The rights acknowledged and protected by the U.S. Constitution are rights of U.S. Persons (citizens, nationals, and permanent residents). They are not all rights of non-U.S. Persons, though some, like the Fifth Amendment, clearly are rights of all Persons. For example, if you're a tourist accused of committing a crime in the U.S. you do have a right to counsel and a right to not self-incriminate, but also you don't have the right to not be deported, and you don't have the right to keep and bear arms.
Which rights are for U.S. Persons only, and which are for all Persons, is not entirely clear to me. But I strongly suspect that freedom of speech and of the press is mainly for U.S. Persons only.
It will certainly be interesting to see what the courts have to say about this.
If you believe that the constitution protects inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government then how can those rights be denied to non citizens? The government gets to decide who is and isn’t a citizen, which would mean they can decide who is or isn’t eligible for so-called “inalienable” rights.
If you really believed in that interpretation—that the bill of rights guarantees equal and identical liberties to everyone regardless of citizenship status—then what's the argument that those same rights extend only within the borders of U.S. geography? Why would we not, for example, enforce the second amendment right to bear arms on the benighted people of Australia, who don't have it? If we wanted our actions to be 100% consistent with that interpretation of the language of the constitution, wouldn't that be the outcome?
So, I think the answer to your question is that it's not feasible, practical, or desirable to be 100% consistent, and that the law is mostly cobbled together, full of edge cases, hammered into something that sort of works most of the time, and makes sense if it's dark enough and you squint.
Yes, a government is generally in charge of granting citizenship for the population which it represents. This is a mechanism that seems to work for every functioning country in the world.
What's the alternative you're suggesting, exactly?
> The government gets to decide who is and isn’t a citizen
That's your quote which I'm referencing. I think that arrangement makes perfect sense, it seems as if you're in disagreement.
I'll ask again, what's the alternative arrangement you're trying to champion here? If you don't have answer I can only assume this argument's being made in bad faith, I'm trying my best to interpret your comment charitably but unless you're more clear about what you're presenting, I'm going to read it as it was presented.
> If you believe that the constitution protects inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government then how can those rights be denied to non citizens?
I was not stating an opinion as to which way it should be. I was describing reality, and stating that I'm not sure which parts of the Bill of Rights apply to foreigners and which don't.
"Inalienable rights" is a phrase that does not appear in the Constitution, and the courts hold the Declaration of Independence to have no legal force whatsoever. Where I was talking about actual jurisprudence (like it or not), you seem to be attacking a straw man.
> The government gets to decide who is and isn’t a citizen,
Yes, but within some pretty tight limits. Persons born on U.S. soil to persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. have birthright citizenship, and this cannot be taken away by statutes or bureaucratic acts. Others can naturalize according to statutes.
> which would mean they can decide who is or isn’t eligible for so-called “inalienable” rights.
It wouldn't be a country if everyone in the world had all the same rights as the country's citizens. Some rights have to be reserved to the citizens. De minimis the right to permanently reside and vote in that country. If you don't have a right to reside permanently in some country, then there must be other things which you are not allowed to do in that country.
Which rights are for U.S. Persons only, and which are for all Persons, is not entirely clear to me. But I strongly suspect that freedom of speech and of the press is mainly for U.S. Persons only.
It will certainly be interesting to see what the courts have to say about this.