I just read an article on Foxnews that illegal Mexican immigrants are having their constitutional rights violated
by being detained by American ranchers.
Do illegal Mexicans have Constitutional rights?
all persons in the US have certain rights. As to what specific rights illegals have I’m not sure, although I believe standard rights of due process apply. I also think they have a right to a hearing before a judge or court offical of some sort before they are deported.
You can probably find out some of the rights that immigrants (regardless of the legality of their immigration) have by checking some of the old threads about Elian Gonzalez. I read a very good summary of immigration law in those threads.
I’ve heard about this. Apparently, Border Patrol has really tightened up the California, Texas, and New Mexico borders, so most illegal immigration is now through Arizona. The Arizonans, understandably, don’t like this, so alot of ranchers along the border have taken to rounding up the illegals themselves.
Please forgive my ignorance on this subject. I did look at the threads about Elian Gonzalez and I found no logical answer. It really galls me to hear a reporter, or lawyer, say that the Constitutional rights of an illegal alien may have been violated.
Yes, there are laws protecting illegal aliens from harm. Nevertheless, where does it say that the United States Constitution extends to citizens of other nations? Citizens I might add, that have broken our laws by entering this country illegally to begin with.
Hmm, I strongly suspect that in many of the cases the phrase is being used, the speaker or writer is really referring to Basic HUMAN Rights – but consciously or unconsciously ties it in with “constitutional” rights because, again consciously or unconsciously, they feel the latter sounds more “enforceable”
However there IS one “Constitutional Right” component: the 5th and 14th Amendments to the constitution recognize that ** “any Person” ** within the US jusrisdiction has a right to a due process of law to decide on what happens with his/her life, liberty and property. Not just citizens, not just those legally present, not just those who are not breaking the law: ** “any Person” **
Of course, if you ARE breaking the law, the “due process” includes restraining and detaining you, and if you’re here illegally, deporting you…
JRD
So in retrospect, I guess Dredd Scott wasn’t a person . . .
maybe only, what, 5/8 of one . . .
I know, the 14th wasn’t in force then, and this is an irrelevant interjection; sorry. Just wanted to point out some apparent irony.
Try this thread. I’m just posting the link because I’m not up on the nice way to code this
http://63.97.40.4/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=15251
As for Dred Scott, the Supreme Court ruled that he was property. For the record, he would have counted as 3/5 of a person, not 5/8.
He’s buried in the same cemetery as my grandfather in St. Louis, Cavalry.
It’s a very big cemetery.
I guess this would fall under the “citizen’s arrest” category. One of these days one unlucky rancher is going to find out he detained or shot someone who happened to be a US citizen and there’s going to be hell to pay. It seems to me calling the proper authorities would be a better thing to do.
But what galls me is that people who would never dream of denying civil rights to anyone on account of race, sex etc. have no problem denying them all rights because they do not have a paper in their pockets stating they were born north of the border. And it galls me so much I am going to start a thread on this galling topic 
Strictly speaking an individual citizen can not violate your constitutional rights. Only the government can. The constitution only applies to the “state”.
Technically. Individual rights, be they Human or Civil, exist – you are endowed with them by birth-right.
That a constitution lists them (“constitutional”) means that the State ruled under that constitution recognizes those rights and will not act to abridge them.
But it can also identify some of the human or civil rights as allowing state intervention to prevent individuals from abridging them.
I think many people, both here and in the media are confusing these rights. Consitiutional rights are rights guaranteed you by the law. Inalienable human rights are yours just by being born.
As we see from the text of these important amendments to the Constitution, the ‘rights’ guaranteed therein are guaranteed to all people in the country, regardless of their status.
However, these rights are not ‘violated’ when private citizens act. Therefore, if I trespass on the land of a private citizen, and he captures and detains me, my constitutional rights have not been violated, because the rancher is not a state nor is he the federal government, and as you see from the text of the amendments, they apply to action by governments, not actions by individuals.
This is not to say that, if the government cooperates with the actions of the ranchers that that cooperation wouldn’t potentially infringe on my constitutional rights. Nor, it is to be emphasized, does it mean that the ranchers are not violating federal or state law protecting the ‘civil rights’ of the people they are detaining. Finally, the ranchers might be legally liable in civil tort law for their actions, under such torts as false imprisonment, assault, battery, etc.
And, finally, for historical accuracy, Dred Scott was not found to be a slave by the US Supreme Court. The Court determined that Dred Scott was not a citizen of the United States entitled to sue someone in federal court under the provisions of Article III. The language of the opinion filed by Chief Justice Taney would appear to preclude even emancipated slaves or the offspring of slaves from federal citizenship. Because Dred Scott was not by nature a ‘citizen’ of the United States, and because Missouri’s courts had determined he was not a citizen of Missouri, a status which the Court felt could not be changed either by having lived in Illinois under Illinois law nor by living in the Territory of Wisconsin (in the process, the Court held the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional to the extent it infringed on the ‘property’ rights of slave owners who took their slaves to ‘free’ territory), Dred Scott was not entitled to sue his putative owner in federal court.