Do Illegals have full constitutional protections ? (Vanity)

Wardaddy ^ | 3-20-25 | Wardaddy

[wardaddy]

It’s difficult to get a clear answer on this. Google of course front loads everything to the leftist slant first few pages. I tend to use Yandex to search on contentious topics and yes I know it’s Russian but it’s good trust me if you want to find non leftist entries The left seems intent on adjudicating every deportation if possible as well as apply for the courts to challenge every Trump move with 120 plus so far mostly in DC district courts which lean left obviously Trump has been challenged in court more in two months than all presidents in history combined I know the courts have been mixed on the constitution and illegals the same as they are prisoners in BOP custody and kids at school with locker searches etc Any insight is appreciated Thank you

[wardaddy]

Mod feel free to move to chat if you like just trying to get some input Tks

[Phoenix8]

By coincidence my last comment was similar to this subject.

I just complained minutes ago how hard it was to find search results on democratic politicians claiming conservatives were oppressing women. But my memory recalls it happening many time by the squad etc. in the last election.

Google must have their search algorithm’s set at “1984” levels censorship now.

[teeman8r]

as the principal negotiator in the formation of the contract of the Constitution, We the People, would dictate that, as the People, those who are visiting would enjoy those restrictions on our government as well. being here legally and at our invitation.

flame on.

[EvilCapitalist]

I thought Constitutional rights were for U.S. Citizens only.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

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.

[Carry_Okie]

It would seem there are legal problems with the text of the Constitution when is particularized out of context. An example would be when it says, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property," that can be interpreted in isolation, meaning that it would include foreigners within the US under its protections. However, if by "person" it is taken as a subset of "We the People of the United States," such would NOT include foreigners on American soil.

I think Constitutional law really suffers from the lack of keeping it in context from the Preamble.

[Slingwing]

Lets be clear. The libtards have twisted the constitution to fit their needs but if you read and understand the context of the time the constitution applies only to citizens, nothing more and nothing less. The opening sentence says it all. Non-citizens are not afforded constitutional protections because it does not apply to them, period! Once we get that cleared up we will be on the road to greatness else we will go the way of the Roman Empire.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Note it says “We the people” which means citizens. Further down it says “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” which means it applies only to citizens. The constitution is a fascinating document to be written so many years ago with well thought out words by men who rode horses and eked out a living in a harsh new world.

[AndyJackson]

The operative words here are “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Noncitizens are not fully within the jurisdiction of the US.

[discostu]

Yes. A few things to keep in mind. First the “we the people” in the preamble is the subject of the sentence, that’s who is MAKING the Constitution, not the list of who it applies to. Then over and over in the Constitution is says “person”, no limitation on who is a person. And finally, and this is the big part, the Constitution is mostly limiting government power, especially when you get to the Bill of Rights. The government can’t do this and can’t do that. Doesn’t really matter who the government can’t do it to, it just can’t do it.

Also keep in mind there is the question of when said government knows, and the government having the burden of proof. One way or the other the government has to ACT like you’re a citizen (or legal visitor) up until it can prove you aren’t.

[KobraKai]

If they do then the Constitution is kinda meaningless.

[KobraKai]

Or I should mean to say that US citizenship is meaningless.

[Ajnin]

Everyone in the world has the same rights which are found in our Constitution. However, our Constitution only PROTECTS the rights of Americans. That’s why the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution starts off with “We the people of the United States of America” and finishes up with “…..to ourselves and our posterity….” We extend certain privileges such as due process to foreigners and aliens because it benefits the United States.

[Ajnin]

Grok is wrong. Grok’s programming or algorithm isn’t sophisticated enough to understand the difference between rights and protections.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

You will have to be a lot more specific than that broadside. Show us which statement are wrong and why.

[Frank Drebin]

No it isn’t. The narrative of the socialists is meant to have you think that though.

[Resolute Conservative]

Yet the left can ignore or infer whatever they want to, such as denying us right under the 2nd amendment. The 2nd cannot be more clear on its meaning and yet...

[wardaddy]

As did I
I know they can’t legally buy guns for instance without a green card which only works in some states

I’m open to further education on this one

[AppyPappy]

It depends on the judge. Remember only some people’s rights were suspended during Covid.

[Ajnin]

I don’t believe the issue is one of rights but of protection. I believe our Constitution provides no protection for the rights of foreigners. The Founders weren’t trying to create a suicide pact or Tojan horse for hostile foreign nationals to destroy our country. Unfortunately, for many decades it’s been assumed that foreigners and aliens do have the protection of our Constitution and the results have been absolutely disastrous. California was perhaps the closest thing mankind has ever come to creating Utopia and it has been turned into a third world cess pit through the activism that advocates for constitutional protections of foreigners.

[wardaddy]

For disclosure

Long ago I lived and worked in many countries usually on a 90-180 day visa

Jamaica
Colombia
Sierra Leone
Brasil
London
Port au Prince
And more

Without exception if I ran over I was subject to being picked up and expelled promptly no hearings and rights etc

In Jamaica since in MoBay they knew me they’d warn me and give me a week

Id take a transjamaican twin over to Grand Cayman and spend the nite and reup at the consulate

In Brasil id go to Asuncion and do same

And so on

Yet here we act like these folks deserve like a trial or hearings to be deported

Only hearing should be for identification

If Soros and other funders can get millions requiring adjudicating we have a problem

It seems muddy from here