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]

The fact is obvious. The Bill of Rights begins with “We the people of the United States”. The “people of the United States” are those who reside here. Where is the confusion?

So are you saying that a citizen of China here on a work visa is a member of "the people of the United States"?

hmmmmm, interesting but I disagree.

If I go to China on a weekend vacation then am I a member of the "people of China" for that weekend? Seems like a strange idea to me...

[thtr]

The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not granted by God. There is no mention of it being so in the document. The Declaration of Independence states that “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are granted by God. All other “rights” are granted by the people (or taken away by the people) through their representative government. That is WHY there is a written constitution. God did not grant that “Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation”.

[PFC]

Correct, the 14th Ammendment applies the rights in the Bill of Rights to "all people within its jurisdiction". It does not say "citizens". It does not say "resident".

[RnMomof7]

I see the bill of Rights as belonging to the citizens PERIOD!

Protect our borders...remove the illigals

[freefly]

dhuffman said it well:

"The BoR only enumerates Rights granted by GOD to all of mankind."

artios went into a bit more detail:

"It conferes no rights to any person or group, but states that the governments purpose to to protect or God given rights."

Bottom line:
My rights are not given to me by the government of the place where I live.
They are inherently mine from the day that I was born.
Someone may attempt to take them away from me (as happens in most countries),
but here, a person's G*d-given rights are (supposed) to be recognized -not granted- by our government.
Those G*d-given rights are the same for everyone.
If a person is in this country -no matter what his nationality- our government should recongnize those rights.
(The reason that religion is under attack should be obvious when the concept of individual rights is considered.)
The documents that define our government are supposed to be for limiting government, not granting individual rights.
Our founding fathers were not that arrogant.

[Dr. Frank fan]

The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not granted by God. [...] All other “rights” are granted by the people (or taken away by the people) through their representative government.

Can you point to any Amendments in the Bill of Rights which explicitly "grant" rights to the people? Thanks.

[thtr]

If a person from China is granted Visa to reside in the United States for any period of time, then yes, that person must follow all of the laws of the United States and is afforded all of the rights. That is implicit in granting the Visa. China does not have a constitution that affords those rights to people to whom it grants visas.

[RebelDawg]

Wow! Nice post. Very informative.

Thank you for the excellent post! ;-)

[freedomcrusader]

Oh brother. What is it about the words 'that among these' that don't you understand? Jefferson stated right there in the Declaration that his list was not complete!!!!

The philosophy of the founders was clearly natural rights, they clearly believed that rights were bestowed by the Creator, and they clearly intended that the Bill of Rights protect God-given rights. Just because the document doesn't say doesn't mean it isn't so.

[HarryKnutszacke]

The Declaration of Independence states that “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are granted by God. All other “rights” are granted by the people (or taken away by the people) through their representative government.

!!!!????

So our representative government could abolish religious freedom, RKBA, freedom of speeech, etc?

I don't think you really mean this. Read the BOR. The BOR does not say the rights are "granted", but that they shall "not be infringed."

I wish I HAD stayed at the Holiday Inn Express.

Harry K.

[thtr]

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

One of many.

[Smartaleck]

The answer to your question lies in the 14th amendent.

"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.

This section has been the subject of much debate. In the first sentence and the first clause of the second sentence, it's clear that the law applies to citizens.

It is the second and third clauses of the second sentence that are unclear. Does the semicolon mean that the clauses are to infer citizens from the first clause?

Or, does the law apply to anyone within US juristdiction regardless of how they got there?

The courts have ruled both ways. In the most cases anyone in this country is afforded equal protection.

[Dr. Frank fan]

P.S. (...with the exception of the "speedy trial" type rights that appear to be granted by Amendment 6, of course, as I already mentioned in my previous post.)

[MWS]

I would also go so far to say that if "the people" or "the government" bestow rights, then those groups are able to take them away as well. That could potentially be a major blow to us Second Amendment advocates, to say the least....

[ctdonath2]

The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not granted by God. There is no mention of it being so in the document.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ...

The Declaration of Independence states the principles upon which the Constitution is legally constructed. The Bill of Rights was written by its proponents to explicitly state that the gov't could not infringe on these natural rights, rights granted by nobody but God.

[BikerNYC]

Like I have said, look at the 14th Amendment:

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.

Clearly, everyone, all persons, everyone, not just citizens, within the jurisdiction of the United States has the right to due process of law and the equal protection of the law, no? If the founders wanted to limit it to "citizens" they should have said so like they did in the first portion of the 14th Amendment.

[RebelDawg]

There is a distinction made between "citizens" and "persons." I don't think we should be reading "citizens" unless the word "citizens" is actually used.

Ah good point Biker! You may convince me yet ;-)

[Dr. Frank fan]

Unless I am mistaken, Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution is not a part of the Bill of Rights.

Best,

[freedomcrusader]

I would also go so far to say that if "the people" or "the government" bestow rights, then those groups are able to take them away as well.

That's right. And that's why any society where such a philosophy is the prevailing one is doomed to tyranny.

[thtr]

The Declaration of Independence is NOT THE SAME as the Constitution. That's WHY they had to write it!