It shouldn’t be* complicated. Non-citizens and literally all “persons” are entitled to every constitutional right. I’m not even American and I know that.
I would tend to agree that it kind of contradicts the whole “all men are created equal” thing if you decide that US citizens are worthy of certain human rights but non-citizens aren’t. In fact referring to them as “inalienable” means that they have those rights whether the government recognizes them or not. But I’m also not a lawyer.
Correct. The issue, of course, is that without due process, anyone can be accused of being here illegally and deported if you can’t get time in front of a judge to show documents and prove your case.
This is why citizens and non-citizens are paired up in regards to that law.
It shouldn’t be* complicated. Non-citizens and literally all “persons” are entitled to every constitutional right. I’m not even American and I know that.
EDIT: It shouldn’t be, but it is
I would tend to agree that it kind of contradicts the whole “all men are created equal” thing if you decide that US citizens are worthy of certain human rights but non-citizens aren’t. In fact referring to them as “inalienable” means that they have those rights whether the government recognizes them or not. But I’m also not a lawyer.
Correct. The issue, of course, is that without due process, anyone can be accused of being here illegally and deported if you can’t get time in front of a judge to show documents and prove your case.
This is why citizens and non-citizens are paired up in regards to that law.
It’s a catch 22 otherwise.
Yeah I only know this from some legal eagle stuff, IANAL