Couple of points:
1)Mandami is not qualified to dispense legal advice
2)It's not that simple, the issue of constitutional rights re: noncitizens

I found a good source that offers qualified discussion on the subject:

...

"...the views of James Madison, who supported the
notion that when noncitizens are subject to the laws of the United States, they are
also protected by the same laws.3"

Then it's not a "right", is it?

#12 | Posted by Danforth

Right!

How about voting "rights" for noncitizens?

Then it's not a "right", is it?

When, specifically, do they stop being "persons" according to the constitution?

#13 | Posted by Danforth

"citizens"
"persons"
"The People"

-Are not interchangeable terms
You'd have to read up on it, if you really want to know.
The villanova pdf has some information about it.

Starship Troopers rules.

Johnny Rico: A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic, defending it with his life. A civilian does not.

...This concern, however, simply has no relevance to illegal
aliens because they are not citizens, they cannot vote, 34 and they have
no claim to representation in Congress or the state legislatures. 35

35. Aliens are not members of the "political community." Sugarman v. Dougall, 413
U.S. at 647-49; Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. at 296; accordAmbach v. Norick, 441 U.S. 68,
74 (1979); see also Note, A Dual Standard/orState DiscriminationAgainst Aliens, 92 HARV.
L. REV. 1516, 1518 (1979). Thus, even though illegal aliens are politically impotent, they are
not entitled to heightened scrutiny of laws classifying them on the basis of their status be-
cause they represent a "group whom our Constitution and federal government does not
recognize as having any political rights." Comment, Does the Constitution Guarantee a Free
Public Education to Undocumented Alien Children, supra note 21, at 64

That doesn't answer the direct question: when do they cease to be "persons"?

Be specific.

#18 | Posted by Danforth

You're asking for a simple answer when a simple answer does not exist. That is disingenuous.
Additionally, I am not qualified to make that answer or determination.
As I already told you: you'd have to read up on it.

#21 | Posted by snoofy

Don't read too much into it, honey.

"I'm from Buenos Aires, and I say k*ll 'em all"

Starship Troopers as another metaphor for the state of Isr*el?
Farnham's Freehold
Farnham's Freehold is a 1964 science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein about a family that survives a nuclear war by hiding in a fallout shelter, only to emerge in a future where a technologically advanced, post-apocalyptic society of African descent rules, and white people are considered sub-human slaves.

So, uh, you're just drinking the Fascist Kool-Aid.

#26 | Posted by snoofy

I'm quoting US legal opinion. Maybe some of it has changed, maybe some of it not.
You can discover something else, or you can just say whatever you think will earn you updotes.
I personally am willing to let the lawyers hash it out, which is practical since I am aware that my opinion is not relevant.
No koolade for me please, just my precious beer.
"A beer a day keeps the dumbf&cks away!"
-Boomer

I didn't. I read it at face value. I simply understood what I was reading.

#27 | Posted by snoofy

Can you understand that, aside the facetious movie reference, there is a principle of applying citizen status to those who contribute?
A philosophy of earned citizenship? Some may agree that compulsory service is beneficial to society. After all, some of our greatest allies employ mandatory service, and we choose to support them still.

If citizenship is too freely assumed, it becomes cheap. Worth less.