4 ms·
>Yes, kind of. In theory, but historically speaking not really: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/&http
by Sir_Substance 9y ago
>Yes, kind of.
In theory, but historically speaking not really: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1302&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?r...
But then again, it doesn't seem to work very well for US citizens these days either.
- dboreham 9y agoFor clarity: the doc you cite says what I said (at least that's my interpretation) -- that non citizens have much the same constitutional rights as citizens. But they have to be living in the country (so-called US Persons). Hence it doesn't do you much good in the context of getting into the country. Source: I was a US Person for a while.
- Sir_Substance 9y agoThe legal argument is "yes they do", but the first few pages of the document are "but we understand why US citizens might assume the opposite because here's a laundry list of all the times we ignored that in the past". As a non-citizen, the internal arguments of the US legal system aren't very interesting to me, but the historical record of how the US treats non-citizens is. The US has clearly demonstrated that in practice, non-citizens are not protected by the same rights.