Why I hate traveling to the US

[Camel]

B) I still don't think the Constitution applies to non-US citizens :-\

I hear this argument a lot, and I often ask: why?

Because non-Americans aren't people, so they don't have rights. Duh!

What? We're talking about civil rights, which are rights you get from being a citizen. Basic human rights (ownership, opinion, etc) should never be compromised, regardless of location.

For example, we don't let iago vote in the US election.

[iago]

What? We're talking about civil rights, which are rights you get from being a citizen. Basic human rights (ownership, opinion, etc) should never be compromised, regardless of location.

For example, we don't let iago vote in the US election.

What about the right to not undergo cruel and unusual punishment? Random search and seizure?

Those are basic human rights that everybody, regardless of race, gender, and nationality should have.

Also, this is totally beside the topic because they do it to Americans, too. I'd split this part into the off topic board, but we don't have one anymore...

[MyndFyre]

B) I still don't think the Constitution applies to non-US citizens :-\

I hear this argument a lot, and I often ask: why?

Because non-Americans aren't people, so they don't have rights. Duh!

What? We're talking about civil rights, which are rights you get from being a citizen. Basic human rights (ownership, opinion, etc) should never be compromised, regardless of location.

For example, we don't let iago vote in the US election.

Ah, but the U.S. Constitution doesn't make requirements of U.S. citizenship for qualifying electors:

...the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

So, if Arizona decided that the AZ House of Representatives could be voted on by permanent legal residents, then they could also vote for the U.S. House of Representatives.

The rights such as those enumerated in the Fourth and Fifth amendments are not limited in scope.  Why would things like unreasonable search not be extended to non-citizens?

[Camel]

What about the right to not undergo cruel and unusual punishment? Random search and seizure?

Those are basic human rights that everybody, regardless of race, gender, and nationality should have.

The right to not undergo cruel and unusual punnishment, I agree, is a basic human right. In the US, that is not formalized. As for search and seizure, it's a complicated issue; it is arguably a violation of property rights, if you consider the case where it's both unjustified and not temporary (let's say an hour, in the case where you have a plane to catch). However, I don't think that it is a basic human right the way you put it, because that is too vague. Your right to property is already covered by your basic human right to property, which search and seizure does not always violate.

The high-profile seizures that do violate property rights are always the subject of heated debate, generally under the argument that it is unconstitutional. The laws that allow for them are, in the area where I live, widely regarded as unconstitutional.

So, if Arizona decided that the AZ House of Representatives could be voted on by permanent legal residents, then they could also vote for the U.S. House of Representatives.

The rights such as those enumerated in the Fourth and Fifth amendments are not limited in scope.  Why would things like unreasonable search not be extended to non-citizens?

The whole premise of the constitution is that it defines some basic civil rights. Your hypothetical is invalid, because the right to vote is a civil right.

[MyndFyre]

The whole premise of the constitution is that it defines some basic civil rights. Your hypothetical is invalid, because the right to vote is a civil right.

Really?  I don't remember the words "civil rights" anywhere in the Constitution.  I thought it was a framework for how the government was intended to be architected and definitions of what the government is supposed to be responsible for.

Even Amendments 15, 19, and 26, which speak directly to the right of voters and guarantees the right to vote to citizens does not prevent non-citizens from voting:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

The language does not preclude non-citizens from voting; they simply say that these characteristics are not to preclude citizens from voting.  For instance, California, Alaska, and Florida all have had movements to lower the voting age to 16; while none were successful, it was not because it would have been illegal.  States are free, as sovereigns, to determine who are qualified electors.

To clarify my meaning of the above: taken in whole, Amendments 15, 19, and 26 should be read to mean "The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age, sex, race, color, or previous condition of servitude."  It does not mean, "Only citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, shall be qualified electors regardless of age, sex, race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Another interesting case is the Presidency.  Most Americans think that it is their right to vote to elect the President; they are in fact mistaken.  It is the States' rights to elect the President, chosen by the Electors appointed by the States' choosings.  While most states dedicate their entire electoral vote to the plurality winner of the state (because otherwise it would be extraordinarily difficult to have a 50% + 1 vote), some do not (I believe Indiana is one such exception to this rule).  If you don't like the way this is set up you are free to petition your state to change it.  Proof that it's a state right?

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

[Joe]

A) Worse than China would be shooting you on the spot ... that's about the only way it could be worse than China/
B) I still don't think the Constitution applies to non-US citizens :-\

For the record, I think he was referring to "The Great (Fire)Wall of China".

[CrAz3D]

The language does not preclude non-citizens from voting; they simply say that these characteristics are not to preclude citizens from voting.  For instance, California, Alaska, and Florida all have had movements to lower the voting age to 16; while none were successful, it was not because it would have been illegal.  States are free, as sovereigns, to determine who are qualified electors.

States are free to deny residents the right to vote, OK. 

The preamble is very nationalistic.  "We ... ourselves"?  Yeah, it doesn't say everyone.  The framers didn't include rights for non-citizens.

[MyndFyre]

The language does not preclude non-citizens from voting; they simply say that these characteristics are not to preclude citizens from voting.  For instance, California, Alaska, and Florida all have had movements to lower the voting age to 16; while none were successful, it was not because it would have been illegal.  States are free, as sovereigns, to determine who are qualified electors.

States are free to deny residents the right to vote, OK. 

The preamble is very nationalistic.  "We ... ourselves"?  Yeah, it doesn't say everyone.  The framers didn't include rights for non-citizens.

So do legal permanent resident foreign nationals have to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure?  Can their land be taken under eminent domain without so much as a peep?  Do they get no process?

No.  That's retarded.  The Constitution enumerates how the government is intended to behave.  Indeed it is a statement of our core values.  How is the government to change its core values simply because someone isn't a citizen?

[rabbit]

Eminent Domain applies to everyone, citizen or not.

[MyndFyre]

Eminent Domain applies to everyone, citizen or not.

The power of the government to take land applies to everyone.  The protection of the Constitution is offered to everyone as well, that land will not be taken under eminent domain without the government being fair and equitable.

[rabbit]

Yeah, but sadly they usually get to decide what's "fair".