So, I want to address a legal argument I'm seeing a lot out there: "They're illegals! They don't have constitutional rights! They don't have due process rights!"
So, that statement is 100% entirely inaccurate. Let's talk about it. /thread
So, that statement is 100% entirely inaccurate. Let's talk about it. /thread
The 14th states that no state shall make or enforce any law which abridges the privileges or immunities of US citizens; or 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.
That a person cannot be deprived of their life, liberty or property in the US "without due process of law" makes a meaningful judicial process necessary to do any of those three things. That's vitally important. Because it prevents things like locking up children for no reason.
"But they're illegal children! They HAVE no rights!" Nope. Untrue. Read that second part: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." (my emphasis). That phrase extends to any and all persons within a state's jurisdiction the FULL PROTECTION
of the laws of that state. ALL laws. The Constitution (including the 14th Amendment) is, first and foremost, a set of laws. The U.S. Supreme Court has, unsurprisingly, addressed this very question directly. It stated in 2001 that Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the
14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence may be or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory." And just in case I get some recalcitrant "originalists" in my feed, that interpretation is not new: James Madison, the fourth president of the
United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage." A trio of cases (Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), Wong Win v. United States (1896), Yamata v. Fisher (1903))
allowed the SCOTUS to directly settle the question of whether aliens, legal and illegal, have constitutional protection in criminal and certain civil affairs in the justice system. They held adamantly in the affirmative. This has been settled law for almost 130 years. AND YET
We are continually subjected to Limbaugh, Beck, Ingraham, et al. playing to racist fears that the ambrosia of American exceptionalism is being tainted by the brown hordes pouring over the border, and that any and all responses are not only justified, but encouraged.
Every single one of those people down on the border has rights in our court system and under our Constitution. Even if that wasn't the case, there would be compelling moral and ethical reasons to treat them as human beings. But the fact is that they do have legal rights.
Those rights are unequivocally being violated by this administration in an active effort to cause pain and suffering as a "deterrent" to illegally migrating to the US. It's wrong. It's illegal. And you should all be pissed about it.
"Why? Why does some ILLEGAL down on the border getting chucked in a cage affect me?" Well, if you want to make it all about YOU, one of the main reasons we protect other countries' citizens in our country is so that we're protected in theirs. There's an agreement between western
nations that, almost without exception, if Country A's citizen is arrested in Country B, Country B will extend to him all the rights and privileges that any citizen of Country B would normally have. Why? So that Country B can ensure the same of its own citizens in Country A.
If we decide not to do that anymore, then Americans can expect the same treatment in other countries. Loss of liberty without due process of law normally equates to prison time with no trial. Just for being somewhere other than the United States. That's bad on its face.
But there are other more insidious things it would accomplish. It would break down trust between allied nations. It would divide and separate alliances meant to withstand the rise of cruelty and radicalism, to preserve freedom and democracy. The stakes are high. They always are.
Finally, the erosion of the 14A erodes YOUR rights as well. So now, when you hear "They're illegals, they don't have rights!", you know that person is spewing bullshit and should be disregarded immediately. [THE MORE YOU KNOW RAINBOW]
Credit where it's due: A substantial part of this thread was pulled from Raoul Lowery Contreras's excellent op-ed in The Hill from 2015, which can be found here: thehill.com/blogs/pundits-…. Unfortunately, I do not believe he is on twitter, or I would tell you to follow him.
