Reading another thread, I was reminded of a topic that’s been on my mind since the Mexican protests/pride demonstrations a month or so ago.
My understanding has always been that the (US) Constitutional protections afforded us applied to citizens, and citizens only. If that’s correct (and please, correct me if I’m wrong), why haven’t we arrested the illegals and non-citizens who rallied in the streets for illegal demonstration? They have, after all, caused interruption to commerce by blocking streets in several cities. And I can’t think of a better opportunity to round up folks who aren’t documented.
I’m troubled by the thought that we allow people to illegally enter our country and then “throw a bitch,” so to speak, because they aren’t being granted all of the perks that we legal folks receive (in compensation for paying taxes and devoting implicit loyalty to the country).
In short, where are the paddy wagons (to recall the Irish immigration wave, which brought my folk here. . . )?
Actually, that makes it sound like a GD topic, but I'm really looking for the legal implications. So allow me to rephrase: Are non-citizens and/or illegals protected by the Constitution and, if so, to what extent?
In general, the protections of the Bill of Rights apply to anyone on U.S. soil, and also to U.S. citizens overseas. There are a lot of exceptions and discontinuities in this rule, but in the run of cases that’s the way it works.
Furthermore, (and since this is GQ, I’m trying really hard to moderate my tone), it’s asinine to assume that everyone at the rallies is an alien, much less an illegal. I was at one, and I’ve been a citizen since the moment of my birth. Also, many illegals pay their taxes; they also, of course, pay sales taxes the same as anyone, and, if we assume that most illegals tend to the bottom of the economic scale (a reasonably assumption in the aggregate, but cetainly not true in every case), then sales taxes represent the majority of their tax liability anyway.
The Supreame Court has long made a distinction between citizens, resident aliens and visiting aliens and illegal aliens. The latter two have only the “natural protections” as provided by the US Constitution such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and due process of law. The former two have ALL protections provided by the US Constitution including trial by jury, welfare benefits, while having the responsibilites as serving on juries and subject to the draft.
The SCOTUS has also said the latter, visiting and illegal aliens MAY be afforded all rights IF and IF Congress and / or the local government (where appropriate) decide to give them all or part of all the right afforded by the Constitution. For instance a century ago many localitites gave aliens the right to vote.
Basically, you can’t just stop a person randomly on the street because you think he/she is in the U.S. illegally; the Supreme Court has held that there must be a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed in order to arrest someone, and Hispanic appearance is not a crime. Cross-posted from this previous immigration thread- here’s a Supreme Court decision that’s more or less on point:
“Assuming that Congress has the power to admit aliens on condition that they submit to reasonable questioning about their right to be in the country, such power cannot diminish the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens who may be mistaken for aliens. The Fourth Amendment therefore forbids stopping persons for questioning about their citizenship on less than a reasonable suspicion that they may be aliens…In this case the officers relied on a single factor to justify stopping respondent’s car: the apparent Mexican ancestry [422 U.S. 873, 886] of the occupants. We cannot conclude that this furnished reasonable grounds to believe that the three occupants were aliens. At best the officers had only a fleeting glimpse of the persons in the moving car, illuminated by headlights. Even if they saw enough to think that the occupants were of Mexican descent, this factor alone would justify neither a reasonable belief that they were aliens, nor a reasonable belief that the car concealed other aliens who were illegally in the country. Large numbers of native-born and naturalized citizens have the physical characteristics identified with Mexican ancestry, and even in the border area a relatively small proportion of them are aliens. The likelihood that any given [422 U.S. 873, 887] person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor, but standing alone it does not justify stopping all Mexican-Americans to ask if they are aliens.”
Besides, heck, I was at the demonstration - we had the largest one in the country here on May 1, with the full support of the Mayor and the city administration, and it was totally peaceful - not a single arrest with an estimated 400,000 people participating, which is pretty incredible. AFAIK the May 1 demonstrations were conducted legally; demonstrating, in itself, is not an illegal act, so I don’t see how you could justify arresting people for participating.