Parent said "protections" and referred to "due process", not the broader topic of "rights". So, yes, non-citizens don't, e.g., get to vote. On the other hand, if they get arrested, the same standards of evidence apply as for a citizen.

Germany provides many Basic Rights to everybody.

Others are only for citizens (and EU citizens, but via a strange legal method), but the most fundamental ones state "Everyone", not "every citizen".

Same with Sweden. For example, Allemansrätten (Freedom to Roam) applies to alla människor (or all people), not just citizens.

Right. It's mentioned in every tourist guide I've seen about Sweden, and it is drawing outdoor types to the country.

Smart move. :-)

So, in other words, Germany provides different rights for citizens and non-citizens. Which is what the GP was saying.

Not having basic protections for non-citizens would be rather worrying, but let's not act like the mere existence of a difference is worth freaking out about.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Justice Thomas's concurrence not providing these protections to non-citizens would be a good thing. I'm just saying that 'non-citizens should have the same rights as citizens' isn't a position held by any country on the planet.

In the context of this particular case, it sounds like the ruling by the majority protects non-citizens from having their property taken by the police, while Justice Thomas’s concurrence would not.

In my opinion, not having your property taken unfairly by the police is more of a basic right everyone should enjoy, rather than a special right afforded to citizens like voting.

> No country on Earth affords equal rights to citizens and non-citizens.

That's fine, but affording no rights to non-citizens would be highly problematic. Some argue the Constitution doesn't protect the rights of illegal immigrants, for example, but it makes clear distinctions by using "persons" in some spots and "citizens" in others.

Persons have a right to due process. Citizens have a right to vote. The difference is very important.

The Constitution is really quite bad at making things clear. Arbitrary rhetorical flourishes became the turning points of precendential cases, because quill and parchment made it hard to express ideas clearly.

The average ruling in a single minor case today is longer than the entire Constitution.

> That's fine, but affording no rights to non-citizens would be highly problematic.

Which is why we have the status quo: the vast majority of rights enjoyed my U.S. citizens and residents are enjoyed by aliens, with some discretion.

Everyone should have basic protections, or "fundamental" rights. Those are things that exist as a matter of basic human decency. Nonbasic rights are more like privileges, and they can apply discriminately.

A relevant recent case: the 9th circuit allowed to stand a federal law that limits 2nd amendment rights for certain non citizens unlawfully present in the US:

"... The panel affirmed a conviction for possessing a firearm while being an alien unlawfully in the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A)."

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/08/15...