The Bill of Rights was drafted to grant protections, from the new Federal State apparatus, to her citizens. That was the whole point! The states said, "no way in hell we're ratifying this new constitution if we can't speak freely, can't practice religion, can't keep and bear arms to regulate its newly-proposed militia", and so on. The intention wasn't to grant protections to foreigners living in Zimbabwe or Egypt.
To put it another way, granting those protections to non-citizens just doesn't make sense given the historical context of why that document exists in the first place. I mean, is some guy living in sub-saharan Africa guaranteed free speech by the Federal government? Obviously not.
Of course, that does open an interesting can of worms: if someone is in the United States on an H1B Visa, can the Federal State complex lock them in prison if they criticize said State? Well, I suppose it can! But I think the "check and balance" there would be the probably violent reaction from the American people.
A guy quoted in the article in turn quotes Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence: "we all have God-given rights, citizens or not!" But while that's true, it's a total non-sequitur, as I described above: those aren't even the same document! If I wrote in a letter to someone that I don't think I'm morally obligated to pay my debts, but then took out a mortgage, the terms of the mortgage are in the mortgage, not in the letter I wrote my pal.
I'd be genuinely interested to hear someone like Tom Woods clarify this, it's a question I haven't really thought about before. If I'm wrong, then where?
Here is a guy in the comments who thinks the same thing, bold emphasis is mine:
"The Constitution's Bill of Rights is a document that constrains the Government when dealing with the GOVERNED. The governed are the citizens of the USA. Treaties can be drafted that temporarily grant similar protections to nonCitizens, but that is something for the Congress to undertake.
Yes, the Declaration of Independence does express that there are universal and inalienable rights granted by the creator but it is not a suicide note or a declaration of surrender nullifying the special status of citizenship. Hesian mercenary troops billeted in towns within the US were not whom the founders intended to protect.
Just as we do not send lawyers into battle to decide on the motives of engaged enemy combatants, tasked with determining who can fire at whom, we do not expect that domestic rules of conduct be applied to the international arena and to non-US Citizens...unless a treaty states as such.
Yes, the Declaration of Independence does express that there are universal and inalienable rights granted by the creator but it is not a suicide note or a declaration of surrender nullifying the special status of citizenship. Hesian mercenary troops billeted in towns within the US were not whom the founders intended to protect.
Just as we do not send lawyers into battle to decide on the motives of engaged enemy combatants, tasked with determining who can fire at whom, we do not expect that domestic rules of conduct be applied to the international arena and to non-US Citizens...unless a treaty states as such.
If I hear a clarification which explains if and where I'm wrong, I'll do a follow-up post.