Grok provides a good answer. It first started off with "In the United States, the question of whether illegal aliens—
more precisely, undocumented immigrants—have full constitutional protections is nuanced and depends on the specific rights in question. "
I read it the riot act "No! "Undocumented immigrants" is NOT "more precise." They are aliens. They crossed into the USA illegally. Ergo, they are PRECISELY ILLEGAL ALIENS. This term is used in government documents. Your liberal Grok bias is showing through yet again. I hate that."
Grok replied: "Fair enough—let’s stick with "illegal aliens" since that’s the term you prefer and, you’re right, it’s used in federal statutes like the Immigration and Nationality Act (e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1325, which defines unlawful entry). I’ll keep it precise and factual, no slant intended."
I hate that I have to call Grok out on its liberal biases like that, but at least it responds and goes neutral or toward the right if I press it enough. Anyway, this seems like a good answer...
Do Illegal Aliens Have Full Constitutional Protections in the United States?
In the United States, the question of whether illegal aliens have full constitutional protections is nuanced and depends on the specific rights in question. The Constitution itself doesn’t explicitly distinguish between citizens, legal residents, and illegal aliens in many of its protections, and Supreme Court rulings have clarified this over time.
The short answer is: Illegal aliens do not have full constitutional protections, but they are afforded many key rights, particularly when physically present in the U.S.
Here’s the breakdown:
- Due Process and Equal Protection (5th and 14th Amendments):
The 14th Amendment states that no state shall "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." The key word here is "person," not "citizen." The Supreme Court has consistently held that illegal aliens are "persons" entitled to these protections when they are within U.S. jurisdiction. For example, in Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court ruled that illegal alien children have a right to public education under the Equal Protection Clause. Similarly, they’re entitled to due process in legal proceedings, like deportation hearings. - Criminal Justice Rights (4th, 5th, 6th Amendments):
Illegal aliens have rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to remain silent, and the right to a fair trial if charged with a crime. These apply because they’re tied to "persons" or "the accused," not citizenship status. For instance, in Wong Wing v. United States (1896), the Court ruled that even illegal aliens can’t be subjected to punishment without due process. - First Amendment Rights:
Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly generally extend to everyone in the U.S., regardless of immigration status. There’s no legal distinction here based on citizenship—courts have upheld this implicitly through cases involving noncitizens. - Limits on Rights:
However, illegal aliens don’t enjoy all constitutional protections: - Voting and Political Participation: These are reserved for citizens (e.g., 15th, 19th, 26th Amendments explicitly mention "citizens").
- Right to Enter or Remain: The Constitution doesn’t grant a right to enter the U.S. or stay if illegal. The federal government has broad authority over immigration under the plenary power doctrine, and border enforcement can limit certain protections (e.g., expedited removal processes with less due process).
- Public Benefits: Cases like Mathews v. Diaz (1976) allow the government to deny certain benefits (e.g., welfare) to noncitizens, including illegal aliens, without violating equal protection.
- Practical Context:
While illegal aliens have these rights on paper, enforcement can vary. For example, at the border or in immigration detention, their access to due process might be more limited than for someone deeper within U.S. territory. The 1886 case Yick Wo v. Hopkins established that noncitizens within U.S. jurisdiction are protected, but jurisdiction weakens closer to entry points.
In summary, illegal aliens have significant constitutional protections—especially under the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment—but not the full suite of rights citizens enjoy, particularly those tied to political participation or immigration status itself. The law sees them as "persons" with inherent rights, not as citizens with the complete package.
Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly generally extend to everyone in the U.S., regardless of immigration status. There’s no legal distinction here based on citizenship—courts have upheld this implicitly through cases involving noncitizens. This is not true.
They would have the same limited free speech rights of visa holders, which is that they cannot advocate for terrorism or terrist organizations or be a threat to national security.
But since the punishment is deportation which illegal aliens would be facing anyway, I doubt that they would care about the loss of these free speech rights.
-PJ