Same with Sweden. For example, Allemansrätten (Freedom to Roam) applies to alla människor (or all people), not just citizens.

Right. It's mentioned in every tourist guide I've seen about Sweden, and it is drawing outdoor types to the country.

Smart move. :-)

So, in other words, Germany provides different rights for citizens and non-citizens. Which is what the GP was saying.

Not having basic protections for non-citizens would be rather worrying, but let's not act like the mere existence of a difference is worth freaking out about.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Justice Thomas's concurrence not providing these protections to non-citizens would be a good thing. I'm just saying that 'non-citizens should have the same rights as citizens' isn't a position held by any country on the planet.

In the context of this particular case, it sounds like the ruling by the majority protects non-citizens from having their property taken by the police, while Justice Thomas’s concurrence would not.

In my opinion, not having your property taken unfairly by the police is more of a basic right everyone should enjoy, rather than a special right afforded to citizens like voting.