Posted on Sep 15, 2017
Do illegal immigrants have the same constitutional rights as US citizens?
22.5K
303
137
12
12
0
Citizenship
Immigration
Law
Constitution
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 39
4
4
0
Since the Constitution and the Bill of rights apply to restrictions on the actions the US governments and its agent. It applies when either groups acts.
Almost all the bill of rights a is composed of restriction on government actions and I have never found the "except for non-citizen" wording that so many think exists.
No matter whom it acts on, where the Constitution applies, it applies to all.
Almost all the bill of rights a is composed of restriction on government actions and I have never found the "except for non-citizen" wording that so many think exists.
No matter whom it acts on, where the Constitution applies, it applies to all.
(4)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
Yes really.Civil rights are those available to everyone, the job of POTUS is n only available to s specific subset of citizens a not all residents or citizens.
(0)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
Oh, I see. And where exactly in the Constituion (as many who trust in the ignorance of the masses proclaim in pious tones of reverence ) does it proclaim that non citizens have any right beyond the human rights which all of humanity in civilized nations agree upon?
Please quote that particular area of constitutional inclusiveness to quote.
I haven't got my pocket constitutional personal interpretation guide handy at just this moment..(perhaps it was lifted by an illegal who will receive a slap on the wrist when returned to the street with a promise of "I will try to do better next time your honor."
Of course the illegal will have the right to an interpreter and no doubt an attorney in the respective court of law.
Please quote that particular area of constitutional inclusiveness to quote.
I haven't got my pocket constitutional personal interpretation guide handy at just this moment..(perhaps it was lifted by an illegal who will receive a slap on the wrist when returned to the street with a promise of "I will try to do better next time your honor."
Of course the illegal will have the right to an interpreter and no doubt an attorney in the respective court of law.
(0)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
Capt Gregory Prickett - I have no disagreement with you there. Due process is absolutely necessary to maintain our definition of civilization.
The illegals can be duly processed and tossed out on their ass with Grandpa, grandma, nephews, nieces, cousins and children as far as I am concerned if they want to make a fuss about it.
Due process is necessary to maintain human rights.
Illegals are humans.... many of them are far better potential citizens than many of the piles of human waste born and raised here.
However, get afield of the law and get your illegal ass duly processed right on back to whatever third world s***hole you came from.
I am all for human rights but these folks are here illegally..."UNLEGALLY".. most of them keep that in mind and do their best to be great "citizens" those who don't need to be sent packing with extreme prejudice.
It is what it is brother. "Don't tread on me" still means exactly what it says.
I expect to be protected by the law enforcement I pay and the constitutional representatives I send to Washington. If anyone wants less than that they are certainly welcome to whatever I'll befalls them.
Do I sound like a prick? Well, I walk like that duck, and talk like that duck, so I reckon that makes me a prick. As a citizen I still have to keep my head down. If any illegal can't manage the same then "Adios" is all I have to say.
Amen
The illegals can be duly processed and tossed out on their ass with Grandpa, grandma, nephews, nieces, cousins and children as far as I am concerned if they want to make a fuss about it.
Due process is necessary to maintain human rights.
Illegals are humans.... many of them are far better potential citizens than many of the piles of human waste born and raised here.
However, get afield of the law and get your illegal ass duly processed right on back to whatever third world s***hole you came from.
I am all for human rights but these folks are here illegally..."UNLEGALLY".. most of them keep that in mind and do their best to be great "citizens" those who don't need to be sent packing with extreme prejudice.
It is what it is brother. "Don't tread on me" still means exactly what it says.
I expect to be protected by the law enforcement I pay and the constitutional representatives I send to Washington. If anyone wants less than that they are certainly welcome to whatever I'll befalls them.
Do I sound like a prick? Well, I walk like that duck, and talk like that duck, so I reckon that makes me a prick. As a citizen I still have to keep my head down. If any illegal can't manage the same then "Adios" is all I have to say.
Amen
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
4
4
0
PO3 John Wagner
Unless of course as I mentioned elsewhere that they are provided with the active social security number of a deceased or incapacitated citizen.. therefore giving them a proxy vote .
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
Under what article of the Constitution is that found? I have searched and have never found that exception
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Believe the correct answer is yes for most things and no for others although over time the courts and particularly liberal governed states have granted more stuff. Used to be you had to be a citizen and resident of a state to get a drivers license. In general, the courts have held the Constitution applies to any person within our borders. The rulings were related to a specific aspect of the Constitution so I don't know if it's a blanket thing. I was thinking about a related topic and that's the privilege (not a right) to vote. It isn't a Constitutional right. The relevant Amendments merely state certain classes of people cannot be denied if otherwise qualified. The States determine voting criteria, usually just age, residency, and citizenship. That's changing as you see recent actions by some states to grant voting privileges to non citizens. Stay tuned for agitation over that one.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
(2)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
Here are a couple of items that most tend to ignore or disregard -
The only civil and political rights that international law does not generally guarantee on equal terms to citizens and non-nationals are the right to vote, the right to run for elective office, and the rights of entry and abode.
(The right of abode is an individual's freedom from immigration control in a particular country. A person who has the right of abode in a country does not need permission from the government to enter the country and can live and work there without restriction.
Generally, in order to have the right of abode in a certain country, a person must be a citizen of that country. However, some countries grant the right of abode for qualified non-citizens. Those with permanent residency of the country generally have a de facto right of residence, but it can be revoked in certain circumstances, for example for being convicted of crimes, and in many cases, such persons are not free from the immigration control. SEE Item 1 in Article 12 ICCPR below.)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 12
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. (NOTE: It says 'LAWFULLY')
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
NOTE: I would note that most people including our resident lawyers ignore the part about 'lawfully present (or within)' when discussing this subject.
NOTE: I would also state and suggest that the biggest issue that nullifies some of the arguments about illegal alien rights IN the United States - Do they (illegal/unlawful aliens) have a right of entry and abode in the United States?
The only civil and political rights that international law does not generally guarantee on equal terms to citizens and non-nationals are the right to vote, the right to run for elective office, and the rights of entry and abode.
(The right of abode is an individual's freedom from immigration control in a particular country. A person who has the right of abode in a country does not need permission from the government to enter the country and can live and work there without restriction.
Generally, in order to have the right of abode in a certain country, a person must be a citizen of that country. However, some countries grant the right of abode for qualified non-citizens. Those with permanent residency of the country generally have a de facto right of residence, but it can be revoked in certain circumstances, for example for being convicted of crimes, and in many cases, such persons are not free from the immigration control. SEE Item 1 in Article 12 ICCPR below.)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 12
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. (NOTE: It says 'LAWFULLY')
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
NOTE: I would note that most people including our resident lawyers ignore the part about 'lawfully present (or within)' when discussing this subject.
NOTE: I would also state and suggest that the biggest issue that nullifies some of the arguments about illegal alien rights IN the United States - Do they (illegal/unlawful aliens) have a right of entry and abode in the United States?
(0)
(0)
SGT Gregory Yelland
I agree with your comment and would like to point out line 2. It says Leave not Enter. While they have the freedom to Leave their Country, they do NOT have the Freedom to Enter a different country without the permission of the country they are going to as mentioned in line 3. Point of the question also is 'Do they have Constitutional rights? Until they are identified as Illegals, I would say yes, Then the country has the 'right' to expel or jail them *depending on what other crimes they have committed in that country.* Do we want Illegals to have the Right to keep and bear arms? I would think not and don't think the Founding Fathers would either.
We do need immigration reform, make it easier for folks to legally come to the U.S. Especially those from Mexico and Canada - work/school visas. One problem that arises is how do we handle the children of illegals who are now Constitutional citizens. Force them to be split from their parents because their illegal parent is evicted? Evict them even though they are 'dual nationals' with their illegal parent(s)?
We do need immigration reform, make it easier for folks to legally come to the U.S. Especially those from Mexico and Canada - work/school visas. One problem that arises is how do we handle the children of illegals who are now Constitutional citizens. Force them to be split from their parents because their illegal parent is evicted? Evict them even though they are 'dual nationals' with their illegal parent(s)?
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Simple answer - NO.
Complicated answer - Some rights, but not all, therefore the answer is still NO.
The KEY word is SAME. For those of you that are linguistically challenged -
Definition of same
1 a :resembling in every relevant respect
b :conforming in every respect —used with as
2 a :being one without addition, change, or discontinuance :identical
b :being the one under discussion or already referred to
3 :corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable
4 :equal in size, shape, value, or importance —usually used with the or a demonstrative (such as that, those) in all senses
Complicated answer - Some rights, but not all, therefore the answer is still NO.
The KEY word is SAME. For those of you that are linguistically challenged -
Definition of same
1 a :resembling in every relevant respect
b :conforming in every respect —used with as
2 a :being one without addition, change, or discontinuance :identical
b :being the one under discussion or already referred to
3 :corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable
4 :equal in size, shape, value, or importance —usually used with the or a demonstrative (such as that, those) in all senses
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
No. they do not Sgt Wayne Wood. Constitutional rights numbered in the Constitution and Amendments apply to citizens only. The laws of this nation apply to citizens and non-citizens except those with diplomatic immunity.
(2)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
1stSgt Nelson Kerr -
A. Do you recognize what jurisdiction means? It applies to those who are subject to it. Those who hide in the shadows like illegal aliens KNOW they risk deportation outside of sanctuary cities nd they tend not to clamor for rights in person.
B. Do you think illegal aliens are under any jurisdiction in this nation outside of their own?
Back to Constitutional Issues.
1. some sections have been modified including these which considered slaves and black people to be 3/5 of a human being for counting purposes.
2. the indigenous tribes in this nation were generally excluded unless they became citizens.
Many tribal reservations still are treated outside of the USA because they have been considered to be separate which is why they have reservations which have their own laws and police forces and judges.
3. All diplomats are generally excluded from obeying our laws and they are subject to their own nations constitutions but not ours.
4. As a commissioned officer I am very familiar with the US Constitution and how it has been modified by amendment and reinterpreted by those who thought they were wiser than the original framers of that document.
SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" I get tired of being insulted on this net.
There are many self-important people who believe it is there way or the highway up here. That is their prerogative but it should not extend to insulting.
What do you think? LTC John Shaw COL Mikel J. Burroughs SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SMSgt Minister Gerald A. "Doc" Thomas CPT Jack Durish SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
A. Do you recognize what jurisdiction means? It applies to those who are subject to it. Those who hide in the shadows like illegal aliens KNOW they risk deportation outside of sanctuary cities nd they tend not to clamor for rights in person.
B. Do you think illegal aliens are under any jurisdiction in this nation outside of their own?
Back to Constitutional Issues.
1. some sections have been modified including these which considered slaves and black people to be 3/5 of a human being for counting purposes.
2. the indigenous tribes in this nation were generally excluded unless they became citizens.
Many tribal reservations still are treated outside of the USA because they have been considered to be separate which is why they have reservations which have their own laws and police forces and judges.
3. All diplomats are generally excluded from obeying our laws and they are subject to their own nations constitutions but not ours.
4. As a commissioned officer I am very familiar with the US Constitution and how it has been modified by amendment and reinterpreted by those who thought they were wiser than the original framers of that document.
SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" I get tired of being insulted on this net.
There are many self-important people who believe it is there way or the highway up here. That is their prerogative but it should not extend to insulting.
What do you think? LTC John Shaw COL Mikel J. Burroughs SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SMSgt Minister Gerald A. "Doc" Thomas CPT Jack Durish SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
(1)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
Jurisdiction is very simple legal. If you can be punished under US law you are under US jurisdiction. Since those laws only apply to those where the courts have jurisdiction
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
1stSgt Nelson Kerr -
1. if legal were simple we would not have the most lawyers in the world. Legal is incredibly complicated.
2. State and local laws don't always match Federal law which causes problems.
3. The FBI and DHS get involved when crimes cross state borders
4. Enemy agents and sleeper cells exclude themselves from our laws.
5. Domestic terrorists who are caught are subject to our laws Those who aren't caught don't seem to care about our laws in the first place.
6. The Federal Appellate Courts and SCOTUS reverse legal decisions of lower courts whenever they are in session. What is legal fluctuates.
1. if legal were simple we would not have the most lawyers in the world. Legal is incredibly complicated.
2. State and local laws don't always match Federal law which causes problems.
3. The FBI and DHS get involved when crimes cross state borders
4. Enemy agents and sleeper cells exclude themselves from our laws.
5. Domestic terrorists who are caught are subject to our laws Those who aren't caught don't seem to care about our laws in the first place.
6. The Federal Appellate Courts and SCOTUS reverse legal decisions of lower courts whenever they are in session. What is legal fluctuates.
(1)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
LTC Stephen F. - Legal does become simple after a centrality or more of President has been established and mp constitutional changes have been made to override that preicent
No fedral or local law can override the 14th in the slightest because Federal laws are supreme and the Constitution trumps any law in comes into conflict with. The SC seldom overrides itself and that is what were are talking about.
No fedral or local law can override the 14th in the slightest because Federal laws are supreme and the Constitution trumps any law in comes into conflict with. The SC seldom overrides itself and that is what were are talking about.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
All persons in the US generally enjoy the same protections of the Constitution.
Similarly, all persons in the US are obligated to observe and comply with local, state, and federal laws and regulations.
I ask a follow-on question: What Constitutional Rights do legal permanent residents (green card holders) have, or not have, in America?
Constitutional Rights are commonly considered to include: writ of habeas corpus, no bill of attainder, no duties or taxes on transporting goods from one state to another, (Article 1, Section 9), jury trials (Article III, Section 1), freedom of religion, speech, press (which includes all media), assembly and petition (First Amendment), state militia to bear arms (Second Amendment), no quartering of troops in homes (Third Amendment), no unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment), major ("capital and infamous") crimes require indictment, no double jeopardy (more than one prosecution) for the same crime, no self-incrimination, right to due process, right to just compensation for property taken by eminent domain (Fifth Amendment); in criminal law, right to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses against one, and to counsel (Sixth Amendment), trial by jury (Seventh amendment), right to bail, no excessive fines, and no cruel and unusual punishments (Eighth amendment), unenumerated rights are reserved to the people (Ninth amendment), equal protection of the laws (14th amendment), no racial bars to voting (15th amendment), no sex bar to voting (19th amendment), and no poll tax (24th amendment).
For those that point out that non-citizen US residents, both legal and unauthorized, do not (nor should not) have the right to vote in federal, state, or most local elections: note that American citizens under 18 generally do not have the right to vote, either. Neither do, with a few exceptions, depending on state and locality, some of those convicted of a felony and incarcerated.
Similarly, all persons in the US are obligated to observe and comply with local, state, and federal laws and regulations.
I ask a follow-on question: What Constitutional Rights do legal permanent residents (green card holders) have, or not have, in America?
Constitutional Rights are commonly considered to include: writ of habeas corpus, no bill of attainder, no duties or taxes on transporting goods from one state to another, (Article 1, Section 9), jury trials (Article III, Section 1), freedom of religion, speech, press (which includes all media), assembly and petition (First Amendment), state militia to bear arms (Second Amendment), no quartering of troops in homes (Third Amendment), no unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment), major ("capital and infamous") crimes require indictment, no double jeopardy (more than one prosecution) for the same crime, no self-incrimination, right to due process, right to just compensation for property taken by eminent domain (Fifth Amendment); in criminal law, right to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses against one, and to counsel (Sixth Amendment), trial by jury (Seventh amendment), right to bail, no excessive fines, and no cruel and unusual punishments (Eighth amendment), unenumerated rights are reserved to the people (Ninth amendment), equal protection of the laws (14th amendment), no racial bars to voting (15th amendment), no sex bar to voting (19th amendment), and no poll tax (24th amendment).
For those that point out that non-citizen US residents, both legal and unauthorized, do not (nor should not) have the right to vote in federal, state, or most local elections: note that American citizens under 18 generally do not have the right to vote, either. Neither do, with a few exceptions, depending on state and locality, some of those convicted of a felony and incarcerated.
(2)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
Really, you start off with one objective and then exclude some of those at the end? Aren't you full of yourself.
Funny that you would try the age exclusion, since it is used several times in the Constitution, and there are limits on that also (within the Constitution).
And if your going to make exclusions, you might as well add those minors under the age of 18 that are legally emancipated.
Funny that you would try the age exclusion, since it is used several times in the Constitution, and there are limits on that also (within the Constitution).
And if your going to make exclusions, you might as well add those minors under the age of 18 that are legally emancipated.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Under our Constitution and Bill of Rights they are afford almost all protections under the law as anyone posting here. The exceptions are voting, government jobs and I think firearm sales. That's off the top of my head.
The problem with creating a State within a State is it becomes a political football. Most illegal aliens just want to work and take care if their families. But, they are pawns in a much greater agenda of open borders and a larger central government.
The problem with creating a State within a State is it becomes a political football. Most illegal aliens just want to work and take care if their families. But, they are pawns in a much greater agenda of open borders and a larger central government.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google