6 ms·

1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil. That's the legal rationale for a lot of 'bad behavior' such as PRISM -- they can

1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil. That's the legal rationale for a lot of 'bad behavior' such as PRISM -- they can intercept undersea cable traffic to legally spy on foreigners, as foreigners lack constitutional rights. Nothing new there.

AaronFriel 7y ago
I think it's more complicated than that, with the constitutional protections from US government action being narrower outside the US border depending on the legal status of the person(s) in question and the context of the imposition on their rights. So-called unlawful enemy combatants have limited rights and the Supreme Court has upheld all sorts of limitations on the rights of US citizens apprehended in a theater of war, but even foreign citizens have a constitutional right to habeas corpus when apprehended by the government on foreign soil (Boumediene v. Bush).
stOneskull 7y ago
They're supposed to be God-given rights
- tagrun 7y ago
  Except they're not, they're man-made laws. (I don't believe in any deity or religion but arguing on delusions is beyond the point.)
  - stOneskull 7y ago
    as in people have the right to free speech, not just citizens. in this man-made document for this nation, it says people are born with rights, and so that belief must extend to people outside the nation. they were born too.
jMyles 7y ago
> 1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil. Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the sake of it? The suggestion that the US Bill of Rights only applies to citizens is so unbelievably toxic and contrary to the history of the country I am saddened to even read the words. The Bill of Rights intentionally does not even include the word "citizen" and instead uses "people." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
- tagrun 7y ago
  You should check this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#As_regulator_of_immigration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
  - jMyles 7y ago
    Kleindienst v. Mandel does not take a stance on the matter of the reach of the Bill of Rights to foreign nationals and was instead decided on different grounds. The fact that the government can be compelled to allow US citizens to cross the border irrespective of any enumerated standards is orthogonal to the reach of the first amendment to non-citizens. These are entirely different legal matters, and the case you're linking to was decided entirely on the former and not the latter.
    - tagrun 7y ago
      I have 0 expertise on my own country's law, let alone US law or some specific cases in your (?) country. But that's not what Wikipedia says: "Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare." It refers to multiple cases, not just the one you cherry picked. And it says the courts are divided, which implies that some judges did not agree with your narrative. Now I don't know it's about amendments or laws or some footnote or whatever you call it in legalese. The bottom line is (and that's what would matter to a foreigner), this doesn't sound like foreigners have the same level of free speech protections as citizens do at the border or within the country, and implies that they can be punished in one way or another for what they say. It won't matter to people who get deported or rejected entry whether they were rejected based on nth amendment or mth law, so your point is entirely irrelevant. Now you can argue that this is probably the case in other nations, and it could well be. But I don't see other people here trying to portray it's all roses in their country. Again, this isn't about whether some amendment or footnote extends to non-citizens, or some particular case. Those are just details, which won't matter if there's even just one piece of law or regulation (such as this new social media details requirement) that discriminates foreigners. So try to remember what this whole topic is about, and look at the bigger picture, from the perspective of a foreigner. Edit You apparently prefer to double down on details which don't matter (for people who'll be negatively affected by such regulations), which is fine, but I don't really care enough to write another reply. Maybe if you travel abroad someday in the future, you can try asking how people who got their US visa application denied because of their social media postings "enjoyed" their rights. Also, you're claiming in your reply that the Wikipedia page is wrong and implying the reference therein is unreliable, maybe you can fix it if you're sure there was no case in the history which makes it unclear, and cite a better reference?
dudul 7y ago
The constitution applies to anybody living on US soil.
- archey1 7y ago
  Try buying a firearm while on a tourist visa.
  - llukas 7y ago
    You missed "well regulated Militia" part of second amendment.
    - archey1 7y ago
      In the time the constitution was framed, "well regulated" meant properly trained and not "subject to 30 million pages of government control and criminilization". If you want to cherry pick certain parts of the second amendment - I can do that too: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
      - llukas 7y ago
        Please stick with weapons available at time constitution was written of not very reliable ~3 shots per minute fire rate. Gunpowder cannons are also OK. Law evolves along with technical progress and 2nd amendment is not exception.
        jki275 7y ago
        When you write your reply on parchment with elderberry ink, seal it with wax, and have it delivered by pony express we can have a discussion on the limitations you are proposing on the first amendment with your long debunked argument. Also there were repeating rifles, cartridge based rifles, and citizens owned artillery pieces and war ships in the era in which the Constitution was written. You should read Heller - Justice Scalia wrote a great deal about your argument and why it is absurd.

AaronFriel 7y ago

I think it's more complicated than that, with the constitutional protections from US government action being narrower outside the US border depending on the legal status of the person(s) in question and the context of the imposition on their rights. So-called unlawful enemy combatants have limited rights and the Supreme Court has upheld all sorts of limitations on the rights of US citizens apprehended in a theater of war, but even foreign citizens have a constitutional right to habeas corpus when apprehended by the government on foreign soil (Boumediene v. Bush).

stOneskull 7y ago

They're supposed to be God-given rights

tagrun 7y ago
Except they're not, they're man-made laws. (I don't believe in any deity or religion but arguing on delusions is beyond the point.)
- stOneskull 7y ago
  as in people have the right to free speech, not just citizens. in this man-made document for this nation, it says people are born with rights, and so that belief must extend to people outside the nation. they were born too.

jMyles 7y ago

> 1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil. Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the sake of it? The suggestion that the US Bill of Rights only applies to citizens is so unbelievably toxic and contrary to the history of the country I am saddened to even read the words. The Bill of Rights intentionally does not even include the word "citizen" and instead uses "people." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

tagrun 7y ago
You should check this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#As_regulator_of_immigration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- jMyles 7y ago
  Kleindienst v. Mandel does not take a stance on the matter of the reach of the Bill of Rights to foreign nationals and was instead decided on different grounds. The fact that the government can be compelled to allow US citizens to cross the border irrespective of any enumerated standards is orthogonal to the reach of the first amendment to non-citizens. These are entirely different legal matters, and the case you're linking to was decided entirely on the former and not the latter.
  - tagrun 7y ago
    I have 0 expertise on my own country's law, let alone US law or some specific cases in your (?) country. But that's not what Wikipedia says: "Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare." It refers to multiple cases, not just the one you cherry picked. And it says the courts are divided, which implies that some judges did not agree with your narrative. Now I don't know it's about amendments or laws or some footnote or whatever you call it in legalese. The bottom line is (and that's what would matter to a foreigner), this doesn't sound like foreigners have the same level of free speech protections as citizens do at the border or within the country, and implies that they can be punished in one way or another for what they say. It won't matter to people who get deported or rejected entry whether they were rejected based on nth amendment or mth law, so your point is entirely irrelevant. Now you can argue that this is probably the case in other nations, and it could well be. But I don't see other people here trying to portray it's all roses in their country. Again, this isn't about whether some amendment or footnote extends to non-citizens, or some particular case. Those are just details, which won't matter if there's even just one piece of law or regulation (such as this new social media details requirement) that discriminates foreigners. So try to remember what this whole topic is about, and look at the bigger picture, from the perspective of a foreigner. Edit You apparently prefer to double down on details which don't matter (for people who'll be negatively affected by such regulations), which is fine, but I don't really care enough to write another reply. Maybe if you travel abroad someday in the future, you can try asking how people who got their US visa application denied because of their social media postings "enjoyed" their rights. Also, you're claiming in your reply that the Wikipedia page is wrong and implying the reference therein is unreliable, maybe you can fix it if you're sure there was no case in the history which makes it unclear, and cite a better reference?

dudul 7y ago

The constitution applies to anybody living on US soil.

archey1 7y ago
Try buying a firearm while on a tourist visa.
- llukas 7y ago
  You missed "well regulated Militia" part of second amendment.
  - archey1 7y ago
    In the time the constitution was framed, "well regulated" meant properly trained and not "subject to 30 million pages of government control and criminilization". If you want to cherry pick certain parts of the second amendment - I can do that too: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
    - llukas 7y ago
      Please stick with weapons available at time constitution was written of not very reliable ~3 shots per minute fire rate. Gunpowder cannons are also OK. Law evolves along with technical progress and 2nd amendment is not exception.
      - jki275 7y ago
        When you write your reply on parchment with elderberry ink, seal it with wax, and have it delivered by pony express we can have a discussion on the limitations you are proposing on the first amendment with your long debunked argument. Also there were repeating rifles, cartridge based rifles, and citizens owned artillery pieces and war ships in the era in which the Constitution was written. You should read Heller - Justice Scalia wrote a great deal about your argument and why it is absurd.