4 ms·

Actually, the answer is no. (1) Some rights explicitly apply only to citizens. (2) It is a common mistake to assume that rights like right to free speech are ap

Actually, the answer is no. (1) Some rights explicitly apply only to citizens. (2) It is a common mistake to assume that rights like right to free speech are applicable to all - citizens, visitors on visa, etc. However, a person's visa can be revoked even if his actions are not illegal. Something about visa being a privilege not a right... So in effect even those rights do not apply. (3) In many cases, courts and governments have agreed that foreign nationals have reduced rights. Reference: Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens? http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/297/ http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/297/

ojbyrne 9y ago
From your link(I can only read the abstract) “Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. Because the Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office, equality between non-nationals and citizens would appear to be the constitutional rule.“
- virtuabhi 9y ago
  Yes, those are explicit laws but there are more examples in the report. For example, "It makes no sense to say that a foreign national has a First Amend- ment right to criticize government officials or to join political groups without fear of criminal prosecution, but that he may be deported for the same activities." "The decision marks the first time outside of a war setting that the Court has upheld preventive detention of anyone without an in- dividualized assessment of the necessity of such detention. And the majority expressly rested its decision on a double standard, noting that Congress can make rules in the immigration setting that would be unacceptable for citizens."

ojbyrne 9y ago

From your link(I can only read the abstract) “Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. Because the Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office, equality between non-nationals and citizens would appear to be the constitutional rule.“

virtuabhi 9y ago
Yes, those are explicit laws but there are more examples in the report. For example, "It makes no sense to say that a foreign national has a First Amend- ment right to criticize government officials or to join political groups without fear of criminal prosecution, but that he may be deported for the same activities." "The decision marks the first time outside of a war setting that the Court has upheld preventive detention of anyone without an in- dividualized assessment of the necessity of such detention. And the majority expressly rested its decision on a double standard, noting that Congress can make rules in the immigration setting that would be unacceptable for citizens."