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.
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.