> Right now the obligations of the government to non-citizens is likely very minimal (IANAL, But I'd love to hear a Constitutionalist's expert opinion on this front).
I'm not an expert, but Constitutional Law 101 is that the Constitution generally has territorial scope. It reaches citizens, whether they are on U.S. soil or off U.S. soil, and non-citizens who are on U.S. soil. It makes intuitive sense: non-citizens in say Afghanistan don't have any protections under the Constitution, because the Constitution is an expression of U.S. law and U.S. law has no force in Afghanistan other than to U.S. citizens who are bound to it by virtue of their citizenship.
I'm not an expert, but Constitutional Law 101 is that the Constitution generally has territorial scope. It reaches citizens, whether they are on U.S. soil or off U.S. soil, and non-citizens who are on U.S. soil. It makes intuitive sense: non-citizens in say Afghanistan don't have any protections under the Constitution, because the Constitution is an expression of U.S. law and U.S. law has no force in Afghanistan other than to U.S. citizens who are bound to it by virtue of their citizenship.