"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Nowhere in there does it mention "citizens". Only "people". And you don't need to be a US citizen to be a person. The first result[0] of a quick Google search suggests that federal courts do indeed believe that the Constitution protects to non-citizens.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-th...
Now, all disclaimers given, I figure the Constitution ought to apply to anyone within it's jurisdiction, which to my mind means that if you are subject to our jursdiction for criminal purposes, you're subject to our constitution for it's protections as well.
I fully agree, hopefully the SCOTUS will confirm this in a ruling at some point.
Additionally the Declaration of Independence included this statement:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
I think the consent to be governed should be established whether implied or expressed in a way more specific that just being a person somewhere on earth.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
In other words it is by refusing to revolt that people consent to be governed. Revolution doesn't require all that many people, but it requires them to be willing to risk it all. See, for example, the Romanian revolution in 1989. [1] It's one of the most ironic revolutions. Their communist dictator, in an effort to prove his popularity, decided to force tens of thousands of people to appear in a public square to listen to his speech so it could be used as propaganda and broadcast to show his 'popularity.' 'You'll never believe what happened next.' 3 days later following a 2 hour trial their dictator was sentenced to death and executed immediately.
The logic is circular (people consent by not not consenting), but I think reasonable. The reason is that there are many people who, given the choice, would reject consent anytime they failed to achieve victory in a democratic process. That would lead to complete chaos. And revolution is not a particularly high standard. Imagine if 0.1% of the US population (that's around 330k people) chose to move on DC with the goal of aggressively rebooting the government. They'd be near impossible to stop. And even if stopped, it would certainly trigger a rethink of our entire system which would be at least a partial victory. So if you can't get even 1/1000 people willing to risk it all, it's tough to claim that our evils are not sufferable, or are not reparable within the systems available to us.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution#Ceau%C8%99...
My understanding based on the statement "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" is that this right to revolt is the nuclear option for people who have the ability to alter it and the ends which the government can be destructive towards are the initial rights previously outlined in the document. So if the US government doesn't work to secure these right for an Australian citizen and doesn't express their right to alter or abolish or revolt against the US government then it should not interpret their consent to be governed by US law for actions taken by them outside the US.
So the migration case you mention was a good example of this nuance. Congress can ban entry from whatever country they want. We could ban Canadians tomorrow if congress so chose. As for executive orders, the current precedent set is that the president is allowed to ban travel from any group so long as allowing it would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States." So the nuance there is, is Trump banning travel from these nations because they are Muslim majority, or is he banning travel from these nations because travel from these Muslim majority nations is not in the interest of the United States?
He tasked a 50 day review ranking and classifying nations on their migration controls as well as making diplomatic efforts to mutually improve the standards of these nations. After the 50 days he prohibited entry from the countries which were deemed threats, most of which where Muslim majority. Lower courts tried to then claim he did this because these countries were Muslim, and attempted to use his past words against him. The Supreme Court ruled that his words did not override an otherwise valid justification and upheld his order. [1]
---
The big point here is that the constitution can render laws unlawful, but it itself does not directly provide any protections from otherwise legitimate laws. For maybe the clearest example consider Kleindienst vs Mandel [2]. In that case the US chose to prohibit entry to an individual based exclusively on speech that would be perfectly legal if it had been said within the US. This case made its way to the supreme court and they upheld that this action was not a violation of the first amendment. [2] And it should be clear why (though the fact this made it all the way to supreme court belies my notion of obviousness here) - his speech was used against him but within the confines of other valid laws.
[1] - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
One man's might-is-right flag-waving US exceptionalism is another man's terrorism.
Except, they can't, because the USA will protect them, even threatening to INVADE any country which attempts to reign their war criminals in.
Duplicity is the order of the day.
Not remotely true, the first amendment protects anyone and everyone from government infringement. All of the bill of rights applies to anyone, citizens or not. Try reading them, they say what the government cannot do, nowhere will you find it saying but only to citizens.
>And that it applies to foreign citizens who have – quite sensibly – never set foot on your soil?
Of course it does. That's like saying a foreign terrorist can't be charged for an act of terrorism because they're not a U.S. citizen. Furthermore, because Assange is a foreign national, 1st Amendment protections do not apply in this situation.