I never disputed that. You should read my original post more carefully. I was pointing out the NECESSARY limits to the scope of enforcement and procedure intended to secure those rights. These must be carried out by government and the correct scope of enforcement is national citizenship.
Everyone on the planet has natural rights, but not everyone has natural rights secured by the Constitution. The point is, where is the boundary? The Constitution confines its application (securing our rights and enforcing our responsibilities as citizens under our justice system and laws) to the people of the United States.
That does not include aliens. If it did, the guarantees of the Constitution would be global and violate the national sovereignty of other nations over their citizens.
Excellent point. Not only that, but this rigid insistence on universal "absolute natural rights", as we define them, violates the cultural and philosophical traditions of other nations. You can see American tourists arrested and thrown in jail for jaywalking or whatever in gosh forsaken places babbling about "absolute natural rights". I apologize for this ignorant post on this otherwise learned thread but it seems to me we need some sober perspective and a bit humility in a world of many competing ideas where ours (ideas), which have lead to a pretty fogged up, corrupt though big and powerful big banana republic are not impressing the rest of the world as much as they used to.
But on the other hand, if these absolute natural rights apply to all human creatures, then we ought to go to war with the rest of the world enforcing them. Otherwise, to insist that they apply to citizens of the Unites States and (in practice or at some particular time) only those others who commit acts of war and crimes against the citizens and property of the United States is contemptible sophistry in my book.