Hacker News Reader

Comment by BigChiefSmokem | Hacker News Reader

The solution here is that the U.S. Constitution should apply to U.S. Citizens at the border or in any territory, anyone else does not get the benefit of a warrant.

View on HN

Please see the following for a list of constitutional amendments this would suspend to non-citizens:

https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h926.html

For more information,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Sta...

I also expect this would lead to suspending all US laws guaranteeing human rights to non-citizens at the border. As far as I know, US agencies are not subject to prosecution by international criminal courts, which would make their employees immune to any prospect of human rights violations-related prosecution.

The U.S. Constitution does not apply to non-citizens because the United States of America has NO sovereignty outside its borders.

Human rights treaties should be arranged through the U.N. as intended that's why it was chartered, if we are not using it that way that is not the responsibility of U.S. Citizens to solve.

The Constitution of the United States should--and does--apply to all persons within the United States and/or subject to the United States' rules or interactions with the United States government (subject to limitations specifically ascribed to citizens, such as the right to vote or hold public office).

No one would argue that the US' Constitution is binding on any other government but it absolutely is binding on the actions of the US government, and should be so binding anywhere on the planet because the Constitution forms the basis for the US government's very existence.

> The U.S. Constitution does not apply to non-citizens because the United States of America has NO sovereignty outside its borders.

There are plenty of non-citizens within its borders.

The US Constitution deliberately and carefully uses "citizens" in some spots and "persons" in others. Stuff dealing with voting, for example, uses "citizens", while things like the First and Fifth amendments say "people".

As a result green card holder (sensibly enough) has the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a jury trial, can't be made a slave, etc. They don't have a right to vote or run for the Presidency.

I don’t know why you used the example of a green card citizen when even an illegal immigrant has rights under the constitution, let alone a traveler on a visa.

I used it because it should be fairly obvious that a green-card holder would have freedom of speech and religion etc. It's a clearer "oh, that makes sense" than something like a temporary visitor.

Yup. But my point was that the constitution actually makes it a point to grant those privileges to persons and not citizens or even permanent residents. It's not a happenstance, it was deliberate wording on the part of the Founding Fathers and it's been upheld every single time in courts high and low. If you're in the US, the same dignities and protections afforded to US citizens under the US Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights are extended to you.

People might believe that green-card holders are "special" in that regard because they're on their way to becoming permanent citizens, but they would be mistaken.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com