Hacker News Reader

Comment by EGreg | Hacker News Reader

I thought first amendment was only for our citizens

Congress shall pass no law — but executive branch under Trump does whatever it wants regardless of laws anyway…

The US constitution has generally been thought to apply to _everyone_ interacting with the US government, citizen or not.

It’s why in the past tourists could expect due process under the law, and not be disappeared out of the blue, etc.

So if the US is rewriting that social contract, they should probably explicitly say what provisions only protect US citizens and which apply to everyone. Because otherwise, is it none?

This is incorrect.

There is specific distinction between citizens and persons.

Habeas Corpus applies to persons. But there is no right that applies to every person in the world that would give them a right to get a student visa to a US university.

You're misconstruing what I said— nowhere in the constitution is a student visa a “right” to a citizen or not. But subjecting a non-citizen to a potentially unreasonable search while exempting regular citizens is likely against the 4th and 5th amendments (due process + unreasonable searches). Of course, “unreasonable” depends on the court’s interpretation.

Some Supreme Court decisions—

Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945)

> freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

> constitutional protections extend to “all persons” within the U.S, including undocumented immigrants.

One of the things every democratic constitution henceforth, and supported by the US, did differently. Maybe a constitutional change to afford basic rights to aliens is in order.

That's the same country that operates an illegal torture prison (Guantanamo), claiming the rule of law does not apply there because it is not on US soil. That prison is still open. It did imprison minors.

It is none, and that predates Trump.

I don’t disagree, but you would think the citizens of such a country would want to check that tyrannical power, not expand it

I think the key part is "spirit" of the 1st amendment.

A better way to put it is that even if the 1st amendment doesn't apply, it's still against the ideal of "free speech"

Not just spirit, they do entirely apply. Some Supreme Court decisions (there are many clarifying the first amendment)—

Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945)

> freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

> constitutional protections extend to “all persons” within the U.S, including undocumented immigrants.

So it doesn't apply to people that are applying for visa status?

Being subject to unreasonable searches likely does, still. Depends on what is “reasonable” or not, but just because they’re applying for a status does not mean they give up their right to unreasonable searches and detainment.

Note: US Embassies, where interviews are often conducted, are still considered US soil subject to US laws (otherwise the latest declaration from Trump pausing them would not apply to them)

> Note: US Embassies, where interviews are often conducted, are still considered US soil subject to US laws (otherwise the latest declaration from Trump pausing them would not apply to them)

I don't think that's how it works. The US visa application requests significant amount of personal information, and this is supposedly cross-checked with the US databases/intelligence agencies.

So I doubt they sit down with you going over all your posts on hackernews, but rather ask what you use and your usernames and cross reference that with lists of people interested in ISIS telegram groups.

I would be uncomfortable giving that data myself, but i was uncomfortable writing a lot other things in my visa application, and never thought anyone is forcing me to visit the US

The 1st amendment covers "US persons." A US Person is a term of art broader than a citizen. OTOH since this is for a visa review that a non citizen wouldn't need I don't see where it comes into play.

> 1st amendment covers "US person”

Read textually, it covers “the people...of the United States" [1][2].

The courts have interpreted this to mean people physically within the United States, with some ambiguity at the borders.

[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/

[2] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

If you want to be overly semantic it only talks about freedom of assembly for the "people", which as you defined above might refer to "the people of the united states"

Also, going through social account history is not only for reasons of oppressing freedom of speech. Presumably you might want to reject visa applications from someone who threatens others with murder

> If you want to be overly semantic

That's how the law works in the US, due to the textualist nature of our jurisprudence.

No, the preamble to the constitution is not law, and it does not set boundaries for the rest of the document.

> the preamble to the constitution is not law, and it does not set boundaries for the rest of the document

Sort of [1]. (“We the people” has specific case law.)

[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/pre-3/ALDE_00...

"US Person" has a very specific definition in government parlance. It includes citizens and green card holders, a few very specific exceptions like those granted permanent asylum, but NOT visa holders.

you could challenge it by saying youve touched US dollars, and therefore theres a US nexus where US law, and thus the constitution, applies

It covers US citizens and people physically present in the US.

“Present in the US” also has caveats at the border. A border is defined specifically in the law, which is 100 miles.

A citizen of another country is not allowed to open carry at the border just because they showed up, for example. Similarly, there is no universal right to get a student visa.

Yes, but if it's a place where the US has jurisdiction, then obviously the first amendment applies.

The US borders aren't a constitution free zone. It's a region where you can search people, not anything else.

Citizenship wasn't even a concept in the constitution until the 14th Amendment in 1866! When the constitution and First Amendment was written, it applied to all residents of the US and citizenship was mostly defined at the state level.

Uh...

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri...

> No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

> No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

"it applied to all residents of the US…"

Slaves? Native Americans?

It uses the term of "citizen" but does not specify a requirement or legal definition. The constitution implies a continuance of English Common Law in regards to citizenship:

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/a...

In regards to slaves or Native Americans - again it depended on the states' laws. Hence the entire reason why the 14th Amendment was passed.

The fact that they only called out the requirement of citizenship for office should make it pretty clear they intended the rest of the constitution was universal.

> It uses the term of "citizen" but does not specify a requirement or legal definition.

Then we agree; it very much includes the concept of citizenship.

Maybe it includes a reference to citizenship but it does not define it as a constitutional concept. It also certainly doesn't make it a requirement of the constitution, as sitting US politicians or the OP are currently arguing.

If this is what you are defending than we couldn't disagree more.

It doesn't define a lot of things; treason's the only crime defined, for example, but we knew a whole bunch of others existed on day one.

It does clearly imply a difference between "natural-born" citizens and naturalized ones, and that citizens and residents/people/persons aren't the exact same thing.

The choice to use "citizen" in some spots and "person" in many others seems very deliberate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com