6 ms·

As a permanent resident who lives in the US, the idea that basic protections of law should only apply to citizens is terrifying. It's not the same outcome at al

As a permanent resident who lives in the US, the idea that basic protections of law should only apply to citizens is terrifying. It's not the same outcome at all. Due process is afforded to "persons".

saas_sam 8y ago
No country on Earth affords equal rights to citizens and non-citizens. If this "terrifies" you, I encourage you to reflect on your fears and whether some of them may be disproportionate to reality.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  Parent said "protections" and referred to "due process", not the broader topic of "rights". So, yes, non-citizens don't, e.g., get to vote. On the other hand, if they get arrested, the same standards of evidence apply as for a citizen.
- Tomte 8y ago
  Germany provides many Basic Rights to everybody. Others are only for citizens (and EU citizens, but via a strange legal method), but the most fundamental ones state "Everyone", not "every citizen".
  - renholder 8y ago
    Same with Sweden. For example, Allemansrätten (Freedom to Roam) applies to alla människor (or all people), not just citizens.
    - Tomte 8y ago
      Right. It's mentioned in every tourist guide I've seen about Sweden, and it is drawing outdoor types to the country. Smart move. :-)
  - DuskStar 8y ago
    So, in other words, Germany provides different rights for citizens and non-citizens. Which is what the GP was saying. Not having basic protections for non-citizens would be rather worrying, but let's not act like the mere existence of a difference is worth freaking out about. EDIT: To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Justice Thomas's concurrence not providing these protections to non-citizens would be a good thing. I'm just saying that 'non-citizens should have the same rights as citizens' isn't a position held by any country on the planet.
    - sjjshvuiajhz 8y ago
      In the context of this particular case, it sounds like the ruling by the majority protects non-citizens from having their property taken by the police, while Justice Thomas’s concurrence would not. In my opinion, not having your property taken unfairly by the police is more of a basic right everyone should enjoy, rather than a special right afforded to citizens like voting.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  > No country on Earth affords equal rights to citizens and non-citizens. That's fine, but affording no rights to non-citizens would be highly problematic. Some argue the Constitution doesn't protect the rights of illegal immigrants, for example, but it makes clear distinctions by using "persons" in some spots and "citizens" in others. Persons have a right to due process. Citizens have a right to vote. The difference is very important.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    > That's fine, but affording no rights to non-citizens would be highly problematic. Which is why we have the status quo: the vast majority of rights enjoyed my U.S. citizens and residents are enjoyed by aliens, with some discretion.
  - gowld 8y ago
    The Constitution is really quite bad at making things clear. Arbitrary rhetorical flourishes became the turning points of precendential cases, because quill and parchment made it hard to express ideas clearly. The average ruling in a single minor case today is longer than the entire Constitution.
- Retra 8y ago
  Everyone should have basic protections, or "fundamental" rights. Those are things that exist as a matter of basic human decency. Nonbasic rights are more like privileges, and they can apply discriminately.
  - HillaryBriss 8y ago
    A relevant recent case: the 9th circuit allowed to stand a federal law that limits 2nd amendment rights for certain non citizens unlawfully present in the US: "... The panel affirmed a conviction for possessing a firearm while being an alien unlawfully in the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A)." http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/08/15-10492.pdf http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/08/15...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Aloha 8y ago
The basic protections do apply to both citizens and legal residents - the issue is, if convicted a non-citizen may have their right to abode removed, and be deported.
GeekyBear 8y ago
Quite recently, we have had two Presidents claim that non-citizens had no right to challenge their imprisonment by the United States (Bush in Gitmo and Obama on Bagram AFB in the Middle East) who ran smack into a Supreme Court that found their actions unconstitutional. The notion that Constitutional protections cannot apply to non-citizens is simply not true, even when applied to non-citizens being held by the US off of US soil.
- colmmacc 8y ago
  I understand this and I'm heartened that the Supreme Court majority continues to find that. I was getting at the distinction between what the majority ruled; that excessive fines are a breach of due process, which applies to all "persons", and the comment that Justice Thomas would have preferred to arrive at the 'same outcome' on the basis that it was a breach of the 'privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’. My point is that those are different outcomes, not the same; one protects me - a person in the US who is not a US citizen - and the other does not. The difference is also a furtherance of a generally authoritarian idea that non-US-citizens should have not equal protection under the law.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Speaking as another non-citizen, you should be concerned that something as important as protection of rights of non-citizens, hinges in its entirety on a very convoluted and non-obvious reading of the Due Process Clause of 14A.
- vinceguidry 8y ago
  In the case of non-citizens being held outside of any US jurisdiction, what court has standing to rule? Where would I file a case if I had one? This reminds me a bit of the Roman concept of the pomerium. Anything outside of the arbitrary line deciding what was Rome and what wasn't, was "anything goes."
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    Nobody. But US military facilities are considered US soil and thus US jurisdiction. In the SCOTUS rulings on Guantanamo, SCOTUS went further and stated that they would have ruled the same way if it had been a CIA facility instead of a military facility, so long as Cuba had granted the CIA permission to exclusively use the land for its own purposes.
eco 8y ago
The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause ("nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") means aliens are afforded the same protections as citizens.
- newen 8y ago
  >aliens I really hate that usage of the word.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  No, it means that states must have a pretty good reason for treating aliens differently, but the fact that an act which would otherwise be within their power is federally prohibited when targeting citizens but not aliens—the outcome of a Privileges and Immunities basis for incorporation rather than the more historically common Due Process one—may itself be sufficient to allow a distinction. I mean, your basic argument is that Thomas is just pointlessly making semantic disagreements with the majority that would have no effect on this or any other conceivable case because either basis for incorporation produces exactly the same result not only on the present case but all possible cases. While I have a low opinion of Thomas, it's not quite that low.
- novacole 8y ago
  This reads to me as a way for the authors of the amendment to narrow any potential loopholes in the protection of the newly freed slaves at the time. All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. However, this says nothing about whether or not you are a citizen of the particular state you were born in. So potentially, a state could deny equal protection under the law (protections under state law or infringe upon federally protected rights) if this clause mentioned "citizens", rather than "persons". "Citizen" could be misinterpreted or (mal-interpreted) to mean citizen of the state in question. Additionally, it could apply to a non citizen resident/visitor of a state. If I am a citizen of Pennsylvania and am I work in New York, New York must provide me with the same protections under the law as they would provide a citizen of New York. The 14th amendment did not have immigrant aliens in mind but rather was narrowly focused on newly freed slaves who were before it ratification citizens of no place at all. So when we speak of "aliens", we must keep in mind that while it applied to "aliens" today, it was not meant to protect the rights of foreign "aliens" in particular.
kevin_b_er 8y ago
Indeed. If they can successfully rebind the Bill of Rights as applied to states based on P&I instead of the due process clause, the Bill of Rights may evaporate for non-citizen immigrants. A state(i.e. Republican ones) may then pass discriminatory laws for which the Bill of Rights no longer applies against.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  > may then pass discriminatory laws for which the Bill of Rights no longer applies against. Cannot they already do this to some limited extent (and perhaps are even required to do so)? For example, laws concerning voting.

saas_sam 8y ago

No country on Earth affords equal rights to citizens and non-citizens. If this "terrifies" you, I encourage you to reflect on your fears and whether some of them may be disproportionate to reality.

wool_gather 8y ago
Parent said "protections" and referred to "due process", not the broader topic of "rights". So, yes, non-citizens don't, e.g., get to vote. On the other hand, if they get arrested, the same standards of evidence apply as for a citizen.
Tomte 8y ago
Germany provides many Basic Rights to everybody. Others are only for citizens (and EU citizens, but via a strange legal method), but the most fundamental ones state "Everyone", not "every citizen".
- renholder 8y ago
  Same with Sweden. For example, Allemansrätten (Freedom to Roam) applies to alla människor (or all people), not just citizens.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    Right. It's mentioned in every tourist guide I've seen about Sweden, and it is drawing outdoor types to the country. Smart move. :-)
- DuskStar 8y ago
  So, in other words, Germany provides different rights for citizens and non-citizens. Which is what the GP was saying. Not having basic protections for non-citizens would be rather worrying, but let's not act like the mere existence of a difference is worth freaking out about. EDIT: To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Justice Thomas's concurrence not providing these protections to non-citizens would be a good thing. I'm just saying that 'non-citizens should have the same rights as citizens' isn't a position held by any country on the planet.
  - sjjshvuiajhz 8y ago
    In the context of this particular case, it sounds like the ruling by the majority protects non-citizens from having their property taken by the police, while Justice Thomas’s concurrence would not. In my opinion, not having your property taken unfairly by the police is more of a basic right everyone should enjoy, rather than a special right afforded to citizens like voting.
ceejayoz 8y ago
> No country on Earth affords equal rights to citizens and non-citizens. That's fine, but affording no rights to non-citizens would be highly problematic. Some argue the Constitution doesn't protect the rights of illegal immigrants, for example, but it makes clear distinctions by using "persons" in some spots and "citizens" in others. Persons have a right to due process. Citizens have a right to vote. The difference is very important.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > That's fine, but affording no rights to non-citizens would be highly problematic. Which is why we have the status quo: the vast majority of rights enjoyed my U.S. citizens and residents are enjoyed by aliens, with some discretion.
- gowld 8y ago
  The Constitution is really quite bad at making things clear. Arbitrary rhetorical flourishes became the turning points of precendential cases, because quill and parchment made it hard to express ideas clearly. The average ruling in a single minor case today is longer than the entire Constitution.
Retra 8y ago
Everyone should have basic protections, or "fundamental" rights. Those are things that exist as a matter of basic human decency. Nonbasic rights are more like privileges, and they can apply discriminately.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  A relevant recent case: the 9th circuit allowed to stand a federal law that limits 2nd amendment rights for certain non citizens unlawfully present in the US: "... The panel affirmed a conviction for possessing a firearm while being an alien unlawfully in the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A)." http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/08/15-10492.pdf http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/08/15...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Aloha 8y ago

The basic protections do apply to both citizens and legal residents - the issue is, if convicted a non-citizen may have their right to abode removed, and be deported.

GeekyBear 8y ago

Quite recently, we have had two Presidents claim that non-citizens had no right to challenge their imprisonment by the United States (Bush in Gitmo and Obama on Bagram AFB in the Middle East) who ran smack into a Supreme Court that found their actions unconstitutional. The notion that Constitutional protections cannot apply to non-citizens is simply not true, even when applied to non-citizens being held by the US off of US soil.

colmmacc 8y ago
I understand this and I'm heartened that the Supreme Court majority continues to find that. I was getting at the distinction between what the majority ruled; that excessive fines are a breach of due process, which applies to all "persons", and the comment that Justice Thomas would have preferred to arrive at the 'same outcome' on the basis that it was a breach of the 'privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’. My point is that those are different outcomes, not the same; one protects me - a person in the US who is not a US citizen - and the other does not. The difference is also a furtherance of a generally authoritarian idea that non-US-citizens should have not equal protection under the law.
- int_19h 8y ago
  Speaking as another non-citizen, you should be concerned that something as important as protection of rights of non-citizens, hinges in its entirety on a very convoluted and non-obvious reading of the Due Process Clause of 14A.
vinceguidry 8y ago
In the case of non-citizens being held outside of any US jurisdiction, what court has standing to rule? Where would I file a case if I had one? This reminds me a bit of the Roman concept of the pomerium. Anything outside of the arbitrary line deciding what was Rome and what wasn't, was "anything goes."
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Nobody. But US military facilities are considered US soil and thus US jurisdiction. In the SCOTUS rulings on Guantanamo, SCOTUS went further and stated that they would have ruled the same way if it had been a CIA facility instead of a military facility, so long as Cuba had granted the CIA permission to exclusively use the land for its own purposes.

eco 8y ago

The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause ("nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") means aliens are afforded the same protections as citizens.

newen 8y ago
>aliens I really hate that usage of the word.
dragonwriter 8y ago
No, it means that states must have a pretty good reason for treating aliens differently, but the fact that an act which would otherwise be within their power is federally prohibited when targeting citizens but not aliens—the outcome of a Privileges and Immunities basis for incorporation rather than the more historically common Due Process one—may itself be sufficient to allow a distinction. I mean, your basic argument is that Thomas is just pointlessly making semantic disagreements with the majority that would have no effect on this or any other conceivable case because either basis for incorporation produces exactly the same result not only on the present case but all possible cases. While I have a low opinion of Thomas, it's not quite that low.
novacole 8y ago
This reads to me as a way for the authors of the amendment to narrow any potential loopholes in the protection of the newly freed slaves at the time. All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. However, this says nothing about whether or not you are a citizen of the particular state you were born in. So potentially, a state could deny equal protection under the law (protections under state law or infringe upon federally protected rights) if this clause mentioned "citizens", rather than "persons". "Citizen" could be misinterpreted or (mal-interpreted) to mean citizen of the state in question. Additionally, it could apply to a non citizen resident/visitor of a state. If I am a citizen of Pennsylvania and am I work in New York, New York must provide me with the same protections under the law as they would provide a citizen of New York. The 14th amendment did not have immigrant aliens in mind but rather was narrowly focused on newly freed slaves who were before it ratification citizens of no place at all. So when we speak of "aliens", we must keep in mind that while it applied to "aliens" today, it was not meant to protect the rights of foreign "aliens" in particular.

kevin_b_er 8y ago

Indeed. If they can successfully rebind the Bill of Rights as applied to states based on P&I instead of the due process clause, the Bill of Rights may evaporate for non-citizen immigrants. A state(i.e. Republican ones) may then pass discriminatory laws for which the Bill of Rights no longer applies against.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
> may then pass discriminatory laws for which the Bill of Rights no longer applies against. Cannot they already do this to some limited extent (and perhaps are even required to do so)? For example, laws concerning voting.