Do Constitutional Rights apply to illegal aliens? If not, can they, in legal terms, be discriminated against?

Question

La Raza. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Not even close to enough. Just sayin'......

Answer 1

no but the idiots in the whitehouse and congress and some states want it to. that's why they are pushing for this amnesty assinine bill. you can't discriminate against someone that's not really here.

Answer 2

definite. because the final public of the bill of Rights are not any more rights granted to voters. they are obstacles on US authorities action. And that applies regardless of who the U. S. authorities is performing antagonistic to. just about all of protections afforded by ability of the structure haven't any more some thing to do with citizenship. attempt genuinely reading the structure a even as. especially, the 4th change applies antagonistic to all authorities searches and seizures the position there's a lifelike expectation of privateness. although the courts have already determined that there is not any such expectation of privateness for the period of a border search for or arrest. And the 2d change in basic terms applies to federal regulations of guns. It don't have any result on state regulations. yet it really is beside the point because your celebration makes no experience. there is not any direct interaction between the 2d and 4th Amendments.

Answer 3

No they don't. The Constitution should not apply to anyone who just decides to step foot on our soil yet is not willing to the work our ancestors did to become citizens. And of course they can't be discriminated against....you know what gets me? It seems that most are so willing to allow them to use the resources that WE paid for without paying any taxes themselves, yet the minute we complain about it we must be prejudiced. Just because they do not wish to take the time to go through the process and only want to leach off our resources (health care, schools, etc.) we're expected to accomodate them. And on top of that now we should learn THEIR language because they are unwilling to learn the language of the country they come to....its absolutely ridiculuous!

Answer 4

We have citizens moving to foreign countries, opening businesses in order to not have to abide by the human rights issues we have in this country. Or our safety standards, or environmental standards or anything else. You would think the rules applied both ways.

The Constitution was written for it's citizens. Not for everyone or why would we claim to be wanting to bring democracy to the world? And in the same breath....why would an American citizen go to another country to not have to obey the laws of his country?

Human rights and citizens rights are not the same. Can't have human rights if ALL countries don't abide by the same rules when we are a world of humans.. When in Rome....you do as the Romans do. We took the high road and shot for better standards. Now people are trying to use the high road as the norm for law breakers and use that against us while there is a concentrated effort to destroy it. That's like saying you like a clean house. You deal perfectly with your family and you all work together. Then someone says...I want a clean house too but they invade your house and do everything they can to destroy it and then call you a hipocrite. It takes people working together to get somewhere. We have people comming in here demanding you do it , in spite of them.

Answer 5

The Court most recently mentioned the Second Amendment in dicta in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S. Ct. 1839 (1990). Verdugo-Urquidez was a citizen and resident of Mexico, and a drug dealer. The Mexican police arrested him in Mexico, and brought him to the U.S., where the U.S. cops arrested him. With the permission of the Mexican police, the U.S. narcs searched his residence (in Mexico), and found documentary evidence detailing drug shipments to the U.S. Verdugo-Urquidez moved for suppression of that evidence as a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. The question for the court:

Does the Fourth Amendment apply to non-resident non-citizens outside the U.S.? The answer: "No".

The court's reasoning: The Fourth Amendment protects the right of "the people" to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Who are "the people"? According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, the phrase "the people" was a term of art used by the Framers. Rehnquist wrote:

The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble"); Art. I, s 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. 110 S. Ct. at 1061. Since Verdugo-Urquidez is not part of "the people," he is not protected by the Fourth Amendments (nor, apparently, by the First, Second, Ninth, or Tenth).

Answer 6

No you have no rights under the US constitution unless you are a citizen. That is how it should be. Those that want the rights must make the commitment first.

Answer 7

Rights only apply to US citizens. The constitution mentions nothing about rights for illegal immigrants, only citizens. Discrimination would only occur if they had the same rights as citizens but were denied those rights.

Answer 8

The constitution in most cases applies to anyone standing on U.S. soil. That is why the Bush administration keeps their alleged terror suspects on Cuban soil.

Answer 9

There is a difference between 'discrimination' and 'enforcement'.

If a robber is put in jail is he being 'discriminated' against for being a robber?

Answer 10

They shouldnt apply to anyone but citizens