[kuschku]

> Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any.

Yes, Germany.

Almost all of German constitution applies to any "Person", not even just any human.

And the government has the constitutional requirement to help ensure those rights are granted to people globally.

[cderwin]

FYI most of the U.S. constitution only uses the word "person" as well, but legally persons outside the U.S. who are not citizens have no standing.

[Tomte]

In Germany there is a distinction between citizens and non-citizens.

The most important basic rights are enjoyed by everyone.

Only citizens enjoy some basic rights (freedom of assembly, for example).

But there is a "catchall" basic right (Article 2, paragraph I) that can be used by non-citizens to claim those rights, as well.

The difference is that this catchall basic right is weaker when weighing it against conflicting basic rights (practical concordance) and it has imminent limitations (statutes can override it – although that must be useful and proportional).

[rmc]

Germany had a history of the government claiming "those people there aren't 'people' hence the rights don't apply to them". I suspect the courts might take that into consideration if the government tries that line again.

[jnbiche]

That's impressive. I guess that's the difference between a modern, progressive constitution written over 2 centuries ago versus one written 50 years ago.

Semantic point, do you differentiate between a "human" and "person"? This may be a translation issue, but to me there's no practical difference between the two.

[seren]

I am ignorant of the German constitution, but legally there are more "persons" than humans.

The most famous example is the concept of corporate personhood.

See also : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood

[jnbiche]

You're absolutely correct. I was thinking of what is called natural personhood. But I'm curious specifically how the German constitution differentiates the two.

[Sylos]

To me, "human" is a member of the human race, "person" is any creature with consciousness, feelings, personality. So, if an ape/dolphin/alien/robot/whatever is intelligent enough, they are a person to me.

This is my opinion, though a lot of it was shaped by the German education system, so it's definitely possible that when this question becomes actually relevant in a decade or two that a judge might rule this the official interpretation.

[kuschku]

> but to me there's no practical difference between the two.

Well, just in case Lt.Cmdr. Data ever comes to Germany ;)