[rayiner]

It's not a matter of distinguishing between citizens and foreigners on the mere basis of their being citizens and foreigners. It's a matter of distinguishing between people who have obligations under American law (people physically present on American soil or people with American citizenship) and those who do not.

Rights are the reciprocal of responsibilities.[1] American law cannot impose responsibilities on a Frenchman living and acting in France. Correspondingly, American law does not extend rights to that person.

And I can't speak to EU law, but my understanding is that Canada's law is similar to that of the U.S. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties is only applicable in Canada: http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/sclr/article/view/3....

[1] Rhetoric aside, the tradition of Anglo-American law is that "rights" only bind the actions of the government to the extent that they are recognized by the social compacts that bind the nation together. Someone outside the compact cannot be bound by its rules, but nor can those within the compact be bound as to that person.

[sillysaurus3]

American law cannot impose responsibilities on a Frenchman living and acting in France. Correspondingly, American law does not extend rights to that person.

This is a design decision that parents have taught their children to believe is normal and sensible. It's also effective. Nothing like an "us vs them" mentality to unify a nation.

But what if some country tried to extend rights to foreigners anyway? There's nothing stopping anyone from doing so.

Does anyone know whether this has been tried before, and how the country fared? Can we look at the data? Did they fall victim to the foreigners taking advantage of the new rights? Or did they encourage a better world as a result of the reforms?

The tendency to exclude is practically ingrained into the human soul. Does it have to be that way? Are people so fundamentally wired to expolit each other that nobody can make the first gesture of acceptance without immediately being exploited?

Sadly, it's possible. But it doesn't seem like we should allow ourselves to believe that people generally aren't trustworthy unless evidence forces us to agree. Imagine living life without trusting anybody.

[henrikschroder]

> But what if some country tried to extend rights to foreigners anyway?

One way that this is done today is that, for example, persecuted minorities have an easier time being granted asylum in a some countries. One specific example would be that many European countries grant LGBT refugees asylum if they flee from an oppressive country where their lives are threatened.