Hacker News Reader

Comment by tdb7893 | Hacker News Reader

One thing to note when talking about "foreigners" is that many rights in the constitution specify "persons". So citizens and non-citizens theoretically have equal rights from that standpoint. So I agree in general but it's worth noting that he was supposed to have constitutional rights to speech and against unreasonable searches.

View on HN

Yes, sorry, by foreigner I mean non-citizen.

Others do have constitutional rights, but the legislative and executive hold plenary powers in the realm of national security and immigration.

As far as the Constitution goes, non-citizens have the same rights as citizens (at least for all the rights given to "persons") and there's no carveout actually in the Constitution for national security or immigration. Practically you have a point given case law but even in cases of immigration and national security these Constitutional rights still apply (regardless of what any branch of either Congress or the president try to do).

You can read the bill of rights here (no mention of citizens or national security): https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc...

I never said there was a carve out? Citizens and legal permanent residents enjoy more rights beyond the constitution than non citizens.

I'm not a lawyer, but see the privacy act, FISA and EO 12333.

It may come as a shocking surprise here, but human rights are not actually conferred by the Constitution or any other piece of paper.

Human rights are “endowed by our Creator” and so the actual function of the Constitution is to protect those rights, and any logical person could reason that our Creator would probably not endow only certain persons or citizens with those rights.

If you’re going to believe in a creator anyway, why not decide they have arbitrarily chosen to favor one group over another?

[flagged]

No. Do explain why that’s relevant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com