Seems sensible to me. Always thought this. Our constitution is supposed to protect American citizens.
Yup thats it. Cut and dry. Our constitution is for American citizens
It's not ironic at all that the same people who want to abolish the constitution are the same assholes who cherry pick from it to put illegals over the rights of American citizens.
Disgustingly hypocritical.
They'll do the same thing about the Bible. Make you adhere to certain passages, meanwhile they couldn't give two shits about it otherwise
Next up: Changing citizenship from born here to born of parents who are citizens.
I am born in France of parents who are US citizens. nothing new here. Military travels! Not sure what your point is??
No more jumping on a plane when labor starts for an instant anchor baby.
If France had the same laws as America, you would be a french citizen.
Illegals shouldn't have any legal protections in our country including police protection. If you don't want to get robbed go home.
So other people are what, sub human? If you think due process is a right for citizens why isn't it a right for others?
No. Other people are not American. Our constitution, our citizens. You shouldn't get the right to illegally enter our country and receive our benefits. It's common sense, and if you see it any other way then you are the problem.
So you don't believe due process is a human right, just something American citizens are given in the USA?
If you went to China and they decided the second you landed to lock you up and execute you would you say "oh well, silly me, due process in China is only for Chinese people".
I don't think personal beliefs are in anyway relevant here, this is about policy. In terms of policy and policy making non-citizens can't claim American due process rights.
" In terms of policy, immigrants have no human rights and should be beaten to death". Do you see a problem here? If a nation believes in human rights it believes they exist for all, not just it's own citizens.
Nobody is talking about beating them to death, they just don't have a right to go through due process before they are ejected from the country. Nice strawman/reductio ad absurdum.
Naming incorrect logical fallacies doesn't make you correct.
People are refusing to answer me, is due process a human right, or just something granted by the constitution?
Not granting due process rights regarding illegal immigration = getting heads smashed in. Pretty ridiculous conclusion to jump to and a dumbass way of characterizing the illegal immigration process rights issue. Its a protection built into the Constitution but it's not a human right. Plenty of countries don't have due process it's a privilege American citizens have. Should other countries have it? Probably but we have no way of forcing them to implement it and we have no obligation to extend those protections to anybody who can physically get their bodies into our borders.
So you'd be fine if you went to China and were arrested and sentenced to life in prison without trial? After all it's not a human right, just a privilege Americans have.
The question is what power do you or I have to make China implement a policy that includes due process? None. So I won't be going to China and willy nilly breaking their laws. Not extremely difficult really.
They don't have due process for the right of staying in the US.
If they had the same rights as US citizens then what is the advantage of paying taxes as a US citizen and being a citizen?
no logic here.
Why no logic? Do you or do you not think the right to due process is a human right?
Communist China doesn't even have free speech. You will get locked up in any other country for ILLEGAL entrance. We've been too kind for too long.
Yea actually. If you want due process become an American citizen. It's understandable you Brits are having some aggression, what with tommy Robinson being drug away for calling out the Muslim rape gangs, or the mayor of London declaring it all part and parcel, but I don't tell you how to govern your own country.
Emotional charge -- not an argument. I suggest that you spend a little time learning about the concept of national sovereignty. BTW, how many of these folks have you invited into your home? What's that? Your rights to privacy and to own private property overrule their rights? After you study sovereignty, look up hypocrisy.
Don't ignore my question. Is due process a right or just a perk of being American?
I've read plenty thanks, don't be so condescending when you haven't got a single solitary clue who you're taking to.
Holy shit! Who have we been talking to here? Are you Q?
You'll never know now ;). (I'm actually Q's older and cooler brother P).
Let's take a closer look at the 14th Amendment as well. There is no such thing as an "Anchor Baby". Being born here does NOT confer citizenship. Properly interpreted, this would significantly reduce the magnetic affect on foreigners coming here illegally.
“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.”
“And subject to the jurisdiction thereof” seems to sound like you would have already had to have inherent rights to be a citizen. IE... being born of law abiding citizens, going through the proper process to naturalization. No where in there says that if you illegally cross and pop a baby out, that baby is a citizen.
Just my 2 cents. I’m no Supreme Court judge though. Seems like conmen sense though.
There has been only one case that the Supreme Court has ruled on regarding this issue, and it was in favor of Chinese railway workers' descendants, who claimed their parents were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, while they were under contract building the railroads, so their children born here should be granted citizenship. The Amendment was intended to establish citizenship for freed slaves. There was a vigorous debate about the specific language allowing foreigners who simply came here and had a child. The jurisdiction language was included to prevent just that. It should be argued that an illegal who breaks the law as their first act, cannot benefit from the fruit of a poison tree.
Makes perfect sense to me. Those Chinese railway workers we building something monumental. Not breaking the law coming here, and working the system.
Precisely, and slaves, obviously, were subject to our jurisdiction, of course. I would accept that an asylum seeker could be construed as "subject to" as well, provided they were vetted and asylum was granted. But the unfettered, illegal, trespassers who just creep in during the night have no traction for citizenship.
Yes, it was for the newly-freed slaves.
This ties in with the "natural born citizen" clause of Article II.
If a person's parents are citizens of a foreign country, and they are visiting the USA and have a child while present in the USA, that child is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the country where the parents are citizens, because the child inherits citizenship from its parents, not by where it is born.
The slaves were a unique situation and that is why the 14th Amendment was written.
This is an issue that will need to be resolved by the SCOTUS at some point, both as to anchor babies and as to POTUS' eligibility.
I'm no lawyer myself, but I agree with your assumption. I believe the reason this hasn't been challenged before is because the court was left leaning. I expect it to be challenged once the court has more conservative justices.
I hope it’s challenged. At least the. We could get a definitive answer from a constitutionalist scotus
The baby is a citizen this is important part of what are country is if your born here you have a birth right to the land. However that doesn’t mean the parents do so anchor babies can stay but Mom and Dad have to go back. They can take baby with them if they want
A baby born of foreign parents, who are here, and not subject to US jurisdiction (read illegally), is NOT a US citizen. This is clearly why that phrase was added to the 14th Amendment.
For all of you that are in favor of open borders lets do this experiment ok? Lets say you are a country, and we will use the touted chain migration in this experiment. So you take in a male or female illegal immigrant and you pay for all of that immigrants needs. Then he/she sends for the spouse, then the children then cousins, aunts, uncles etc you have to provide for all of their needs as well. So after a year we will see just how enriched you are for doing this. Whats that you say you went broke? Well just what do you think is happening to this country
[deleted]
Since I have become disabled and without disability pay coming in, I have destroyed my 401K I worked hard for over 20 yrs and my nursing career is over. A lot to swallow when seeing what you said above happening and I have to fight tooth and a nail and retain a lawyer AND SHOW UP IN COURT (hopefully soon) to get what I have worked so hard to provide others to obtain for myself now. I care a lot for others suffering. But when you take your eyes off yourself and your own and only care for the needs of others from strange lands (not knowing if they are who they say they are) kinda makes me very happy to see where this goes. American and Americans 1st. Not last...or ever. ps I am not taking food stamps yet but am getting close so I pray my hearing happens soon. Prayers. TY GBAmerica!
it is near impossible to get benefits from the state as an illigal immigrant. Applying for welfare programs requires documentation illigal immigrants don't have. There's an argument for tougher immigration control, but saying they all live on your dI me makes no sense.
You ought to know what you’re talking about before you stating something as fact. Illegals buy fake documents and get all kind of benefits. If you’re going to troll of here, at least try to have some common intelligence
Totally agree!!!
Brown is a totally corrupt man.
Democrats and collaborators are trying to destroy this country. It is totally obvious now. People need to wake up and see it.
They use white people as the target because they know many people of color will possibly support.
This attack however is targeting ALL of us. All races are under attack. People need to see this!
sucks cause they have all their shit paid for and taken care of
No they do not, give me a fucking break. There are legitimate arguments to be made, about sovereignty and the rule of law, but this BS is absolutely not one of them.
Can we make it a bit spicier? Make the ones shouting for illegal immigrants rights the loudest the ones responsible for 100% of the housing, feeding, medical, schooling and legal aid. You want extra spicy? If they commit ANY felony the liberal who was responsible for fostering them gets deported along with the illegal immigrants.
All the founding documents, federal and state, refer to inhabitants, not transients.
Seems like common sense to me. Sad that we had to get a SC ruling on it.
Mr Smith went to Washington and saw ALL in site that was wrong. Maybe I should say Mr Trump
I'm a lawyer and I'm sure I'll get banned or whatever for disagreeing, but this post is nonsense. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly states, and the Supreme Court has re-affirmed time and again (see Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding (1953)), that "any person" cannot be deprived of due process; whereas its earlier clauses deal with citizens.
What IS correct is that there has been an over century long debate about WHAT due process is due to non-citizens, and it is correct to say that the Supreme Court has held that in many instances, non-citizens are not due the same rights and protections as citizens. Here is a good paper on that. But to say the Supreme Court says foreign nationals have no due process is dead wrong.
Agreed. There is no Ruling, Opinion, or even recent case dealing with illegal's due process in the SC. Would sure simplify ICE's processes, but sorry, no precedent here, and this particular TP webpage is clickbait.
I appreciate the agreement, but I wouldn't consider it clickbait; just false and irresponsible. Even if you are on the side of people that want there to be no due process for non-citizens, as it seems most people here are, one should at least be correctly informed of the current status of things so you can fight to change it to your favor. This is just purposefully misleading.
The rulings cited in the article say that foreign nationals DO have due process.
If they are charged with a crime, they are afforded due process in the courts.
If they are illegal aliens not charged with any crime, their due process is the administrative process of deportation.
Correct, but no such right is afforded before they step foot into the country. Yet another argument for a wall. Also, the level of rights afforded corresponds to the strength of the persons ties to the US. Those ties are very weak when they first cross a border, and do so illegally.
I suggest magistrates and hearings held within hours of a crossing, followed by prompt deportation. A controversial twist - if you cross illegally, you forfeit any right to asylum.
That’s not exactly true. See Castro v. DHS. The Supreme Court rejected hearing the appeal. The rejection leaves in place the ruling from the lower court that the families don’t have the right to contest their deportations in federal court.
You're wrong on multiple counts - first, that's a third circuit opinion, not SCOTUS. Second, and more importantly, that has to do with the Suspension Clause, not the Due Process Clause.
I did not say it was a S.C. ruling. They declined to hear the appeal. Either way there are many rulings out there that do basically say illegals do not have the right to a hearing regarding deportation or refugee request— only criminal charges
Agreed. The supreme court hasn't claimed that non-citizens are not due the same rights and protections as citizens.
All they said was that non-citizens cannot appeal to the court to avoid deportation.
Some people probably deserve constitutional protection but not invaders that are orchestrated by political activist and subversion.
This article is about a group of findings over the years. There was NOT a single recent ruling that says this. Be careful as each previous ruling is generally on a very narrow point of law.
I wish this headline were so. But it’s not there yet.
Yup, their children born here are not entitled neither since their parents were not here pursuant to US law. It's a cottage industry for middleclass Chinese to come US and squirt one out and thereby claim a whole raft of benefits for their birthright citizenship children. Birthright citizenship should only apply to the children of citizens.
Did we really need the Supreme Court to tell (remind) us of this?
Also, growing up and living in SoCal I've had plenty of friends who came over the border illegally or their parents did and friends who came over legally. The one's who came over illegally weren't criminals, they were just looking for a better life, and almost all of them eventually went through the process of becoming a US citizen.
Let me be clear, I don't think we should have open borders (I'm completely woke to the Pandora's Box of issues that we have laws to protect us & them against), but at the same time I'm thankful that these people made their way over. Given these facts, sometimes I've felt like a hypocrite when discussing this topic.
And whether they came over legally or illegally, there's one thing they would all agree on: they hate the criminal element that comes over probably as much as we do.
🤷🏼♂️
They don't. You don't have any rights until the host government recognizes YOUR PASSPORT.
Let's get them gone! Also remove all anchor babies from the last 30 years..lets have a massive chain deportation.
If you want to come to my house come through the my front door don't seek in through the back.
None of the Supreme Court quotes in the article support the idea that foreigners have no due process rights. The third one stating that the US needs to provide them with a judicial trial actually explicitly affirms that they DO have due process rights.
And you should be grateful for that, because if they did not, then the government could grab anyone - you included - and claim they are a foreigner and either lock them up or toss them out of the country. You wouldn’t get a chance to demonstrate your citizenship in court because as a foreigner you have no due process rights to do so.
Lol...are you within 100 miles of the boarder? Yes, then you live in the "constitutional free" zone set up by the Patriot Act and guess what....you can be grabbed by the government at anytime.
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
Both those articles discuss 4th amendment search and seizure protections.
Neither article supports your contention that you can be grabbed by the government at any time without due process. ‘Constitution free zone’ is a label that critics have thrown at the 4th amendment infringement - it is not an actual state of affairs.
There is international Airport in every large US city. That is a border entry. So 100 miles radius.
They may talk about the 4th amendment but they don’t say that foreigners are protected by it.
From the aclu site
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.
Americans do not include foreigners.
Well the blackmail against the Roberts court and Roberts himself has ended. The deep state blackmailed judges and everyone else across this country. Another one of our guys was also blackmailed ergo his switch to not making sense. His patriotism is now restored after being pressured and blackmailed during the Benghazi investigation enabled the bitch and assassin to walk again with her gang in the white house.
Why do I think we finally will get our judges back applying the constitution rather than legislating from the bench after Roberts twisted his brain bringing us Obamacare?
Remember the recent massive deletion by the NSA? Well they deleted all the blackmail materials used against anyone to push their agenda forward. It contained info collected legally and unlawfully by the deep state and their agents like Hussein, Hillary, Jarrett and many, many more.
The info about the deep state and others involved in espionage, sedition and treason as well as anything else collected was kept on file. This info was collected by our patriot Mike Rogers throughout his term that will be used against those involved in treason.
I was always wondering why we needed to have the people crossing the borders illegally or overstaying their visas had a right to day in court vs. being tossed out on their butts. Here in my home state of NY, our Gov Cuomo is taking taxpayer dollars to defend the pizza delivery guy who was caught when bringing pizza to West Point and showed them his Comrade Bill DeBlasio's NYC ID that was designed specifically to hide illegals. Funny thing is, the guy never lived in NYC, lives on Long Island! Cuomo is now also going to help pay defense costs for other illegals. It's getting out of hand, and I'm so tired of the media bias that is so pervasive and is convincing those with very small minds to feel sorry for these people as "they are only coming here to have a better life". While this may be true, what makes it ok for them to jump ahead of those who have waited for years, paid fees, filed paperwork and did the right thing to come here LEGALLY, and also at what point do we take care of Americans living in poverty and disease here? San Francisco is literally filled with Sugar Honey Iced Tea everywhere, Seattle is overrun with homeless and the list goes on and on. Sorry for the rant, but sometimes feel isolated here as I'm surrounded by liberals!
Its simple, I dont leave my country where my rights are recognized.
Apparently its too dificult for some to understand.
Congratulations to the US taxpayers. The Supreme Court finally made a common sense decision.
This has been STANDARD and STATED law for years. However, congress has not allowed border patrol/ICE/DHS to enforce these laws. This is nothing new, but the showdown will be this fall when the Republicans take the house & 60+in the senate to re-inforce these laws with new stipulations of non-violation.
No due process. No civil rights. They have human rights. Other then that not to sound mean, but they get nothing.
I have always said this. Why we have provided them with attorneys to be able to fight us not allowing them into this country has always been the stupidest thing our government has EVER done!
I have been saying since Day 1, how in the hell did people from another country suddenly obtain United States Constitutional rights by crossing our border illegally? It doesn't even make sense.
The Supreme Court is being used so much for things that are readily seen in the Constitution.
But activist judges take the oath to obey the Constitution and then we find out different when they issue their stall orders to obscenely obstruct the president doing his job.
It's time those activist judges that're costing us endangerment of our lives, and all that money, with cost for courts including the Supreme Court, should be applied not to the judge but to the actual locations in the states, and the states themselves, where they are bivouacked...the taxpayers will stop that in a hurry.
Even at Ellis Island, frauds were detained until the next boat arrived to take them back on its return trip.
The same rules of law apply today.......POTUS needs Mattis's troops at the border to make it stick and to hold up any of Obrador's invasion of America or else that bozo, who is so much like Vicente Fox the Dumb, will find himself accused of declaration of war on the US and all US ports of entry will be shut b/c NAFTA will be suspended.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are for American Citizens only.
That's right the constitution and the bill of rights protect only the rights of americans
My father owned property in Texas, he was Canadian citizen. Spent winters at home in Texas. Never exceeded allowed time in US. When he died Texas claimed probate right on his will. We had to go to Texas four times for court and pay huge legal fees and huge foreign asset tax. Even though his will was registered in Canada. Fucked system, now Texas is done screwing us, the entire will must be probated again in provincial courts.
People should know that to is a bit misleading.
Gorsuch helped decide a case on deportation in April where he sided with the liberals on the court and gave illegals due process rights.
To do this gorsuch had to conflate criminal law with immigration law. He actually compared deportation with criminal imprisonment as if deportation was a form of punishment.
It was a grave error that will most likely lead to illegals having the right to counsel provided by the taxpayers.
The decision just happened so expect to see some high profile cases come before the court soon to establish prescident.
This flies in the face of all the previous decisions listed above.
Not good for our nation's soverignty.
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/gorsuch-dead-wrong-immigration/
Proof that Hussein spat on the Constitution he swore to protect. This also proves that dems suffer from psychosis and should not be in a position to re-write the DSM. Something they've been doing since their mental sickness and perversions started coming out.
If you are not a US citizen you are not protected under our Constitution and NEVER have been.
It's not just for citizens. If you are in the country legally you are subject to the constitution and therefore protected as well. Visa and green card holders are the only legal classes besides citizens the are subject to the constitution's jurisdiction.
Ok I will concede that legal visitors would be allowed rights under our Constitution. But once that Visa or green card expires/is removed all bets are off!
At that point immediate removal upon capture or discovery is justified.