3 ms·
Good article, though I'd argue that the U.S. has considered foreign citizens not to be fully covered by Constitutional rights since way before 1990.
by mpyne 13y ago
Good article, though I'd argue that the U.S. has considered foreign citizens not to be fully covered by Constitutional rights since way before 1990.
- rbanffy 13y agoStill, this must be very disturbing for H1B workers and other legal non-citizen residents. And hugely disappointing.
- mpyne 13y agoActually they fall under Constitutional protections while on U.S. soil, at least. At least as far as I understand the background of the NSA stuff in this scenario. In fact that's one of the reasons the 'enemy combatant' prisons were at Gitmo in the first place, is that the Naval base is technically leased from Cuba and not actually U.S. soil, which meant (according to the legal theory) that some Constitutional protections didn't apply.
- refurb 13y agoReally? For example, the 15th amendment of the US constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens (voting rights). The US actually does a pretty good job of protecting non-citizens. Unless there is evidence that providing a right to a non-citizen is required for the proper functioning of the country, it has to be provided.
- rbanffy 13y agoI can understand why voting rights would be limited to citizens, but protection against government abuse shouldn't be.