Trump: Illegals Being Entitled to Due Process an Open Question
“Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stated that people in the United States illegally “may or may not” be entitled to due process before being deported, and that while he doesn’t agree they are necessarily entitled to due process, it doesn’t mean he wouldn’t give them due process. He also said that while he supports medical marijuana, he’d have to see the health impacts of Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana are on Wednesday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor.”
Trump said, in response to host Bill O’Reilly arguing illegal immigrants would be entitled to due process before being deported, [relevant exchange begins around 2:30] “If they’re here illegally they may or they may not be [entitled to due process]. Just like the argument we had about the anchor babies. In my opinion, you don’t need –.”
After O’Reilly cut in to object, “I’m telling you all settled law says once you’re here, you are entitled to our constitutional protections, every single case.”
Trump countered, “I disagree. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do that.”
Read more here @ Breitbart.com
ICE: Illegal immigrants allowed due process
“Just like United States citizens, illegal immigrants have due process rights.
And so when illegal immigrants are taken into custody, they’re not always automatically deported to their home countries, according to a spokesman for Immigrations and Custom’s Enforcement, the federal agency charged with enforcing customs and immigration laws.
Mark Medvesky, of ICE’s Philadelphia headquarters, wasn’t familiar with the case of Ambrosio Perez-Vasquez, Hazleton, the illegal immigrant recently released from ICE custody and who this week posted bail on charges he was using a fake driver’s license and Social Security number when he was stopped by Beaver Meadows police in July.
But Medvesky explained why an illegal immigrant might be released. Immigration law, specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act, allows illegal immigrants the right to due process, he said.
“There are certain processes and evaluations that happen” because of the law, Medvesky explained.
Most individuals charged by ICE with being in the United States illegally are issued a “charging document,” and then have the right to a removal proceeding before an immigration judge, he said.”
– It’s rather interesting and more complex than one would think. Read more @ Standardspeaker.com
Illegal Aliens entitled to Legal Law Review:
Calcano-Martinez v. INS, INS v. St. Cyr
In the final week of its 2001 term, the United States Supreme Court handed down 5-4 rulings in a consolidated case that challenged provisions of the 1996 immigration law reforms. In Calcano-Martinez v. INS and INS v. St. Cyr, the Court reaffirmed the right of noncitizens to seek federal court review of legal interpretations made in deportation cases, and eliminated the ability of the INS to subject many legal residents to “mandatory” deportation for old criminal offenses.”
More here @ Civilrights.org
Great Site for Constitutional Pro and Con
Should Immigrants in the United States Illegally Have Constitutional Rights and Protections When on American Soil?
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in a section entitled “Immigrants’ Rights” on its website (accessed Mar. 6, 2007), offered the following:
In Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision written by Justice J. Stewart, held:
Gerald L. Neuman, JD, PhD, Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School, in his 1996 book entitled Strangers to the Constitution: Immigrants, Borders, and Fundamental Law, wrote the following:
Richard B. Freeman, PhD, Herbert Ascherman Chair in Economics at Harvard University, in an Oct./Nov. 1998Boston Review essay entitled “Let the People Decide. A response to ‘The Immigrant as Pariah’ by Owen Fiss,” stated:
Myron Weiner, PhD, late Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an Oct./Nov. 1998 Boston Review essay entitled “Messy Realities,” made the following remarks:
The University of South Alabama, in a Jan. 31, 2006 enrollment services website section entitled “Constitutional Rights of International Students and Scholars,” stated:
Read more @ immigration.procon.org
United States Supreme Court
PLYLER v. DOE, (1982)
– Burger’s Dissent
“Were it our business to set the Nation’s social policy, I would agree without hesitation that it is senseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children — including illegal aliens — of an elementary education. I fully agree that it would be folly — and wrong — to tolerate creation of a segment of society made up of illiterate persons, many having a limited or no command of our language. However, the Constitution does not constitute us as “Platonic Guardians,” nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, “wisdom,” or “common sense.” See TVA v. Hill,437 U.S. 153, 194-195 (1978). We trespass on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role as the Court does today….
In a sense, the Court’s opinion rests on such a unique confluence of theories and rationales that it will likely stand for little beyond the results in these particular cases. Yet the extent to which the Court departs from principled constitutional adjudication is nonetheless disturbing.
I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmentapplies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state. However, as the Court concedes, this “only begins the inquiry.” Ante at 215. The Equal Protection Clause does not mandate identical treatment of different categories of persons.Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535, 549 (1972); Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 75 (1971); Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147-148 (1940).
The dispositive issue in these cases, simply put, is whether, for purposes of allocating its finite resources, a state has a legitimate reason to differentiate between persons who are lawfully within the state and those who are unlawfully there.”
Read the entire Plyler v. Doe Supreme Court 5-4 Decision here @ FindLaw.com