What are my rights?

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Those are not rights but privileges... you are getting the two terms confused.

Ahh no. You seem to be confused. if you READ the links posted by others you would see the words "right to own property..."

Seriously, same rights as a USC except you can't vote (and a couple of others). You can't work at some government jobs either but I don't really consider that a "right" so much as an eligibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_residency#Limitations_of_permanent_residents Here is a a reference to property but only "certain classes".

Edited November 21, 2011 by Vanessa&Tony

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Not true at all. You are not afforded the same rights as guaranteed to all American citizens by the Constitution of the United States of America. When you become a citizen, then you will have those rights. Until then, you do NOT have the right to own property, peaceful assembly, or any of the others ones listed in the Constitution or declared by law.

Dead wrong. The Constitution says nothing about those rights being exclusive to citizens. The word "citizen" does not appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights. The most common references are "the people" or "a person". The US Supreme Court has determined on multiple occasions that the Bill of Rights applies to anyone who is "under the jurisdiction of the United States", including permanent residents and even visitors to the US. Where a right is specifically reserved for citizens, such as the right to vote, then the Constitution will explicitly use the word "citizen", as it does in the five amendments that address voting rights.

[KayDeeCee 4,893]

Not true at all. You are not afforded the same rights as guaranteed to all American citizens by the Constitution of the United States of America. When you become a citizen, then you will have those rights. Until then, you do NOT have the right to own property, peaceful assembly, or any of the others ones listed in the Constitution or declared by law.

Those are not rights but privileges... you are getting the two terms confused.

I believe you are the one that is confused here. First you said permanent residents do not have those rights. Then, you say they are privileges and not rights after all. Which is it? Not that it matters because an LPR does indeed have those same rights(or privileges if you want to switch it up). They cannot vote or work certain government jobs, but they are afforded most of the same rights as any USC gets. As someone else asked, how and why did you come to this assumption?

I hope after you are married and your wife gets her green card that you will let her know she has all those rights.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Jay-Kay

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Once I'm married to my US fiance and we have children together in America, I have heard some alarming rumours about the lack of rights a non-citizen has. I know of a couple (wife English, husband American) who were having major problems with their marriage, but the wife wouldn't cut the chord with him because if she did, he would have custody of the children. Also whenever she tries to take the children out of the USA and he's not present, he has to write a letter allowing her to take them out.

My mother is now saying that she'll never speak to me again if I don't give birth to my children in the UK! So I think I'm definitely going to have them in the States

This story makes me wonder at what rights a non-American citizen has when they're living permanently in America, not just concerning children but everything. Are we non citizens protected?

Where can I find this kind of information out?

Thanks!

You heard wrong.

Even if you give birth to the children in the UK as the children of a US citizen they would still be US citizens, like it or not, and there would be no way for them to leave UK and return to the US without a US passport. The US "allows" dual citizenship but does not "recognize" dual citizenship. They would be US citizens in the eyes of the US government, period.

Permanent Residents have exactly the same rights as US citizens except voting, filing K-1 visas, and welfare benefits.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Not true at all. You are not afforded the same rights as guaranteed to all American citizens by the Constitution of the United States of America. When you become a citizen, then you will have those rights. Until then, you do NOT have the right to own property, peaceful assembly, or any of the others ones listed in the Constitution or declared by law.

Wrong. My wife owns property, owns firearms, has purchased firearms, attends school board meetings (peaceable assembly), served on the local school board committee regarding improvements proposed for the school. She is not yet a citizen

You are so completely wrong.

Dead wrong. The Constitution says nothing about those rights being exclusive to citizens. The word "citizen" does not appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights. The most common references are "the people" or "a person". The US Supreme Court has determined on multiple occasions that the Bill of Rights applies to anyone who is "under the jurisdiction of the United States", including permanent residents and even visitors to the US. Where a right is specifically reserved for citizens, such as the right to vote, then the Constitution will explicitly use the word "citizen", as it does in the five amendments that address voting rights.

[Boiler 45,525]

I own property, bear arms etc.

[mapletree 33]

Going back to the root of this issue, child custody and placement - Most countries have signed on to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction aka: Hague Abduction Convention.

Transport of children internationally is something that requires the consent of both parents. If one parent takes a child abroad without the consent of the other, then this is considered abduction. Similarly, if one parent removes a child to another country for longer than the other parent has consented, this is abduction.

The primary goal of the convention is to preserve the status quo. A child in a country should remain in that country absent joint consent.

Citizenship of the parent is NOT a primary issue. Sex of the parent is not an issue in the USA. If the father is Canadian and the mother is USA, and the children shortly after being born in the USA move to Canada and then live most of their lives in Canada, the children will be allowed to remain in Canada and will only be allowed to travel to the USA with the consent of both parties, or a judicial order.

If you have Children in the USA and you want to take them abroad, you need to have consent of both parents. Generally if there is a divorce, there is a part of the decree that addresses this issue. And while this may not always be enforced at borders, if there is a reported abduction things can go very poorly for the parent without written consent.

If you have a child in the USA, do you have the right to take the child back to your home country? The answer is: Only with the consent of both parents.

These issues were recently highlighted in the case of Sean Goldman. In that case a mother took her then four year old son back to Brazil for a two week vacation and stayed. It took five years, but the child was returned to the USA. Even though the child spent most of his life being raised by the maternal grandmother, this was an abduction and the child was properly returned.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

The right to vote (in federal elections), the right (and duty) to serve as a juror (if called), the right to a jury of his peers.

That's it, as far as I know, when it comes to rights that are reserved for USCs only.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Going back to the root of this issue, child custody and placement - Most countries have signed on to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction aka: Hague Abduction Convention.

Transport of children internationally is something that requires the consent of both parents. If one parent takes a child abroad without the consent of the other, then this is considered abduction. Similarly, if one parent removes a child to another country for longer than the other parent has consented, this is abduction.

The primary goal of the convention is to preserve the status quo. A child in a country should remain in that country absent joint consent.

Citizenship of the parent is NOT a primary issue. Sex of the parent is not an issue in the USA. If the father is Canadian and the mother is USA, and the children shortly after being born in the USA move to Canada and then live most of their lives in Canada, the children will be allowed to remain in Canada and will only be allowed to travel to the USA with the consent of both parties, or a judicial order.

If you have Children in the USA and you want to take them abroad, you need to have consent of both parents. Generally if there is a divorce, there is a part of the decree that addresses this issue. And while this may not always be enforced at borders, if there is a reported abduction things can go very poorly for the parent without written consent.

If you have a child in the USA, do you have the right to take the child back to your home country? The answer is: Only with the consent of both parents.

These issues were recently highlighted in the case of Sean Goldman. In that case a mother took her then four year old son back to Brazil for a two week vacation and stayed. It took five years, but the child was returned to the USA. Even though the child spent most of his life being raised by the maternal grandmother, this was an abduction and the child was properly returned.

Nicely done.

[trillium13 84]

The right to vote (in federal elections), the right (and duty) to serve as a juror (if called), the right to a jury of his peers.

That's it, as far as I know, when it comes to rights that are reserved for USCs only.

LPR's can't be called for jury duty?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

LPR's can't be called for jury duty?

Not in California, if you mean serve on a jury. 49 states and a few territories left to check in.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[KayDeeCee 4,893]

Not in California, if you mean serve on a jury. 49 states and a few territories left to check in.

Must be a USC in Florida as well.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

Serving as a juror as a foreigner is a fast path to deportation with a lifetime bar attached. Yes, you can be called, but if you answer the call, it will end your American dream for good.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

The right to vote (in federal elections), the right (and duty) to serve as a juror (if called), the right to a jury of his peers.

That's it, as far as I know, when it comes to rights that are reserved for USCs only.

Serving on a jury is certainly a duty, but I'm not certain it's a right. If it were then I suppose that I would have had the right to demand that I be allowed to serve on the jury for OJ's trial. A US citizen can also be compelled to serve on a jury. I'm not aware of any other right that the government can compel you to exercise. It's sort of like military service. You can be compelled by law to serve in the military, but you don't have an inherent right to serve, and the government can deny your application to serve at their discretion, just like they can reject you as a juror.

The sixth amendment makes reference only to "the accused", and indicates that the accused has a right to an impartial jury from the same state and district where the crime occurred. The Supreme Court has upheld that this means a jury comprised of a fair cross-section of the community who have been determined during voir dire to be unbiased. It doesn't imply that if the accused is a permanent resident that they then have the right to a jury comprised of permanent residents, nor that their rights would be violated if the jury was comprised solely of US citizens. According to the meaning and intent of the fourth amendment, LPR's also have the right to a jury of their peers.

Voting, on the other hand, is definitely a right, and definitely reserved for citizens at the federal level, though some jurisdictions allow non-citizens to vote in local elections.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Going back to the root of this issue, child custody and placement - Most countries have signed on to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction aka: Hague Abduction Convention.

Transport of children internationally is something that requires the consent of both parents. If one parent takes a child abroad without the consent of the other, then this is considered abduction. Similarly, if one parent removes a child to another country for longer than the other parent has consented, this is abduction.

No, not "most" countries. Many but not most: http://travel.state.gov/abduction/resources/congressreport/congressreport_1487.html Philippines for example is not a Hague country.

Also, if there's no custody agreement in place then there's no abduction. For instance if I took my child out of the country with my spouses consent, and I stayed, that's not abduction. I am the child's parent, there was/is no custody agreement in place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_on_the_Civil_Aspects_of_International_Child_Abduction

International relationships carry a lot of risks. This is one that not many people think about.