we run the risk of defining our future in purely physical terms. In addition, our rights are from our creator and are inaleanable(sp?).

[Protagoras]

After all, aren't foreign visitors obliged to obey our laws when they're here? If the BOR doesn't apply to them, how do any other laws?

I'm no legal beagle but I'll give it a shot by suggesting that they (the foreigners) are subject to our laws and gain certain rights, not from the constitution, but from treaties with other countries which spell out understandings about how things will be done in certain cases.

I have no idea if I am correct about this but I'm guessing I'm on the right track. Anyone care to inform me about this?

[freedomcrusader]

If I visit Canada, do I in effect forfeit my constitutional rights?

You forfeit your guarantee that those rights will not be infringed (at least to the extent that they're not infringed in the U.S.).

ALL humans have these rights, it's just that nearly all the governments of the world refuse to recognize and guarantee them to their citizens.

[alpowolf]

In effect you do. I know when I was in the Navy, we were always warned about port visits in countries that don't have agreements to let the U.S. govt handle offences committed by the sailors...like Turkey. We were warned that if you got busted, you would be tried under their law..."Midnight Express".