I am and always will defend the Consititution !
CONSTITUTION AND CONGRESS PROTECT ALIENS' RIGHTS
Everyone deserves equal protection of laws
By CHARLES LEVENDOSKY
Casper Star-Tribune
We are a nation of immigrants. Unless you are an American Indian, you or previous generations of your family came to the United States as aliens.
There exists a number of misunderstandings about whether aliens -- meaning those persons who are not citizens or nationals of the United States -- have constitutionally protected rights once they are in this country. The issue is significant enough to clarify for our readers.
Article I, Sections 8 of the U.S. Constitution has granted Congress broad power regarding immigration and naturalization, over who may enter the United States and under what conditions they may remain here. However, during the time aliens reside in the United States, they enjoy a number of important constitutional protections.
Since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the U.S. Supreme Court has -- in a long line of decisions -- emphasized what the amendment states, in part: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The high court has been clear that the Fourteenth Amendment protections are "not confined to the protection of citizens," (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 1886).
The court in Yick Wo decision wrote: "These provisions are universal in application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws."
In 1948, the high court struck down a California law that banned fishing licenses to "any person ineligible to citizenship," because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment, (Torao Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission). The court wrote that "all persons lawfully in this country shall abide in any state on an equality of legal privileges with all citizens under non-discriminatory laws."
In Graham v. Richardson (1971), the Supreme Court struck down Arizona and Pennsylvania laws that denied welfare benefits to resident aliens and aliens who have not resided in the United States for a specified number of years. The law, the high court stated, violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Congress has passed a number of laws protecting the civil liberties of aliens and over the years revised those laws to make them more inclusive.
Title 18, Section 242 of the U.S. Code, entitled "Deprivation of rights under color of law," spells out the punishment for depriving aliens of constitutional rights. It states, in part: "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned... ."
In general, the Supreme Court has protected the right of aliens to public education, public welfare, right to earn a livelihood, to engage in licensed profession, to own property, to the equal protection of the law and to due process of law.
If the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the expression of a universal, inherent right to be free, then those same documents apply to all men and women who arrive on our shores legally.
Copyright Casper Star-Tribune
December 27, 2001
http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.lev.alienliberties.html
I also believe the Constitution is the basis for our government, and our laws should be based on its tenets.
One thing its writers provided (wisely) was a process to amend it. Your examples clarify the need for that. We simply cannot have security at home if non-citizens have so many rights. It's obvious that no one group can be targeted; the precedence of these laws will protect them
I really don't understand why people are using the argument "we're all immigrant children". My ancestors came here when there was a need, in a growing country, for farmers, laborers, and factory workers. That need no longer exists.
The other point is that when my ancestors arrived, entering the country and becoming a citizen was a rigorous procedure. That is hardly the case now, and that is why it has gotten out of hand. At this point, what we need to do is stabilize our population, for security, cultural/language, matching jobs with opportunities and the the environment. I just don't see how we can have security with the status quo on entry into the US without severe curtailment of our freedoms.
That's part of the discomfort with the Homeland Security Act. A lot of measures are being taken which will quite probably cause a loss of freedoms and more surveillance of law-abiding citizens and present a real danger to our futures in the hands of the wrong officials. A lot of this could be avoided if those in charge identified the real problem and solved it. That problem is that people who want to destroy the US and everything we represent can pretty much enter the country at will.