4 ms·

The thesis is that immigrants have no constitutional rights because they aren't citizens, or the stronger form, that they are invaders and thus enemy combatants

The thesis is that immigrants have no constitutional rights because they aren't citizens, or the stronger form, that they are invaders and thus enemy combatants. The Supreme Court is going to have to clarify the existence or non-existence of constitutional rights for people living here unlawfully. And then the populace is going to have to make sure that the president doesn't conclude that he can ignore that ruling if he doesn't like it.

Aeolun 2y ago
On that basis tourists have no constitutional rights either. I find it hard to believe anyone would want to visit the US now, but surely that has an even further chilling effect.
- sanderjd 2y ago
  To be clear, I agree. It's a dangerous thesis, but also just idiotic. They're doing a speed run of turning the US into North Korea, where nobody will want to travel here or trade with us.
- axus 2y ago
  Axios was keeping a list, but I guess there's too many to keep track recently: https://www.axios.com/2025/03/20/tourists-us-residents-detained-arrested-deported-ice-immigration-trump https://www.axios.com/2025/03/20/tourists-us-residents-detai...
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
Is that a serious thesis anyone serious is entertaining ? Would that mean that you can defraud or kill a tourist with no consequences?
- const_cast 2y ago
  It's serious in that it's the primary reasoning the Trump administration is using for the lack of due process.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/23/464129029/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-i-wouldnt-lose-any-voters https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/23/464129029... :)
- sanderjd 2y ago
  I mean I don't know if you consider the president of the United States "serious" (I certainly don't), but this is clearly his thesis.
zzrrt 2y ago
> The Supreme Court is going to have to clarify the existence or non-existence of constitutional rights for people living here unlawfully. I'm not a lawyer, but... they already have for decades or centuries, and not in the direction that MAGA wants. > “Yes, without question,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. “Most of the provisions of the Constitution apply on the basis of personhood and jurisdiction in the United States.” > Many parts of the Constitution use the term “people” or “person” rather than “citizen.” Rodriguez said those laws apply to everyone physically on U.S. soil, whether or not they are a citizen. [...] > In the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” Granted, only that last one is actually the Supreme Court. Perhaps there are hundreds of Supreme Court cases testing individual pieces of the constitution, but as the professor said, for the most part they give all the same rights. MAGA has managed to make everyone doubt and argue over it. The party of "Constitution-lovers" flagrantly violating both the plain wording and decades of legal rulings on the Constitution. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-rights-do-undocumented-immigrants-have https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-ri...
- sanderjd 2y ago
  Yeah I don't doubt any of this myself. But the Court is still going to have to rule on it. Which isn't so weird. The Court has to reiterate rulings sometimes. The thing that is unusual is that I have some genuine uncertainty around whether the current Justices will try to give the executive more leeway here than they should, as "compliance in advance" out of concern about their rulings being ignored by this administration.
kallistisoft 1y ago
> The thesis is that immigrants have no constitutional rights because they aren't citizens... The constitution is quite clear on this issue and it has been affirmed repeatedly over the last 100+ years by the high courts. Anyone and everyone in the world who is on US soil and subject to US jurisdiction is considered a "US Person". This status is regardless of their nationality/nation of origin, the manner by which they arrived on US soil, or any other circumstance. As a 'US Person' they are protected by the US Constitution with only minimal exceptions; the right to bear arms[1], ability to run for public office, or vote in federal elections[2] This is by intent and design and is a necessary cornerstone of US democracy! This is laid out in - Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 "Aliens in the United States" https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8... > The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as persons guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Thus, the Court determined, even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection [1] Only citizens and permanent residents are allowed unrestricted access to firearms. [2] Some districts allow pr visa holders to vote in local and state elections
- sanderjd 1y ago
  You're preaching to the choir! Despite this history, the Court is still going to have to reiterate this.

Aeolun 2y ago

On that basis tourists have no constitutional rights either. I find it hard to believe anyone would want to visit the US now, but surely that has an even further chilling effect.

sanderjd 2y ago
To be clear, I agree. It's a dangerous thesis, but also just idiotic. They're doing a speed run of turning the US into North Korea, where nobody will want to travel here or trade with us.
axus 2y ago
Axios was keeping a list, but I guess there's too many to keep track recently: https://www.axios.com/2025/03/20/tourists-us-residents-detained-arrested-deported-ice-immigration-trump https://www.axios.com/2025/03/20/tourists-us-residents-detai...

ClumsyPilot 2y ago

Is that a serious thesis anyone serious is entertaining ? Would that mean that you can defraud or kill a tourist with no consequences?

const_cast 2y ago
It's serious in that it's the primary reasoning the Trump administration is using for the lack of due process.
bdangubic 2y ago
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/23/464129029/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-i-wouldnt-lose-any-voters https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/23/464129029... :)
sanderjd 2y ago
I mean I don't know if you consider the president of the United States "serious" (I certainly don't), but this is clearly his thesis.

zzrrt 2y ago

> The Supreme Court is going to have to clarify the existence or non-existence of constitutional rights for people living here unlawfully. I'm not a lawyer, but... they already have for decades or centuries, and not in the direction that MAGA wants. > “Yes, without question,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. “Most of the provisions of the Constitution apply on the basis of personhood and jurisdiction in the United States.” > Many parts of the Constitution use the term “people” or “person” rather than “citizen.” Rodriguez said those laws apply to everyone physically on U.S. soil, whether or not they are a citizen. [...] > In the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” Granted, only that last one is actually the Supreme Court. Perhaps there are hundreds of Supreme Court cases testing individual pieces of the constitution, but as the professor said, for the most part they give all the same rights. MAGA has managed to make everyone doubt and argue over it. The party of "Constitution-lovers" flagrantly violating both the plain wording and decades of legal rulings on the Constitution. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-rights-do-undocumented-immigrants-have https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-ri...

sanderjd 2y ago
Yeah I don't doubt any of this myself. But the Court is still going to have to rule on it. Which isn't so weird. The Court has to reiterate rulings sometimes. The thing that is unusual is that I have some genuine uncertainty around whether the current Justices will try to give the executive more leeway here than they should, as "compliance in advance" out of concern about their rulings being ignored by this administration.

kallistisoft 1y ago

> The thesis is that immigrants have no constitutional rights because they aren't citizens... The constitution is quite clear on this issue and it has been affirmed repeatedly over the last 100+ years by the high courts. Anyone and everyone in the world who is on US soil and subject to US jurisdiction is considered a "US Person". This status is regardless of their nationality/nation of origin, the manner by which they arrived on US soil, or any other circumstance. As a 'US Person' they are protected by the US Constitution with only minimal exceptions; the right to bear arms[1], ability to run for public office, or vote in federal elections[2] This is by intent and design and is a necessary cornerstone of US democracy! This is laid out in - Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 "Aliens in the United States" https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8... > The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as persons guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Thus, the Court determined, even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection [1] Only citizens and permanent residents are allowed unrestricted access to firearms. [2] Some districts allow pr visa holders to vote in local and state elections

sanderjd 1y ago
You're preaching to the choir! Despite this history, the Court is still going to have to reiterate this.