2 ms·

> there's nothing to bar the state from enacting a law that discriminates against foreign citizens There are, namely constitutional rights. What you said only

> there's nothing to bar the state from enacting a law that discriminates against foreign citizens There are, namely constitutional rights. What you said only applies to citizenry doesn't only apply to citizenry. You really should read the pdf. Another snippet: > the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens." For more than a century, the Court has recognized that the Equal Protection Clause is "universal in [its] application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of nationality." The Court has repeatedly stated that "the Due Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." When noncitizens, no matter what their status, are tried for crimes, they are entitled to all of the rights that attach to the criminal process, without any distinction based on their nationality. Maybe we could argue about people outside of the jurisdiction. But it's flat out a common misconception that most of these rights don't apply to non-citizens. When it says persons and people, it means persons and people.

bmelton 13y ago
That doesn't disagree with what I've said. I acknowledged your statement, and agreed with it here, > enforcement is barred from punishing anybody without their fifth amendment privileges of due process. Ambach v Norwick, for example, discriminates against foreigners from employment as teachers, despite the protections you believe exist. For what it's worth, I agree with how I think you're saying things ought to be, but in practice, we can and do enact discriminatory laws against those of certain alienage all the time, and it's rare that those claims in court enjoy strict scrutiny, which puts the standard of review in those protections up for debate. So while I agree on how things ought to be, that's a far cry from how they actually are which, to sum up, is to say that we routinely discriminate against aliens, illegal and legal alike, especially in matters of employment, all the time. This is why I brought up non-codified rights. Most rational people would agree that a "right to work" is in fact a civil right, but it exists nowhere in the Constitution. The Wagner act bears on this to an extent, but in short, it's clearly a right that all people capable of working should enjoy, despite it not having been codified in the Bill of Rights, which means that its interpretation, however obvious, will not enjoy strict scrutiny, and is not even necessarily going to enjoy intermediate scrutiny, by whatever courts happen to be tasked with its interpretation. Rational basis has, regrettably, upheld far too often in those regards, and is indeed the way of the land.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  Thanks for clearing that up for me :)
  - bmelton 13y ago
    No problem at all. Thanks for the discussion.

bmelton 13y ago

That doesn't disagree with what I've said. I acknowledged your statement, and agreed with it here, > enforcement is barred from punishing anybody without their fifth amendment privileges of due process. Ambach v Norwick, for example, discriminates against foreigners from employment as teachers, despite the protections you believe exist. For what it's worth, I agree with how I think you're saying things ought to be, but in practice, we can and do enact discriminatory laws against those of certain alienage all the time, and it's rare that those claims in court enjoy strict scrutiny, which puts the standard of review in those protections up for debate. So while I agree on how things ought to be, that's a far cry from how they actually are which, to sum up, is to say that we routinely discriminate against aliens, illegal and legal alike, especially in matters of employment, all the time. This is why I brought up non-codified rights. Most rational people would agree that a "right to work" is in fact a civil right, but it exists nowhere in the Constitution. The Wagner act bears on this to an extent, but in short, it's clearly a right that all people capable of working should enjoy, despite it not having been codified in the Bill of Rights, which means that its interpretation, however obvious, will not enjoy strict scrutiny, and is not even necessarily going to enjoy intermediate scrutiny, by whatever courts happen to be tasked with its interpretation. Rational basis has, regrettably, upheld far too often in those regards, and is indeed the way of the land.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
Thanks for clearing that up for me :)
- bmelton 13y ago
  No problem at all. Thanks for the discussion.