It is a widely known issue that the U.S. National Security Agency possesses too much power regarding the spying and monitoring process, which directly violates the Fourth Amendment. The dominant of the American legal system, which considers that such an approach justifies the general safety, is more aggressive and dismissive in regards to nonresident aliens. The paper argues that the current interpretation of constitutional case law is incorrect and unclear, which means that the target population is also protected by Fourth Amendment rights.
The Fourth Amendment rights for individual privacy prohibit unnecessary seizures and searches of American citizens. However, the same principles should and do apply to the case of nonresident aliens, whom the current legal system disregards by conducting unreasonable violations of privacy (Walen, 2015). In other words, the legislators and law enforcement agents failed to properly interpret the constitutional laws, because both moral and legal principles indicate that the target group should also enjoy the right to privacy. National Security should understand that nonresident aliens are also protected by Fourth Amendment rights despite them being non-American citizens.
In conclusion, there has always been a struggle between two conflicting goals of national security and the Fourth Amendment. Although there is explicit clarity regarding American citizens’ right to individual privacy and violation of that element by National Security, there is no clear interpretation in the case of nonresident aliens. It is important to understand that the law needs to be analyzed from the perspective of morality and legality, which specifically dictates that the target group should enjoy the Fourth Amendment rights.
References
German, M., & Robinson, S. (2018). Wrong priorities on fighting terrorism. Brennan Justice Center. Web.
McCord, M. B. (2018). It’s time for congress to make domestic terrorism a federal crime. Lawfare. Web.
Walen, A. (2015). Fourth Amendment rights for nonresident aliens. German Law Journal, 16(5), 1131-1162. Web.