6 ms·
Two things: 1.) The US Constitution only applies to American citizens. 2.) It’s hilarious when someone starts a reply with egotistical language (like “you ass
by hluska 5y ago
Two things:
1.) The US Constitution only applies to American citizens.
2.) It’s hilarious when someone starts a reply with egotistical language (like “you assume a lot”) and then miss the most important fact in a scenario.
- dredmorbius 5y agoRegarding: The US Constitution only applies to American citizens. False. In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws. "There's no dispute at the absolute core," said Andrew Kent, a constitutional scholar at Fordham Law. "If somebody is picked up by police they the have same Miranda and due process rights in all contexts except immigration law." https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-th...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- layoutIfNeeded 5y agoOk, then: the US constitution only applies on US soil.
- dredmorbius 5y agoAlso false. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-do-individual-rights-stop-at-the-u-s-border/ https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-do-in... (Please try ... at least a little harder, people.)
- gowld 5y agoYou're being misleadingly pedantic. This article is about people who are US citizens abroad, or foreigners who came to USA or who are under the jurisdiction (imprisonment) of territory controlled by the USA government. Non-resident non-citizen non-present people violating US national security (rightly or wrongly, that's per the government's judgment) don't have Constitutional rights.
- dredmorbius 5y agoStatutory or case law citation requested.
- CRConrad 5y agoBut first, please, citation on how this "statutory or case law" could apply in the first place. It has no more jurisdiction over the kind of people described than the constitution. (Neither, of course, does the original claim that they violated US law.) This American habit of claiming global hegemony for American law is, on the whole, about equally fucking annoying whichever side it comes from: Yank law enforcement blithely assuming a right to arrest someone who's never set foot in America isn't really all that much worse than Yank liberals who leap to the conclusion that the only defense such victims have is the Holy Constitution.
- daperor630 5y agoDoes this case establish precedent that the fifth amendment applies to people in Kazakhstan?
- dredmorbius 5y agoOnus of precedent would have to be that it does not. If you're able to find any such, I might have further interest in this line of questioning. Though I doubt even that.
- gowld 5y agoYou think the US Constitution of the United States* of America restricts what the US can do to non-citizens who aren't in the US at all? What possible reason could you have for that thought? Precedent is that protections like that are created by treaties like the Geneva Convention.
- dredmorbius 5y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27155570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27155570
- TechBro8615 5y agoThe question isn’t about whether the constitution restricts non-citizens, but about whether it protects them by preserving their rights. In fact I’m not sure the constitution restricts any entity other than the government. It’s laws that restrict people. And laws apply to everyone, assuming jurisdiction can be established, or extradition will be enforced. I can’t murder someone in Japan just because I’m a non-citizen there. But I could break US law by doing something not-illegal in Russia, and they probably wouldn’t extradite me.
- daperor630 5y agoUnited States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to searches and seizures by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien in a foreign country.