3 ms·

The US constitution has generally been thought to apply to _everyone_ interacting with the US government, citizen or not. It’s why in the past tourists could e

The US constitution has generally been thought to apply to _everyone_ interacting with the US government, citizen or not. It’s why in the past tourists could expect due process under the law, and not be disappeared out of the blue, etc. So if the US is rewriting that social contract, they should probably explicitly say what provisions only protect US citizens and which apply to everyone. Because otherwise, is it none?

hyperliner 1y ago
This is incorrect. There is specific distinction between citizens and persons. Habeas Corpus applies to persons. But there is no right that applies to every person in the world that would give them a right to get a student visa to a US university.
- bradchris 1y ago
  You're misconstruing what I said— nowhere in the constitution is a student visa a “right” to a citizen or not. But subjecting a non-citizen to a potentially unreasonable search while exempting regular citizens is likely against the 4th and 5th amendments (due process + unreasonable searches). Of course, “unreasonable” depends on the court’s interpretation. Some Supreme Court decisions— Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945) > freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) > constitutional protections extend to “all persons” within the U.S, including undocumented immigrants.
- bakuninsbart 1y ago
  One of the things every democratic constitution henceforth, and supported by the US, did differently. Maybe a constitutional change to afford basic rights to aliens is in order.
onli 1y ago
That's the same country that operates an illegal torture prison (Guantanamo), claiming the rule of law does not apply there because it is not on US soil. That prison is still open. It did imprison minors. It is none, and that predates Trump.
- bradchris 1y ago
  I don’t disagree, but you would think the citizens of such a country would want to check that tyrannical power, not expand it

hyperliner 1y ago

This is incorrect. There is specific distinction between citizens and persons. Habeas Corpus applies to persons. But there is no right that applies to every person in the world that would give them a right to get a student visa to a US university.

bradchris 1y ago
You're misconstruing what I said— nowhere in the constitution is a student visa a “right” to a citizen or not. But subjecting a non-citizen to a potentially unreasonable search while exempting regular citizens is likely against the 4th and 5th amendments (due process + unreasonable searches). Of course, “unreasonable” depends on the court’s interpretation. Some Supreme Court decisions— Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945) > freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) > constitutional protections extend to “all persons” within the U.S, including undocumented immigrants.
bakuninsbart 1y ago
One of the things every democratic constitution henceforth, and supported by the US, did differently. Maybe a constitutional change to afford basic rights to aliens is in order.

onli 1y ago

That's the same country that operates an illegal torture prison (Guantanamo), claiming the rule of law does not apply there because it is not on US soil. That prison is still open. It did imprison minors. It is none, and that predates Trump.

bradchris 1y ago
I don’t disagree, but you would think the citizens of such a country would want to check that tyrannical power, not expand it