I am not so familiar with the US law but why wouldn't they?

The first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

To be even clearer, the second states:

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

Not being a US citizen does not allow the US government to violate basic human rights.

And just if you think pricavy is not a basic human right, in the same declaration you find:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

EVERYONE. Not just "US Citizen".

But then again maybe the US do not respect the most basic human rights.

The "everyone" referred to in that document and all other laws in the USA apply to people after they're here. Not before.

Yes they apply to both citizens and non citizens alike. All have those freedoms and short of seeking elected office or voting, there isn't much distinction.

But that doesn't mean those rights apply externally. A woman in Saudi Arabia doesn't have freedom of speech per the US first ammendment. A man in Russia doesn't have fourth ammendment protections against searches.

Arriving at the border doesn't mean you're inside. Until the country lets you in, you're still outside.

> Arriving at the border doesn't mean you're inside. Until the country lets you in, you're still outside.

You do realise that "border" is not well-defined, right?

It's somewhere between 25-250 miles around the US... So when have you actually entered? The CBP certainly don't view it as having been processed through customs and immigration and regularly detain people who have been processed.

> all other laws in the USA apply to people after they're here.

When do they arrive?

You can spend your entire visit within the US's border region.

> You do realise that "border" is not well-defined, right?

> It's somewhere between 25-250 miles around the US... So when have you actually entered? The CBP certainly don't view it as having been processed through customs and immigration and regularly detain people who have been processed.

Again, I never said I agree with any of this. I'm saying this is how the current laws have been interpreted and upheld till now.

> When do they arrive?

After they've passed customs. Being inside the custom's office doesn't grant special rights.

> After they've passed customs.

I specifically said that is not the case, and BCP say that is not the case, and Congress do not say that is the case. (See U.S. v. Hernandez-Lopez, where 50 miles after passing through customs was still sufficient to allow for detainment by border patrol.)

It is an expectation of most travelers, but it is patently false.

> Again, I never said I agree with any of this.

Neither have I. The law is ambiguous, and practically without restraint. Even when there is restraint, the BCP regularly are not aware, and violate it.

This is why Europe has moved to the doctrine of "human rights" rather than "constitutional rights": that gives a strong yes to the second question.

Citizens and non-citizens aren't really seperate classes of human being. The rights restricted from non-citizens are those to do with residence and employment. Other rights to fair treatment should not be restricted from non-citizens.

> Are you implying that an alien attempting to cross the border has all the same constitutional rights as a citizen?

A passport is what the alien has.

An official document, vouching for the alien, from a country that has diplomatic ties with the one they are visiting.

Why is it acceptable to treat the representative of a nation, that you have ties with, as if they have no right to privacy? That searching them as a suspect of criminal action is allowed as the norm?

So what? Short of an explicit treaty outlining cross honored travel without (ex: like euro zone) there's no inherent right to that. Passport, no passport, doesn't matter.

Note that I never said whether I personally think it's a good policy or whether I think it's morally sound. I'm saying they have legal standing to do so.

Enforcing your borders and dictating the rules for anyone external crossing them to enter your country is the right of each nation to decide on its own.

> Passport, no passport, doesn't matter.

Well, it does matter. Why?

> Enforcing your borders and dictating the rules for anyone external crossing them to enter your country is the right of each nation to decide on its own.

Passports are part of that negotiation. An acknowledgement of the rights of the individual visiting.

As to what rights a passport holder can expect, the US is a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [0]. Even if their implementation is incomplete, and heavily criticised.

However, here's some of the relevant points:

Article 9 recognises the rights to liberty and security of the person.

Article 10 requires anyone deprived of liberty to be treated with dignity and humanity.

Article 12 guarantees freedom of movement, including the right of persons to choose their residence and to leave a country. These rights apply to legal aliens as well as citizens of a state.

Article 16 requires states to recognize everyone as a person before the law.

The only reason that the US currently says they can ignore these rights and demand searching at the border without just cause, is because they say that whilst you are at a point of entry, you are neither a legal alien nor a citizen. Within the 100-mile border area, the US Constitution doesn't even apply. [1]

> Although the 100-mile border zone is not literally "Constitution-free," CBP frequently acts like it is. [1]

They actively manipulate the law to remove rights from not just aliens, but their own citizens as well.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civi...

[1] https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-factsheet-customs-and-border...

What's the limit? A phone is full of private life. You should only have access to it if you have a clear suspicious of crime and that a judge allowed it.

It's the closest thing to a cavity search without touching the body.

My understanding of current law is that border agents have the right to demand a cavity search. So searching your phone would be within bounds as well.

Again, this is for aliens and not citizens. I see no reason for them to expect additional constitutional rights external to the US.

The alternative for aliens is not to come. They can vote with their feet.

CBP claims the authority to search everybody.

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/inspection...

It's also unclear to me why you're so carefully distinguishing between "aliens" and "citizens" in this matter, since most constitutional rights are irrespective of citizenship.

I meant aliens seeking entry.

Which constitutional right are you claiming applies differently to citizens than to non-citizens at the border?

All constitutional rights as aliens seeking entry have none. Whether citizens, permanent residents, or legal immigrants who have previously been here have any is a separate question.

I'm specifically saying I see no reason that an alien has any constitutional rights just because they showed up at your doorstep. That starts after they're allowed to enter.

I think you'll find that US citizens don't have a functioning fourth amendment right at the border either. So there's no point distinguishing, unless you really like saying "aliens".

If you more read carefully you'll see I never suggested that they do. I'm saying that a alien with no existing legal status in the US has no legal rights under US law nor do they have any constitutional protections until they're admitted.

Claiming they have fourth amendment protections from a search at the border by customs is non sense. They don't have any of those protections.

The sad reality is that citizens don't have most of those either.

Yes, I've read your remarks, and the ones you responded to. I don't think anyone made that particular claim.