5 ms·

"Citizen" is never mentioned in the Bill of Rights. It's all "The Government shall make no law" or "the people" or "the accused" which apply equally to any oth

"Citizen" is never mentioned in the Bill of Rights. It's all "The Government shall make no law" or "the people" or "the accused" which apply equally to any other person within the United States. Even undocumented immigrants are protected by the Bill of Rights and legal non-citizen residents certainly are.

ReptileMan 7y ago
The question is whether the Bill of Rights ends at US border from what I understand.
- flyingfences 7y ago
  Well, one might expect the exercised powers of the US government to end at the US border...
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    I think /u/ReptileMan is talking more about situations like border crossings, where the Border Patrol claims some rights don't apply because you haven't been granted entry yet, even though you're technically on US soil. There are also questions about scenarios like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki, where a US citizen was executed by the US without trial while overseas.
- bumby 7y ago
  I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. I think the issue is whether those rights apply to non-citizens outside the border. I think it’s generally well established that rights travel abroad with citizens. However, it’s less clear if they apply abroad (or even to U.S. territories) to non-citizens. E.g. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez claims it does not apply to non-citizens who do not have a voluntary association with the U.S. Edit: I'll try to be more clear. The rights of U.S. citizens extend beyond the border when dealing with the U.S. government. I was not implying other governments must recognize U.S. Constitutional rights when dealing with U.S. citizens.
  - ameister14 7y ago
    Interestingly enough, the phrasing in the article implies that the Justice Department is arguing that speech made outside the US is not protected, not simply speech made by non-citizens. I would be incredibly surprised if that argument held up.
    - bumby 7y ago
      See Anwar al-Awlaki for some evidence of how the US applies constitutional rights to citizens abroad when they are considered enemies of the state
      - ameister14 7y ago
        Was that legally supported? I think it just wasn't challenged
        bumby 7y ago
        ACLU challenged with multiple cases. As far as I know they were dismissed https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-obama-constitutional-challenge-proposed-killing-us-citizen https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-obama-constitutional-... https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-constitutional-challenge-killing-three-us-citizens https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-constitutiona...
- noarchy 7y ago
  Heck, there is a question about whether the Bill of Rights even makes it to the border, given the existence of border checkpoints as much as 100 miles from said border. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
bumby 7y ago
No disagreement here. I should have used “person” rather than citizen. I made the distinction in my other comment

ReptileMan 7y ago

The question is whether the Bill of Rights ends at US border from what I understand.

flyingfences 7y ago
Well, one might expect the exercised powers of the US government to end at the US border...
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  I think /u/ReptileMan is talking more about situations like border crossings, where the Border Patrol claims some rights don't apply because you haven't been granted entry yet, even though you're technically on US soil. There are also questions about scenarios like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki, where a US citizen was executed by the US without trial while overseas.
bumby 7y ago
I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. I think the issue is whether those rights apply to non-citizens outside the border. I think it’s generally well established that rights travel abroad with citizens. However, it’s less clear if they apply abroad (or even to U.S. territories) to non-citizens. E.g. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez claims it does not apply to non-citizens who do not have a voluntary association with the U.S. Edit: I'll try to be more clear. The rights of U.S. citizens extend beyond the border when dealing with the U.S. government. I was not implying other governments must recognize U.S. Constitutional rights when dealing with U.S. citizens.
- ameister14 7y ago
  Interestingly enough, the phrasing in the article implies that the Justice Department is arguing that speech made outside the US is not protected, not simply speech made by non-citizens. I would be incredibly surprised if that argument held up.
  - bumby 7y ago
    See Anwar al-Awlaki for some evidence of how the US applies constitutional rights to citizens abroad when they are considered enemies of the state
    - ameister14 7y ago
      Was that legally supported? I think it just wasn't challenged
      - bumby 7y ago
        ACLU challenged with multiple cases. As far as I know they were dismissed https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-obama-constitutional-challenge-proposed-killing-us-citizen https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-obama-constitutional-... https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-constitutional-challenge-killing-three-us-citizens https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-constitutiona...
noarchy 7y ago
Heck, there is a question about whether the Bill of Rights even makes it to the border, given the existence of border checkpoints as much as 100 miles from said border. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

bumby 7y ago

No disagreement here. I should have used “person” rather than citizen. I made the distinction in my other comment