- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Since when are illegal immigrants protected under the US Constitution
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:15 pm to Mushroom1968
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:15 pm to Mushroom1968
quote:
There’s due process for noncitizens who are here legally. There’s nothing for noncitizens who are here illegally.
100% wrong.
quote:
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
No. Only applies to their presence here.
quote:
Illegal presence puts someone in direct violation of federal law, and with that comes limited standing when invoking constitutional protections.
100% incorrect
1
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:quote:
The founders frick up and used the word "people" in the constitution instead of citizen.
That was intentional.
The founders should have started with Article 0: Definition of Terms.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:lol where in the constitution does it say this without you adding additional context.
Except the text of the Constitution and numerous Supreme Court cases (which are written down).
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:17 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
If we are punishing people according to our laws, wouldn't all of our laws apply? If we say "you broke this law of our country" wouldn't we then have to grant them the protections that our laws provide, as well?
I am no expert on this as well, but I don't necessarily think you gain protections of laws by breaking other laws.
Just simply coming into this country without permission should not afford you the protections of citizens of this country.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:19 pm to ninthward
quote:
ol where in the constitution does it say this without you adding additional context.
5th Amendment:
quote:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
14th Amendment:
quote:
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
"Person", not "citizen".
*ETA: or "the people", which is often interpreted as "citizens" or a concept very adjacent to citizens.
This post was edited on 4/22/25 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:20 pm to mwade91383
quote:
Do you mean, since when do illegal immigrants have some/limited rights?
Because that's been around awhile (SCOTUS precedent anyway).
Exactly.
Some rights are granted to everyone - regardless of legal status or anything else.
And there are classes of people with more protections than others: a green card holder has more rights to free speech (maybe less than a citizen) than a person here on a visa, for instance.
But many rights are reserved for citizens - to take an obvious one, running for federal office.
To quote the Supreme Court: "Congress has broad power over immigration and naturalization and regularly makes rules regarding foreign nationals that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens."
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:21 pm to RoosterCogburn585
The idiot Democrats and MSM have been waiting for a story before it happened and they picked this scumbag to support. They don't give a rats arse about this guy. Its so fake hopefully even the low IQ voters can see through this.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That was intentional.
Yea, the founding fathers that went to war over a shift from 1% tax to 2% tax declared our independence with the intention that 250 years later 20 million illegals were going to pour over the border and then get due process.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
To fix that will likely require some due process
SFP, do you think the Supreme Court's decision compels the Trump Administration to do anything more than "try its best" to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.?
Do you think Abrego Garcia would be entitled to appear in person at a hearing to remove the hold order? What if that hearing were conducted by Zoom with Abrego Garcia still in El Salvador (and able to confer with his lawyers)?
Dunno if it would fly, but that would seem to be a sensible solution. From everything I have read, the underlying facts behind the hold order no longer pertain.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
100% wrong.
Illegal presence is a violation of federal law, that’s a fact, not an opinion. And people who are here illegally are subject to removal under U.S. immigration law. If that didn’t matter and if illegal presence didn’t limit legal standing, then borders would be meaningless, and immigration law would be unenforceable.
So yes, there are some protections, but they’re narrow, procedural, and do not equate to full constitutional rights. Saying otherwise ignores legal precedent The distinction between lawful and unlawful presence matters significantly when it comes to constitutional protections.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:27 pm to TBoy
quote:
quote:
How many of the 5 million deportations under Obama or the 10 million deportations under Clinton received 'due process' in the way that Dems are telling Trump he has to?
All of them
Prove it Trannie Boy.... link??
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:28 pm to dnm3305
quote:
with the intention that 250 years later 20 million illegals were going to pour over the border and then get due process.
The Founders would have had a problem conceptualizing how immigrants could be "illegal" in the first place
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:28 pm to ninthward
quote:
It's a theoretical application, where no actual text says non-citizens are granted rights. They can moan all they fricking want about due process, and freedom of speech but again there is no where to cite these rights are afforded to non citizens.
Is there anything to suggest that they aren't though?
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:29 pm to Mushroom1968
quote:
Illegal presence is a violation of federal law, that’s a fact,
An irrelevant fact to the discussion.
quote:
And people who are here illegally are subject to removal under U.S. immigration law
With some due process guaranteed.
Again, the Supreme Court:
quote:
Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:31 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
doesn't have to adhere to the protections offered to people accused of crimes in our country.
---
criminal prosecution obviously is undertaken, complete with all inherent requirements/protections, for more serious immigration-related offenses and other criminal violations.
quote:
It sounds like you are agreeing with her statement.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:31 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
SFP, do you think the Supreme Court's decision compels the Trump Administration to do anything more than "try its best" to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.?
Let's stay factual here..... SCOTUS didn't state should try his best. They said the admin should "facilitate " his return.
quote:
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
verb
make (an action or process) easy or easier.
SCOTUS ruling leaves open ones interpretation of "facilitate ". SCOTUS most likely used this verbiage because they understand that they can't dictate how the Executive handles foreign policy, which is accurate.
We can argue all day about Trumps motivation or lack of, but it's all opinion. Trump's acting within the boundaries of the ruling.
This post was edited on 4/22/25 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:33 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
SFP, do you think the Supreme Court's decision compels the Trump Administration to do anything more than "try its best" to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.?
I think it's an unfortunate reality for Mr. Garcia that as long as the admin engages in their various ruses to promote this strategy, the USSC won't create a Constitutional crisis.
I do think this is the shot across the bow for future attempts to use this scheme. The admin is on notice this scheme in its current form can easily create illegalities and they won't be given as much of a leash to act so aggressively to deprive the courts of jurisdiction/power.
*ETA: calling him a canary in a coalmine...is that a better analogy?
quote:
Do you think Abrego Garcia would be entitled to appear in person at a hearing to remove the hold order?
Yes. That's why this whole act of tomfoolery is stupid. There has always been a simple fix but the admin gets too emotional and digs in its heels. It's just the nature of Trump/Miller. We have enough evidence to ascertain that judgment, at this point.
quote:
What if that hearing were conducted by Zoom with Abrego Garcia still in El Salvador (and able to confer with his lawyers)?
I would need to know more about the technicalities and intricacies of immigration law to be able to answer that. You're getting into local rule territory here
This post was edited on 4/22/25 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:33 pm to Deuces
quote:
Also, your argument is null and void because García was given due process. He appeared in court 17 times and was ordered deported.
Love Senator Kennedy. This is a disingenuous argument. Due process determined that Abrego Garcia could not legally be deported to El Salvador. He was deported illegally to El Salvador. You think Clarence Thomas is some liberal whack job who loves illegal immigrants?
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Except the text of the Constitution
You mean that agreement between "We the People of the United States" and the federal government? That text?
So then these criminal illegals also have the right to keep and bear arms, even in the immigration offices there they are being processed, right?
quote:
and numerous Supreme Court cases (which are written down).
The SC is much like science in that regard. Pretty much their entire history is about ruling incorrectly, then eventually fixing it.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
Again, and it’s not irrelevant, illegal immigrants are “persons” in the legal sense.No, they do not have full rights, and no, their presence is not protected by the Constitution.They are still in violation of federal law and subject to removal with limited procedural fairness, not constitutional equality.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News