To be honest, I've not given the article I linked a careful read. My understanding is that it's entirely uncontroversial (as a question of "is" rather than "ou

To be honest, I've not given the article I linked a careful read. My understanding is that it's entirely uncontroversial (as a question of "is" rather than "ought") that those who are neither US citizens nor US residents, while also not present in the US, are not afforded the protections in the Constitution given to "the people". It is also entirely uncontroversial that they do apply (in sometimes disputed form) to American citizens in the US (and probably also while abroad), and that they usually apply to long-term US legal residents present in the US. Some other points on those spectra are less certain (especially to me).