4 ms·

> lots of exceptions to typical protections for citizens afforded by the constitution Almost the entire US constitution applies to non-citizens in the country,

by dmix 1y ago

> lots of exceptions to typical protections for citizens afforded by the constitution Almost the entire US constitution applies to non-citizens in the country, with some small exceptions like voting and holding public office.

phkahler 1y ago
Since medicade wasn't established by the constitution, how do resident aliens get coverage? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I'd like to know.
- wombatpm 1y ago
  If you want to go back to people dying in the streets because they are poor I guess that’s OK. But at some point it affects the health of everyone.
- aceazzameen 1y ago
  They also pay US taxes. They should benefit from those taxes like everyone else.
  - phkahler 1y ago
    Some do.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      If we're talking about federal Medicaid, no, they don't. That's citizens only. Some states like California extend the benefits of medicaid - but that's done with state funds. That's a states rights issue, not a federal issue.
TimorousBestie 1y ago
You’re technically correct, but in the last few decades a great deal of legal scholarship has gone into convincing the relevant parties that this isn’t so.
- cogman10 1y ago
  All that matters is what the supreme court believes that the constitution and laws mean. It's true that if you applied prior judicial standards that its crystal clear the constitution and bill of rights extend beyond just protecting citizens. Same for the law. However, with a lot of the recent rulings it seems that now "might makes right" and "if the president does it, it's not illegal". Both the judicial and legislative bodies have ceded nearly all their power to the executive. We're in for a bumpy ride.
  - dmix 1y ago
    This started following 9/11 and every administration since has pushed hard for growing executive power. I agree it's sad the supreme court can be battered to slowly whittle down some fundamental ideas America was founded on.
    - cogman10 1y ago
      9/11 super-charged it, but the project of putting all power in the presidency started with Nixon. "If the president does it, it's not illegal". Reagan ramped it up by pulling some similar moves to what Trump is doing. The Chevron doctrine came from Reagan admin running the EPA into the ground.
  - braebo 1y ago
    Close — All that matters is what Leonard Leo believes. That’s _his_ Supreme Court majority[1], and this is their happy ending — five of those justices were educated in his Federalist Society pipeline, vetted and selected through networks hand‑built by Leo… riding the Trump wave to judicial and political dominance, despite the turbulence[2] [1] https://www.npr.org/2024/11/24/nx-s1-5199049/federalist-society-conservative-supreme-court https://www.npr.org/2024/11/24/nx-s1-5199049/federalist-soci... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/30/trump-federalist-society-leonard-leo-maga-00378303 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/30/trump-federalist-so...
- adrr 1y ago
  Its very dangerous when it doesn't. Saying due process only applies to citizens, government can just label anyone they don't like a noncitizen and with no due process, those people will never be able to challenge it.
ItCouldBeWorse 1y ago
Turns out the law is just two in the ink, one in the pinky finger in the air "I swear!". But in the end, the law is in people, the society is in people, not in paper, not in officials, not in institutions. If the people carry something and change their minds and moods, have fun holding back that energy with a creaking dam made of paper. Even this Ice nightmare, was voted in democratic and will be one day, when the mood has swung again, pushed back by the people in some colorful revolution.
avgDev 1y ago
On paper, but the average citizen and current admin disagree. The check & balances also don't seem to work.
- lsidllljjjj 1y ago
  I'm an average citizen and I believe non-citizens have rights. And so do most of the people I know. So if you believe that, then recognize that that's just the consensus in your clique.
  - avgDev 1y ago
    Average citizens are not on this platform. Average citizens are commenting on YT and FB. Most citizens are average and I don't see mass strikes while things are getting stripped away.
    - freetinker 1y ago
      This.
xdennis 1y ago
There are some differences for illegal immigrants, though. For example they don't have the right to due process under expedited removal (passed by Bill Clinton in 1996).
- empath75 1y ago
  This is a little misleading. Under Clinton, they could basically just turn them around at a port of entry. Eventually (2004) this was expanded to people within 100 miles of a border within 2 weeks of entering the country, and then in 2020 they _dramatically_ expanded this to people anyone who has been here for less than 2 years, and that has not been tested in court, really. This is sort of a classic example of a slippery slope, FWIW. As soon as you deny anybody due process, the category of people that applies to will just constantly expand. Now, there's basically nothing stopping immigration officials from immediately deporting anybody they want, citizen, non-citizen, illegal or legal immigrant.
  - jahewson 1y ago
    > Now, there's basically nothing stopping immigration officials from immediately deporting anybody they want, citizen, non-citizen, illegal or legal immigrant. What nonsense. We have the courts. There must be a valid determination made that a person entered illegally for expedited deportation to apply. Due process applies to that determination - if it is not made correctly then sue. But more importantly why on earth would it not be made correctly? If you can’t prove that you’re a US citizen then something is very wrong.
    - friendlyasparag 1y ago
      It’s tricky to argue it in court if you have already been deported to a prison in a foreign country.
    - BoiledCabbage 1y ago
      > There must be a valid determination made that a person entered illegally for expedited deportation to apply. Are you arguing about the way it should be or making a statement about the way things currently are?
skybrian 1y ago
Does anything other than due process rights help for people facing deportation?
- nonethewiser 1y ago
  Im confused. What else could there possibly be than due process? Force?
  - skybrian 1y ago
    I meant, what other rights might be relevant in that situation?
- know-how 1y ago
  [dead]
- cogman10 1y ago
  "Due process" is the most important right for everyone. It's what determines if someone should even be deported in the first place. Without it, the executive gets to just say "that person shouldn't be here" and they can send them wherever the whims of the government are in the day. Due process is how someone says "Hey government, you've made a mistake". It isn't just due process. It's "I'm a US citizen, you can't legally deport me" Due process is what enables making that argument at all.
  - skybrian 1y ago
    Certainly it’s important! But I’m wondering what other constitutional rights might prevent deportations. It seems like for non-citizens, due process alone will often be just a delaying action?
    - cogman10 1y ago
      The 4th, the 8th, and the 9th amendments I'd say all should be applied in deportation actions. 4th because of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" A warrantless search and seizure seems to be pretty unconstitutional. (See: ICE rolling up to farms and home depots and arresting everyone brown there) The 8th > nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. It seems both cruel and unusual to imprison people in concentration camps without enough food or water. It further seems pretty cruel to send people to countries not of origin known to torture. (See SECOT and Alligator Alcatraz) The 9th > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This amendment is rarely applied which is a shame. It is the amendment that grants rights not listed by the constitution. It's what justifies the existence of human rights. It should not be controversial, but it seems like people should have the right to not be victims of genocide. Which is what mass deportation based on race ultimately is. (Homan is pretty open about race being the primary tool used to determine who's here illegally) But beyond that, laid out in law is how deportation should function. That's where the actual process is laid out and that's what the executive is trying to avoid by rushing deportations.
_DeadFred_ 1y ago
Doesn't the fact that they class immigration violations as civil not criminal changes quite a bit what actions the government is restricted by/constitutional protections?

by dmix 1y ago

phkahler 1y ago

Since medicade wasn't established by the constitution, how do resident aliens get coverage? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I'd like to know.

wombatpm 1y ago
If you want to go back to people dying in the streets because they are poor I guess that’s OK. But at some point it affects the health of everyone.
aceazzameen 1y ago
They also pay US taxes. They should benefit from those taxes like everyone else.
- phkahler 1y ago
  Some do.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    If we're talking about federal Medicaid, no, they don't. That's citizens only. Some states like California extend the benefits of medicaid - but that's done with state funds. That's a states rights issue, not a federal issue.

TimorousBestie 1y ago

You’re technically correct, but in the last few decades a great deal of legal scholarship has gone into convincing the relevant parties that this isn’t so.

cogman10 1y ago
All that matters is what the supreme court believes that the constitution and laws mean. It's true that if you applied prior judicial standards that its crystal clear the constitution and bill of rights extend beyond just protecting citizens. Same for the law. However, with a lot of the recent rulings it seems that now "might makes right" and "if the president does it, it's not illegal". Both the judicial and legislative bodies have ceded nearly all their power to the executive. We're in for a bumpy ride.
- dmix 1y ago
  This started following 9/11 and every administration since has pushed hard for growing executive power. I agree it's sad the supreme court can be battered to slowly whittle down some fundamental ideas America was founded on.
  - cogman10 1y ago
    9/11 super-charged it, but the project of putting all power in the presidency started with Nixon. "If the president does it, it's not illegal". Reagan ramped it up by pulling some similar moves to what Trump is doing. The Chevron doctrine came from Reagan admin running the EPA into the ground.
- braebo 1y ago
  Close — All that matters is what Leonard Leo believes. That’s _his_ Supreme Court majority[1], and this is their happy ending — five of those justices were educated in his Federalist Society pipeline, vetted and selected through networks hand‑built by Leo… riding the Trump wave to judicial and political dominance, despite the turbulence[2] [1] https://www.npr.org/2024/11/24/nx-s1-5199049/federalist-society-conservative-supreme-court https://www.npr.org/2024/11/24/nx-s1-5199049/federalist-soci... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/30/trump-federalist-society-leonard-leo-maga-00378303 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/30/trump-federalist-so...
adrr 1y ago
Its very dangerous when it doesn't. Saying due process only applies to citizens, government can just label anyone they don't like a noncitizen and with no due process, those people will never be able to challenge it.

ItCouldBeWorse 1y ago

Turns out the law is just two in the ink, one in the pinky finger in the air "I swear!". But in the end, the law is in people, the society is in people, not in paper, not in officials, not in institutions. If the people carry something and change their minds and moods, have fun holding back that energy with a creaking dam made of paper. Even this Ice nightmare, was voted in democratic and will be one day, when the mood has swung again, pushed back by the people in some colorful revolution.

avgDev 1y ago

On paper, but the average citizen and current admin disagree. The check & balances also don't seem to work.

lsidllljjjj 1y ago
I'm an average citizen and I believe non-citizens have rights. And so do most of the people I know. So if you believe that, then recognize that that's just the consensus in your clique.
- avgDev 1y ago
  Average citizens are not on this platform. Average citizens are commenting on YT and FB. Most citizens are average and I don't see mass strikes while things are getting stripped away.
  - freetinker 1y ago
    This.

xdennis 1y ago

There are some differences for illegal immigrants, though. For example they don't have the right to due process under expedited removal (passed by Bill Clinton in 1996).

empath75 1y ago
This is a little misleading. Under Clinton, they could basically just turn them around at a port of entry. Eventually (2004) this was expanded to people within 100 miles of a border within 2 weeks of entering the country, and then in 2020 they _dramatically_ expanded this to people anyone who has been here for less than 2 years, and that has not been tested in court, really. This is sort of a classic example of a slippery slope, FWIW. As soon as you deny anybody due process, the category of people that applies to will just constantly expand. Now, there's basically nothing stopping immigration officials from immediately deporting anybody they want, citizen, non-citizen, illegal or legal immigrant.
- jahewson 1y ago
  > Now, there's basically nothing stopping immigration officials from immediately deporting anybody they want, citizen, non-citizen, illegal or legal immigrant. What nonsense. We have the courts. There must be a valid determination made that a person entered illegally for expedited deportation to apply. Due process applies to that determination - if it is not made correctly then sue. But more importantly why on earth would it not be made correctly? If you can’t prove that you’re a US citizen then something is very wrong.
  - friendlyasparag 1y ago
    It’s tricky to argue it in court if you have already been deported to a prison in a foreign country.
  - BoiledCabbage 1y ago
    > There must be a valid determination made that a person entered illegally for expedited deportation to apply. Are you arguing about the way it should be or making a statement about the way things currently are?

skybrian 1y ago

Does anything other than due process rights help for people facing deportation?

nonethewiser 1y ago
Im confused. What else could there possibly be than due process? Force?
- skybrian 1y ago
  I meant, what other rights might be relevant in that situation?
know-how 1y ago
[dead]
cogman10 1y ago
"Due process" is the most important right for everyone. It's what determines if someone should even be deported in the first place. Without it, the executive gets to just say "that person shouldn't be here" and they can send them wherever the whims of the government are in the day. Due process is how someone says "Hey government, you've made a mistake". It isn't just due process. It's "I'm a US citizen, you can't legally deport me" Due process is what enables making that argument at all.
- skybrian 1y ago
  Certainly it’s important! But I’m wondering what other constitutional rights might prevent deportations. It seems like for non-citizens, due process alone will often be just a delaying action?
  - cogman10 1y ago
    The 4th, the 8th, and the 9th amendments I'd say all should be applied in deportation actions. 4th because of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" A warrantless search and seizure seems to be pretty unconstitutional. (See: ICE rolling up to farms and home depots and arresting everyone brown there) The 8th > nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. It seems both cruel and unusual to imprison people in concentration camps without enough food or water. It further seems pretty cruel to send people to countries not of origin known to torture. (See SECOT and Alligator Alcatraz) The 9th > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This amendment is rarely applied which is a shame. It is the amendment that grants rights not listed by the constitution. It's what justifies the existence of human rights. It should not be controversial, but it seems like people should have the right to not be victims of genocide. Which is what mass deportation based on race ultimately is. (Homan is pretty open about race being the primary tool used to determine who's here illegally) But beyond that, laid out in law is how deportation should function. That's where the actual process is laid out and that's what the executive is trying to avoid by rushing deportations.

_DeadFred_ 1y ago

Doesn't the fact that they class immigration violations as civil not criminal changes quite a bit what actions the government is restricted by/constitutional protections?