.... The fact is, the US doesn't REALLY want to get rid of illegals. They are critical to the bottom line of our economy. Just like the banks, greed rules the day. It's much easier to just make them scapegoats.

You are 100% correct. Business depends on being able to hire illegals and if caught doing it paying only a minimal fine (if any). Face it, the illegals do the work that most Americans will not do.

I thought that this from McClatchy Newspapers pretty well summed it up.

---

whats funny is that yesterday NPR did a report comparing illegal aliens in Canada vs. the US. basically the only difference is that Canada enforces its immigration laws. Hiring an illegal will get you some heavy duty fines in both countries. Canada actually levies these penalties. The US law enforcement looks the other way. Heck it should raise a red flag with the IRS and be cause for immediate termination with verification for knowingly using a false ID or fake SSN . Heck employers are actually supposed to check the documents not just trust that the individual has them and isnt lying to get a job.

The Fed. ties its hands behind its back when it collects social security taxes for fake accounts where the supposed individual is working in 35 states and holding down 100's of jobs. The gov't clearly has the resources at hand but refuses to act upon them. They claim they can't use the IRS and SSN as a tool for law enforcement. Yet they use it all the time when they are looking for AWOL soldiers and criminals that are trying to work under the radar. Again its a matter of desire and they just dont have the taste for it.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The laws EXIST but the Justice Branch of Government and The Executive Branch seems to feel they aren't obliged to enforce the laws since they are INCONVENTIENT or are not politically correct in their opinion - so they can be ignored or go unenforced. At best they will enforce NON_ENFORCEMENT!
It is easier to create a media furor about them than to do what they are SUPPOSED TO DO!
In the meantime Wall Street makes money in the uproar!
IMHO!
My question would be HOW CAN YOU REFORM LAWS YOU DON'T EVEN TRY TO ENFORCE?

whats funny is that yesterday NPR did a report comparing illegal aliens in Canada vs. the US. basically the only difference is that Canada enforces its immigration laws. Hiring an illegal will get you some heavy duty fines in both countries. Canada actually levies these penalties. The US law enforcement looks the other way. Heck it should raise a red flag with the IRS and be cause for immediate termination with verification for knowingly using a false ID or fake SSN . Heck employers are actually supposed to check the documents not just trust that the individual has them and isnt lying to get a job.

The Fed. ties its hands behind its back when it collects social security taxes for fake accounts where the supposed individual is working in 35 states and holding down 100's of jobs. The gov't clearly has the resources at hand but refuses to act upon them. They claim they can't use the IRS and SSN as a tool for law enforcement. Yet they use it all the time when they are looking for AWOL soldiers and criminals that are trying to work under the radar. Again its a matter of desire and they just dont have the taste for it.

They can't use the IRS for such enforcement. There is the Fifth Amendment which bars it. This because the income tax is just that, a voluntary tax. The government needs you to tell it how much you make so it can take it away from you. That telling is being a witness against yourself and can't be used in actions not related to collecting income tax.

As to employers needing to document, I know of very few places where they also aren't violating things like minimum wage and overtime and not withholding at all, where the employer doesn't have an I-9 form with the sworn signature of the employee and employer saying the ID is what was given. The issue is the ease of getting fake ID. The issue is the government not doing anything when it sees fake ID. The issue is the horrendous rate of typographical errors in the SSN database. Never mind this.

---

whats funny is that yesterday NPR did a report comparing illegal aliens in Canada vs. the US. basically the only difference is that Canada enforces its immigration laws. Hiring an illegal will get you some heavy duty fines in both countries. Canada actually levies these penalties. The US law enforcement looks the other way. Heck it should raise a red flag with the IRS and be cause for immediate termination with verification for knowingly using a false ID or fake SSN . Heck employers are actually supposed to check the documents not just trust that the individual has them and isnt lying to get a job.

The Fed. ties its hands behind its back when it collects social security taxes for fake accounts where the supposed individual is working in 35 states and holding down 100's of jobs. The gov't clearly has the resources at hand but refuses to act upon them. They claim they can't use the IRS and SSN as a tool for law enforcement. Yet they use it all the time when they are looking for AWOL soldiers and criminals that are trying to work under the radar. Again its a matter of desire and they just dont have the taste for it.

They can't use the IRS for such enforcement. There is the Fifth Amendment which bars it. This because the income tax is just that, a voluntary tax. The government needs you to tell it how much you make so it can take it away from you. That telling is being a witness against yourself and can't be used in actions not related to collecting income tax.

As to employers needing to document, I know of very few places where they also aren't violating things like minimum wage and overtime and not withholding at all, where the employer doesn't have an I-9 form with the sworn signature of the employee and employer saying the ID is what was given. The issue is the ease of getting fake ID. The issue is the government not doing anything when it sees fake ID. The issue is the horrendous rate of typographical errors in the SSN database. Never mind this.

The 5th amendment only applies to and is granted to American citizens. so your arguement is moot.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

whats funny is that yesterday NPR did a report comparing illegal aliens in Canada vs. the US. basically the only difference is that Canada enforces its immigration laws. Hiring an illegal will get you some heavy duty fines in both countries. Canada actually levies these penalties. The US law enforcement looks the other way. Heck it should raise a red flag with the IRS and be cause for immediate termination with verification for knowingly using a false ID or fake SSN . Heck employers are actually supposed to check the documents not just trust that the individual has them and isnt lying to get a job.

The Fed. ties its hands behind its back when it collects social security taxes for fake accounts where the supposed individual is working in 35 states and holding down 100's of jobs. The gov't clearly has the resources at hand but refuses to act upon them. They claim they can't use the IRS and SSN as a tool for law enforcement. Yet they use it all the time when they are looking for AWOL soldiers and criminals that are trying to work under the radar. Again its a matter of desire and they just dont have the taste for it.

They can't use the IRS for such enforcement. There is the Fifth Amendment which bars it. This because the income tax is just that, a voluntary tax. The government needs you to tell it how much you make so it can take it away from you. That telling is being a witness against yourself and can't be used in actions not related to collecting income tax.

As to employers needing to document, I know of very few places where they also aren't violating things like minimum wage and overtime and not withholding at all, where the employer doesn't have an I-9 form with the sworn signature of the employee and employer saying the ID is what was given. The issue is the ease of getting fake ID. The issue is the government not doing anything when it sees fake ID. The issue is the horrendous rate of typographical errors in the SSN database. Never mind this.

The 5th amendment only applies to and is granted to American citizens. so your arguement is moot.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I see the word person there not citizen. Perhaps you should see the eye doctor about your vision.

---

Actually, "people" or "person" is defined in the first sentence of the Constitution. In order to be a person of the United States, you need to be a citizen. Otherwise, the Native Americans would have had the same protections under the Constitution at the time of drafting, which they didn't.

But look at it this way; the 5th amendment is usually cited as a protection from self-incrimination in a trial or interrogation. HOWEVER, look at what the government does, some people they just don't give a trial to at all because they're not American citizens and are therefore "not entitled" to a trial.

So when you get down to it, it hardly matters what the constitution says. It's what government does that matters. Some people receive the benefits of constitutional rights, some don't, and some are not afforded constitutional rights based on their citizenship status.

Practice is far more profound than ideology.

Actually, "people" or "person" is defined in the first sentence of the Constitution. In order to be a person of the United States, you need to be a citizen. Otherwise, the Native Americans would have had the same protections under the Constitution at the time of drafting, which they didn't.

Then why did thy write sections specifically exempting them? Only reasonable reason is they had to because it did apply to them.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

That's the first sentence of the Constitution. Or did you mean the preamble:
• Law the introductory part of a statute or deed, stating its purpose, aims, and justification
[which has no legal effect]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And if you did, you will note it defines who writes it, not to whom it pertains.

But look at it this way; the 5th amendment is usually cited as a protection from self-incrimination in a trial or interrogation. HOWEVER, look at what the government does, some people they just don't give a trial to at all because they're not American citizens and are therefore "not entitled" to a trial.

So when you get down to it, it hardly matters what the constitution says. It's what government does that matters. Some people receive the benefits of constitutional rights, some don't, and some are not afforded constitutional rights based on their citizenship status.

Practice is far more profound than ideology.

And see here for the final word on the matter.

---

Basing an argument for protection under the 5th amendment for illegal immigrants on the outcome of a Gitmo case is an interesting idea, ironically it was in the context of a discussion on Gitmo that another poster argued that illegal immigrants had no rights under the constitution (what goes around ...). Like you I believe that this idea is not supported by the US Supreme Court:

From Wikipedia:

Equal protection under US law
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to children who were illegal immigrants. It established that regardless of legal status, illegal immigrants are still persons and thus protected as such under some provisions the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution, notably the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[edit]Hmm, that was in Wikipedia 18 months ago, today it has:

"no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

and says nothing of 5th Amendment protections, will have to do more googling ...
[/edit]

[edit 2]From Page 11 of US Citizenship and Immigration Services document M-638:

Question 75: Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Answer 75: All people living in the United States. One reason that millions of immigrants have come to America is this guarantee of rights. The 5th Amendment guarantees everyone in the United States equal protection under the law. This is true no matter what color your skin is, what language you speak, or what religion you practice. The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, expanded this guarantee of rights. No state would be able to abridge, or block, the rights of any of its citizens.

So the US Immigration Service appears to concede that immigrants in general (nothing about legal vs illegal) have rights under the US Constitution.
[/edit 2]

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

bobby:

Don't cite Wiki. As you see it changes far too often and isn't authoritative.

As for mixing up the 5th and the 14th remember that the 14th only applies to states as BOLLING V. SHARPE, 347 U. S. 497 (1954) pointed out.

I used the Gitmo case because I wanted to point out that even at Gitmo which isn't in a US State, District, Trust, Territory or Possession, it being only leased land, that the Constitution applies to Persons. The shrub people felt they could get away with what they wanted to do because Gitmo wasn't US land and then the Constitution wouldn't apply. They found out differently. I don't think even the shrub people thought because they weren't citizens they could get away with it if they were on ordinary US soil. I seem to remember they is why they took them to Gitmo in the first place.

As to skildude and malignantpoodle, obviously if the fifth applies to an "enemy combatant" it is going to apply to an ordinary illegal.

We all know we are talking about the scope of MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, 384 U. S. 436 (1966) as it relates to you being forced to disclose information to implement the tax laws but then using it for other criminal matters.

---

Then why did thy write sections specifically exempting them? Only reasonable reason is they had to because it did apply to them.

By all means, show us the exemptions for Native Americans. Blacks. Chinese while you're at it. Maybe the Irish. "Person" refers to citizens throughout the constitution.

You also have to understand that during drafting there were not well defined immigration laws.

And yes, I mean the first sentence. If that's in the preamble, GREAT! It's not the first sentence later on down in the text, in case you had trouble understanding what "first sentence" means.

Point is, it is standard practice to deny constitutional protections to non-citizens. Happens all the time. It's done regularly. So whatever you think the constitution might say, practice and precedence say otherwise.

But, if we're going to consider, and let's consider this in practice, that "person" means anyone in the US, could you please then explain for me how it is that people here (legally or otherwise) are allowed to vote for senators?

Amendment 17
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof

Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe people that aren't citizens can vote... for senators that is, but apparently not the president.

Bobby;

No state would be able to abridge, or block, the rights of any of its citizens.

There is a distinction here. Much of the constitution limits government power. That doesn't change (or shouldn't). But the RIGHTS GRANTED to CITIZENS is another matter.

In any case, it's safe to say that there is some ambiguity. However, non-citizens are denied constitutional protections on a regular, daily basis. Most protections afforded to non-citizens are in regard to limiting government power. RIGHTS afforded to citizens are another matter.

Then why did thy write sections specifically exempting them? Only reasonable reason is they had to because it did apply to them.

By all means, show us the exemptions for Native Americans. Blacks. Chinese while you're at it. Maybe the Irish. "Person" refers to citizens throughout the constitution.

Indians [as referred to in the Constitution, no disrespect intended] is a real interesting one, since the US Government treats an Indian tribe as a Sovereign Nation and the Tribe's members as citizens of that Sovereign Nation. You might want to wonder about these foreigners who are on US soil and why the rights granted in the Bill of Rights apply to them. Just remember that the US Government has treaties with them, which have to be ratified by the Senate just like one with France or England.

Article I Section 2, look for the words "not taxed" and "three fifths"

Since you rather obviously haven't read The Constitution in a while any further attempt at discussion would be futile.

---

Article I Section 2, look for the words "not taxed" and "three fifths"

That applies to Indians not taxed. It does not specifically exclude Indians from constitutional function except by affording specific rights to citizens which the Indians were not considered to be. Besides, the part of the constitution that you're referencing is in regard to establishing population based representation in the house of representatives; it is not specifically excluding "Indians" from constitutional rights. And you're telling me I haven't read it? heh...

Please explain amendment 17 to us, and explain to us how the constitution affords voting rights to non-citizens (with the exception being presidential elections).

What you don't seem to understand is that the constitution is first and foremost a restriction on government's power. Alongside that and sometimes as a byproduct, it affords non-citizens with certain rights.

So yes, in the aspect of limiting government power, some non-citizens have protections as a byproduct of limited government power.

Specific rights granted to "people" of the US however, do not apply to non-citizens.

Again, if you disagree, then explain how "people" refers to "everyone" in regard to amendment 17 where the people of the state may elect their senators. Since your position is that the constitution applies to all and not just US citizens, I'd like to hear about voting rights for non-citizens as these rights afforded by the constitution are for "people" and "persons", the words that you standby as evidence that the US constitution affords rights to all.

Non-citizens cannot own guns.
Non-citizens cannot vote.
Non-citizens can be denied entry or deported based on speech that would be considered harmful that would otherwise be protected under the first amendment.
Non-citizens are not protected by the fourth amendment exclusionary rule in immigration hearings where illegally obtained evidence can be brought to trial.

The list goes on, and in these instances, the word "people" and "persons" are used.

Please try and stay on subject.
The word under discussion is "person" not "people."
The amendment under discussion is the Fifth not the Seventeenth, First or Fourth.
The question is a criminal case, not an immigration action.

Per Webster:
People:
7) the body of enfranchised citizens of a state: ELECTORATE

Person:
1a) A human being

Article I Section 4
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof"

Who gets to vote is under the complete control of each individual state legislature, not the Federal Government. Chew on the Alaska Permanent Fund too while you think about it.

As to the person who was not on US soil in the first case you cite:
"It is clear that Mandel personally, as an unadmitted and nonresident alien, had no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise. ... The appellees concede this."
Meaning he didn't ever argue he had a/any constitutional right(s).

"Recognition that First Amendment rights are implicated, however, is not dispositive of our inquiry here."
The court explicitly said it did not decide the case based on the First Amendment. It decided that an action not expression was the crux of the case. For more on that difference you might look up Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) and the cases it cites, although there wasn't a majority opinion in Barnes.

In the second case you cite, remember the exclusionary rule is an invention of SCOTUS and does not appear in the Constitution and again uses the word "people" in the Fourth Amendment, not "Person" as in the Fifth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment provides no teeth to enforce its provisions essentially making it unenforceable absent SCOTUS's action. A serious oversight by the framers. You should know that a immigration action is not a criminal case. Different rules apply. The cases coming out of Gitmo are criminal in nature, not immigration.

---

Who gets to vote is under the complete control of each individual state legislature, not the Federal Government.

Actually, voting is a constitutional right. Since the constitution applies to everyone and not just citizens, why can't non-citizens vote?

The word under discussion is "person" not "people."

Oh this is great :) So what you're telling me is that the word "person" in the constitution means anyone. But "people" (the plural for person) means US citizens only? Or is "off topic?" LOL

The question is a criminal case, not an immigration action.

It doesn't matter what it pertains to except that here is an instance where 4th amendment rights are not fully realized by non-citizens. That's the point.

But let's get this out of the way before moving on. I notice that you ignored the bulk of my post that lists constitutional rights NOT afforded to non-citizens. So let's get this straight, and then I'll go down the list and show you over a dozen examples where the constitution does NOT afford specific rights to non-citizens.

Who gets to vote is under the complete control of each individual state legislature, not the Federal Government.

BS. Non-citizens cannot legally vote for senators in any state.

Chew on the Alaska Permanent Fund too while you think about it.

You do realize that's part of a state constitution right? You do realize we're talking about US constitutional law and the rights afforded to people transcending state government right?

Again, voting is a constitutional right. If you're a non-citizen you can't vote in federal elections, I don't care what the state you live in says. So if the constitution applies to all and not just US citizens, why can't non-citizens vote? Third and final time I'm asking. I'm not sure you have an answer for this but I'm sure you'll try. After all, you tried to tell me that Native Americans were excluded from constitutional rights by citing a part of the document that determines census for the purpose of house of representatives numbers :P

Who gets to vote is under the complete control of each individual state legislature, not the Federal Government.

Actually, voting is a constitutional right. Since the constitution applies to everyone and not just citizens, why can't non-citizens vote?

Citizen of what? It is the state legislatures or the state constitutions that determine who can vote for Senator or Representative or President, or any of the state offices. The US Constitution is moot if they have to be a Citizen of the USA. Article I Section 4. Read it. Understand it.

Remember until recently the residents of Washington DC, US Citizens, couldn't vote in Federal Elections because they weren't a resident of a state!

It appears that the State of Georgia does not require US Citizenship to vote.
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/votingrights/vec/ga_runoff_web.pdf
as say Arizona does
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/votingrights/vec/az_web_vec.pdf
The entire chart is here

Georgia clearly has the right to do this under Article I Section 4 and has chosen too use it.

The word under discussion is "person" not "people."

Oh this is great :) So what you're telling me is that the word "person" in the constitution means anyone. But "people" (the plural for person) means US citizens only? Or is "off topic?" LOL

Get out a good dictionary and see that the word people is not [always] the plural of the word person. It has its own separate meaning. I gave you one cite. Also you couldn't have people also having a plural, peoples, if it was only the plural of person. And we also have persons as the plural of person.

We have to agree on meaning to have a discussion.

The question is a criminal case, not an immigration action.

It doesn't matter what it pertains to except that here is an instance where 4th amendment rights are not fully realized by non-citizens. That's the point.

It matters what it pertains to. I know you wish it didn't, but it does. That is the way the law works. Hairs are split a thousand times and each becomes unique. It is frustrating, but the law is precise to a fault.

In an immigration action the person isn't considered to be on US soil. No official has said, "Welcome to the USA." Not on US soil and not a citizen, no constitutional rights. On US soil or a US Citizen, constitutional rights. Obviously the US Constitution can't apply to non US soil unless you are a citizen. No need to look deeper.

If you are a Citizen of a State then you are a "people", otherwise you are a "person." That is the way it works. The Fourth Amendment applies to "people." The Fifth Amendment applies to "person." Look up Second Amendment cases, the right there has generally been held as collective, not individual, until the most recent terms of the Court.

---

heck Corporations are desperately trying to tell the Supreme court that as a corporation it has the rights of a person. sadly it looks like the conservative majority will vote for repealling a 100 year old ban on corporate money in elections.
What makes this sad is that nobody wanted a company to have voting rights or get married or have the foreign board members of the mega corps to have any legal standing in elections.
Conservatives screamed foul when Gore got money from Buddist Americans, claiming they were foreign entities involved when they clearly were not. This is all a shame and a sham that our gov't can so easily be manipulated by the surge of money. I've said it before and i'll say it again.
the halls of congress is the only place in America where bribery is legal. All they had to do was call it lobbying

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Citizen of what? It is the state legislatures or the state constitutions that determine who can vote for Senator or Representative or President, or any of the state offices.

Article I Section 4 describes the organization of voting, the "time, place, and manner" in which elections are held. It gives states the authority to conduct the election process. It says NOTHING about whom may vote or voter eligibility.

Amendment 17 says, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof"<sic>

Are you seriously under the impression that illegal immigrants can legally vote for US senators?

Advantages to becoming a US citizen.

# U.S. citizens have the right to vote in the United States.

# U.S. citizens have the right to sponsor relatives and family members so they can immigrate to the United States.

# United States citizens cannot be deported, while green card holders may be deported in certain cases, such as being convicted of a crime.

# U.S. citizens have the right to run for public office.

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/citizenship.html

just to name a few...

See page 4 of this document and look at the first two questions.

Georgia clearly has the right to do this under Article I Section 4 and has chosen too use it.

Here, I'll put Article I Section 4 here for you to see.

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

THIS SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.

It appears that the State of Georgia does not require US Citizenship to vote.
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/votingrights/vec/ga_runoff_web.pdf
as say Arizona does
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/votingrights/vec/az_web_vec.pdf

That is because the link to the Georgia voting is for a state senate runoff, whereas the link to the Arizona voting pertains to federal elections. I do wish you'd read the links you're posting.

I hope you do realize that we're talking about whether or not the US constitution applies to all. You keep citing state constitutions which are another matter. You see, states have their own constitutions as well. Citing the Alaska Permanent Fund and the Georgia senate runoff is cluing me into the notion that you don't seem to understand the difference between the US and state constitutions.

Get out a good dictionary and see that the word people is not [always] the plural of the word person. It has its own separate meaning. I gave you one cite. Also you couldn't have people also having a plural, peoples, if it was only the plural of person. And we also have persons as the plural of person.

The funny thing is, you're arguing about something that you've just now started looking into. Telling me to get a dictionary and what-not is great! Now, only if you knew what you were talking about...

It matters what it pertains to. I know you wish it didn't, but it does. That is the way the law works. Hairs are split a thousand times and each becomes unique. It is frustrating, but the law is precise to a fault.

The argument (and really there is none because I'm absolutely right) is whether or not the constitution applies equally to all persons. It doesn't. I don't "wish" anything except for you to be searching for truth rather than trying to save face after making ridiculous claims and then referencing irrelevant pieces of information in a desperate attempt to win an internet debate.

If you are a Citizen of a State then you are a "people", otherwise you are a "person." That is the way it works. The Fourth Amendment applies to "people." The Fifth Amendment applies to "person." Look up Second Amendment cases, the right there has generally been held as collective, not individual, until the most recent terms of the Court.

And the best part of all; the double standard. This is exactly what I've already said to which you responded with telling me to get a dictionary and to stay on topic. If you're using "people" and "person" to define anyone protected under the constitution, then why can't non-citizens vote?

You see, this is what you fail to answer. You fail to address. You sit there and go on and on about how the constitution applies to everyone, but reality is that it DOESN'T

Non-citizens cannot vote for senators or the president. They cannot vote in any federal elections.

Non-citizens cannot own firearms.

Non-citizens can be deported for speech that is otherwise protected with citizens.

So NO, the constitution does not apply equally to everyone, citizen and non-citizen.

Next time you reference the constitution, make sure it has at least something to do with what you're talking about.

How to Find Out If You Are Eligible to Register to Vote in Your State
Each State has its own laws about who may register and vote. Check the information under your State in the State Instructions. All States require that you be a United States citizen by birth or naturalization to register to vote in federal and State elections. Federal law makes it illegal to falsely claim U.S. citizenship to register to vote in any federal, State, or local election. You cannot be registered to vote in more than one place at a time.

I have reviewed my state's instructions and I swear/affirm that:
I am a United States citizen
I meet the eligibility requirements of my state and subscribe to any oath required.
The information I have provided is true to the best of my knowledge under penalty of perjury. If I have provided false information, I may be fined, imprisoned, or (if not a US citizen) deported from or refused entry into the United States.

http://www.eac.gov/files/voter/nvra_update.pdf

So we see that not only is voting a constitutionally afforded right, but that it applies to citizens of the US, not non-citizens. One example of many of how the US constitution does not always, unequivocally apply to everyone.

Case closed.

Non-citizens cannot own firearms.

Not quite, it's up to the States to decide who can own firearms unless SCOTUS is called in to decide whether there's a constitutional matter. Virginia (and other States) allows non-citizens to possess and transport firearms:

B. It shall be unlawful for any person who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not lawfully present in the United States to knowingly and intentionally possess or transport any firearm or to knowingly and intentionally carry about his person, hidden from common observation, any firearm. A violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 6 felony.

If the above applied to all non-citizens there would be no need to specify "and not lawfully present", i.e. those non-citizens that are lawfully present in the US may be permitted to knowingly posses a firearm in Virginia. I'm not sure that SCOTUS has been asked to decide whether non-citizens have the right to bear arms under the USC, I suspect there isn't as the 2nd Amendment applies to "the people". SCOTUS has affirmed there is a right for citizens to do so.

The argument (and really there is none because I'm absolutely right) is whether or not the constitution applies equally to all persons.

Wrong again. The question was whether non-citizens have protection under the 5th Amendment. At the outset of this Gary stated 5th Amendment protections applied to illegals, skildude argued that they did not ("The 5th amendment only applies to and is granted to American citizens. so your arguement is moot."). The relevant SCOTUS decisions to date say they do, there is nothing in the USC that says they don't, and as previously noted US Gov publication M-638 says:

The 5th Amendment guarantees everyone in the United States equal protection under the law.

That's "everyone", no equivocation on legal status, everyone.

On the people vs person thing, it seems that SCOTUS has interpreted "the people" as "the people of the United States" (its citizenry) and "a person" as "a person in (or subject to the jurisdiction of) the United States" (anyone). The preamble ("We the people of the United States") supports the interpretation of "people", there is nothing in the USC that supports an interpretation of "person" as "person of the United States", thus if the 5th were meant to only apply to citizens it should have said so, it doesn't. On this basis illegal immigrants have protections under the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments.

On voting, the 15th, 19th, 24th Amendments say citizens have the right to vote, they do not state that non-citizens cannot vote, that is up to the States to decide. The 26th Amendment says that only certain citizens (those over 18) have the right to vote, though it doesn't stipulate that States cannot allow under 18s to vote. Gary has shown that at least one state allows non-citizens to vote, I'm not sure there are any States that allow under-18s to vote, but if there were it would not be in contradiction of the 26th Amendment.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...