American death

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Every right that a non-citizen who has entered legally also accrues to one who has entered without inspection. There are some that are obviously reserved for citizens (like the right to vote and seek office), but the Constitution is pretty clear on these. It repeatedly uses the term "persons", whilst also using the term "citizens" for those rights that reserved for citizens.

Obviously we're all talking about the 14th Amendment here, and its applicability to non-citizens. It is worthwhile to consider as well Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), which determined that the 14th Amendment also applied to non-citizens:

“The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China… . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws… . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.”

There is no distinction made within the Constitution between those who have entered legally or illegally.

[slim 1,533]

I love how the 14th is interpreted in 1886 to mean illegals = legals. What I like to look at in that decision (which is from the Supreme Court, not the Constitution) is where it talks about people being under the jurisdiction of a court. What I see a lot of nowadays (meaning 2000 on) is folks not being under the jurisdiction of much at all since they're illegally here. "Well, there's not much we can do since he's illegal." Local and state governments are getting to the point where their hands are tied to prosecute all but the most heinous of crimes. If illegals aren't subject to prosecution, they can't be subject to rights because of jurisdictional issues.

I truly believe we're going to see SCOTUS revisit this issue in the near future.

Keep in mind, SCOTUS doesn't change the constitution or the law, it just interprets it and it can be reinterpreted again when it's challenged. We're going to see more and more immigration-related challenges in the coming days.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I truly believe we're going to see SCOTUS revisit this issue in the near future.

Keep in mind, SCOTUS doesn't change the constitution or the law, it just interprets it and it can be reinterpreted again when it's challenged. We're going to see more and more immigration-related challenges in the coming days.

Well, yes, I know this well, even though my background is not in US law. However, as I'm sure you know, until this is revisited and determined otherwise, this nevertheless remains the law.

[slim 1,533]

Well, yes, I know this well, even though my background is not in US law. However, as I'm sure you know, until this is revisited and determined otherwise, this nevertheless remains the law.

It is the law. However, I still don't see anywhere (and in any of these SCOTUS decisions either) where it says the U.S. has to protect an illegals "right" to stay here.

Maybe I'm missing something, but due process is reserved for protection of rights. I don't see the right to stay in the U.S. anywhere.

If you guys are talking due process as in "he's been accused of murder, he should get a fair trial" I'm all for that. However, if you're talking due process in terms of "well, the guy here illegally should get his say on what's really going on" I don't know where you're getting that from.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

It is the law. However, I still don't see anywhere (and in any of these SCOTUS decisions either) where it says the U.S. has to protect an illegals "right" to stay here.

Maybe I'm missing something, but due process is reserved for protection of rights. I don't see the right to stay in the U.S. anywhere.

If you guys are talking due process as in "he's been accused of murder, he should get a fair trial" I'm all for that. However, if you're talking due process in terms of "well, the guy here illegally should get his say on what's really going on" I don't know where you're getting that from.

I'm not talking about anybody's right to stay here beyond that of a USC's. No alien has a "right" in that regard. If someone is here illegally, they should be deported, but that alien should have access to due process. When any alien -- illegal or legal -- is present in this country they are eligible for protection under the constitution (subject to the restrictions I mentioned above). This does not extend to issues regarding presence, which are covered under administrative law.

[slim 1,533]

If someone is here illegally, they should be deported,

Amen to that one!

but that alien should have access to due process. When any alien -- illegal or legal -- is present in this country they are eligible for protection under the constitution (subject to the restrictions I mentioned above).

Which is what I'm getting at. Even in the case you posted above, the challenge was brought on not in relation to staying in the U.S., it was in relation to workers' rights and discrimination in regulation. I'm not arguing illegals shouldn't have due process when it comes to rights covered under other statutes, what I'm arguing is there's a misconception as to illegals' rights being "all-inclusive" and they're not. They may have the rights to many of the freedoms we enjoy here but they don't have a right to stay. There is no due process to protect their "right" to stay here illegally.

What we have now if folks applying an interpretation of the law for one purpose to include their purpose as well and that's simply incorrect. Please find me a constitutional law that says illegals have a right to stay.

This does not extend to issues regarding presence, which are covered under administrative law.

Which is being confused daily. People think because an illegal is present they're allowed to stay through due process and "having their side of the case heard."

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I'm not disagreeing with you. There is no law -- black letter or otherwise -- that states an alien of any flavour has a constitutional right to stay in the US.