By law do non citizens have the same rights as citizens to assemble or to protest under the constitution ?
475602
Some of the people expressing their thoughts before me has forgotten where their ancestors were from and the ways they got to the USA. Others probably don't know thanks to whom they could eat a salad this morning that they paid a few cents for. A couple of them probably just said "bye bye" to the contractors they hired for a half of the market hour rate to remodel their house and finally could seat by the computer and criticize a little bit the immigrants. What can I say? God Bless America!\nPS: As a Polish legal, but a non-citizen US immigrant, I maybe should not even use my right to free speech here, since some of you said I don't have one. I'm sorry. It won't happen again.
291958
no the bill of rights is just a document declaring our independance from england and our god given rights as citzens. If anything the immigration bill would go on the constitution if need be!
504810
A difficult question.\n\nI do notice that a lot of the public response that I heard or read (especially in letters to the editor) seemed to indicate that most Americans don't understand that our constitution gives anyone who is physically present inside our borders, whether or not a citizen, the right to peacefully assemble and to express their opinion. \n\nMoreover, they further fail to understand that our Founding fathers regarded such expressions of divergent opinion to be not merely things to be tolerated but a positive good that makes a valuable contribution to public understanding of issues.\n\nThere has always been a streak of nativist bigotry in America. They even had a party of their own back in the 19th century which was popularly called the "Know Nothings." I see from some of the answers here that, sadly, they live on.
218672
It is a right of the People, not the State.  Several states also back this up in their own constitutions.  The reasons for the 2nd Ammendment were laid out in both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers after the Revolutionary War.  Founders such as George Mason, Adams, Hamilton, and Washington all stated this was a protection for the People against external threats and internal tyranny.\n\nLike the rest of the Bill of Rights, it is part of a list of "thou shall nots" for the government.  The Bill of Rights places restrictions on the Federal Government, and by default on the State Governments and guarantees the rights stated to the People.  The Bill of Rights also states the US Constitution cannot list every protected right and those rights not listed are still retained by the States and the People.
950829
"US Soldiers are still citizens who don't lose their rights just because they are in the military but they have no group."\n\nI'm sorry, but you're wrong- members of the US Armed Forces are governed by the "Uniform Code of Military Justice", and do not enjoy the same rights as civilians. For example, a civilian cannot be tried twice for the same crime (double jeopardy), but a serviceman can- once by civilian court and once by military tribunal.
232088
Not in the constitution. However, Article 20 of the US Code covers the topic of requiring an education to children through grade 12.\n\nRegarding non citizens, you cannot forbit them from attending. US Code, Title 20, CHAPTER 39, SUBCHAPTER I, Part 2,  § 1703\nlink: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode20/usc_sec_20_00001703----000-.html\n\n(Whether that pertains to undocumented aliens is up for debate)
469779
Amendment 14 Section 1 [1868]:\n"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
82162
Our constitution gives us the right to make fun of anybody or anything we want. Not that i agree with it but i will defend anyones right to say whatever they want about whomever they want.
1162482
they have the same rights as adults do
863373
It is a sad state in this nation that to exercise your freedom of speech at a protest that you need to have a permit. That is total BS.\n\nThe first amendment of the constitution is my irrevocable permit.
1134231
Does the US constitution really give the right for INDIVIDUALS to bear arms, or are only militias given the right to bear arms.
541956
Equal rights for all US born citizens and legal immigrants.\n\nAmongst others:\n-government cannot limit free speech (first amendment)\n-government cannot limit right to bear arms (second amendment, liberals try to limit this right all the time)\n-government cannot mandate a religion (though there is no specific requirement for separation of church and state)\n\netc...
522623
How are our immigration laws unconstitutional? The Constitution applies to AMERICAN CITIZENS.
860759
Corporations are legal individuals in the eyes of the law.  With few exceptions (ie, the right to privacy) they should and do have the same rights as regular people under the constitution
159068
Let me offer a different perspective.\n\nThe rights of the people are inherent in the sovereign nature of the people.  This was recognized long before there was a United States Constitution.  All thirteen States (existing when the U.S. Constitution was drafted and proposed to the several States) had Constitutions and many had Bills of Rights listing various individual rights.  Listing of rights was not a new practice as many had occurred in the past such as the Petition of Rights [1628] and the Bill of Rights [1689].  Even Magna Carta [1215] could be consider a form of rights.\n\nThese acts and documents (along with many others) provided the fodder for our ever evolving Common Law which is to a significant degree based on a recognition of individual sovereignty.\n\nThere is a significant difference between those bills of rights and the one attached to the U.S. Constitution as the first 10 articles of amendments and that is due to the nature and intent of the U. S. Constitution.  This constitution was not written to protect our individual rights, such protection already existed in the Common Law and the existing Constitutions of the States and the Founders were very familiar with such a perspective.  This constitution was intended to create a general government to act in for the States in some “limited” functions.  This general government was the creature (that which was created) the contract (the constitution) as ratified by the creators (the States) acting for the people.  By the way in the Treaty of Peace [1783] article one names each State and recognizes them each as free, independent and Sovereign.  As far as I am aware such as never been recanted and only has limed mitigation through the limited delegated powers of the constitution. \n\nBecause of the experience that those of the Founder age had with general governments, there was a desire among many to include a bill of rights (not trusting the general government to adhere to the constitution).  There were others (such as Alexander Hamilton) who strongly disagreed (refer to the Federalist Papers) because they felt there was no need since the general government existed only in the delegated powers of the constitution and could do no more.  However, to get the votes from the various delegates to the constitutional convention for the newly proposed constitution, an agreement was struck to have as one of the very first acts of the new congress the drafting and proposing to the several States a “Bill of Rights.”\n\nThis occurred with James Madison assigned the task and he used the as a guide the list of rights in the then existing Virginia Constitution.  He drafted 12 and they were proposed to the legislatures of the States.  Ten of these were ratified by the States and became the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States.  These are unique in that they are less a listing of rights than they are meant of to be controls on the new general government. That is, the first 8 amendments are exclusionary in nature in they exclude the general government from specific acts.  The last two articles are declaratory statements of basic truths.  None of these ten articles convey any rights but simply recognize the existence of such rights and that the general government cannot abuse them.\n\nClearly though the years the federal general government has step by step pushed aside the meaning of the articles of the bill of rights, some steps slowly and others overtly.  The overt use of the 14th Amendment to apply the articles of the bill of rights to the States when they are singularly intended for the general government is one such use.  The slow misprinting of some amendments (changing them without an amendment) such as the second amendment which today is commonly written with three commas and yet was proposed to the State Legislatures and ratified by them with a single comma after the word State, has changed its meaning extra-constitutionally.  The meanings of the
1085573
Absolutely. lock-N-load\n\nIn the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln\n"This government of the people, for the people and by the people belongs to the people and if the people shall ever grow weary of the government they may use their constitutional right to amend the government or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."
379776
No, they should not be afforded the same rights. I was part of an interview recently where a gentleman who was in the country illegally said he was tired of being treated like a second class citizen. So I simply told him he wasn't EVEN a second class citizen, because he wasn't a citizen. End of discussion for me. Now, does that mean to treat him like crap? No. But should he get welfare for his children and 10 others living in his home because he's making less than minimum wage? No to that also. Because he's not a citizen. \nPeriod.