re: Since when are illegal immigrants protected under the US Constitution

So, your first act is to cross into the U.S. illegally, then we have to grant you rights for breaking our laws?

quote:

---

The founders frick up and used the word "people" in the constitution instead of citizen.

---

That was intentional.

quote:

---

Update: the court ruled that it did apply to non-citizens.

This is not a new concept.

---

add in Reno v Flores

quote:

---

What about that Supremacy clause that says you must obey federal law and being here illegally is breaking a federal law?

---

The frick does the Supremacy Clause have to do with anything? We have an amendment guaranteeing Due Process for the federal government (the 5th) and the states (the 14th).

Due Process doesn't mean disobeying the law has no consequences.

quote:

---

The frick does the Supremacy Clause have to do with anything? We have an amendment guaranteeing Due Process for the federal government (the 5th) and the states (the 14th). Due Process doesn't mean disobeying the law has no consequences.

---

Counselor, is it your opinion García didn’t receive due process?

quote:

---

One of those limitations is that government cannot deprive persons of life, liberty or property without affording due process. That is a limitation on the power of the government to act.

---

There’s due process for noncitizens who are here legally. There’s nothing for noncitizens who are here illegally. Constitution does not grant rights to everyone everywhere, it applies within the jurisdiction of the United States, and how far that extends depends on the person’s legal status and the nature of their presence here. Illegal presence puts someone in direct violation of federal law, and with that comes limited standing when invoking constitutional protections.

as long as they promise to vandalize teslas, they can come back.

if they wipe a booger on a pride mural, they have to go back.

after all, no one is above the law.

quote:

---

or maybe she misrepresented.

Issues related to undocumented status are managed thru civil administrative processes.

---

It sounds like you are agreeing with her statement.

Prove this.

In case you really want to know, the answer is "since the passage of the 14th Amendment." There is a minority view, as articulated by my former law school professor, Justice Scalia, that those Constitutional rights should never be allowed to relese an illegal immigrant into the United States.

The one good thing from the judicial attacks on the Trump deportations is that the Supreme Court will probably clarify...and maybe even restrict...the level of Constitutional due process afforded to illegal aliens.

This is a good summation of the current state of the law:

"The Supreme Court confirms that the fourteenth amendment does apply to non-citizens. The majority opinion in the Supreme Court case, Zadvydas v. Davisholds that aliens, although not citizens are entitled to Due Process of law. In Zadvydas, the Court held potentially permanent detention of an illegal immigrant awaiting deportation unconstitutional, as the illegal immigrant still had liberty rights. The Court held that an immigrant awaiting deportation could not be held for more than ninety days without a hearing providing, “freedom from imprisonment lies at the heart of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” However, more importantly, the Supreme Court confirmed that all persons are protected and entitled to due process under the United States Constitution. The Court confirmed, “[b]ut once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”

But is this right? Does the situation matter? President Trump and his administration argue that those in the country illegally should not be entitled to the same rights as natural born and naturalized citizens[3]. This argument is often enforced by crimes committed by illegal immigrants. This viewpoint is not without some judicial merit as seen in the Zadvydas dissent.[4]In the Zadvydas dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argues that the Due Process Clause should not protect illegal aliens against the deprivation of liberty. Scalia argued that those who have no constitutional right to remain in the United States, should have no right to be released back into the country. Thus, illegal immigrants have no liberty right protecting them from indefinite detention. Scalia quotes Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissent stating, “Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.”

President Trump’s ideology on the treatment of illegal aliens presents a potential judicial shift in the legal rights granted to illegal immigrants. President Trump’s negative viewpoint on the current immigration process could result in action that would change the rights illegal immigrants receive. However, unless action is taken by the President, precedent demands that, unless changed by law, any and all persons be recognized and protected under due process."

Law School Article Explaining Rights of Illegal Aliens