Illegal Aliens' Constitutional Rights?

Hint: They don't have any.

As the battle over illegal immigration continues, the supporters of illegal aliens are increasingly taking pages from the old civil rights protests of the 1960s.  In city after city, large marches have been staged of more-or-less normal-looking people, out demanding their "equal rights."  Off the streets in courtrooms, open-borders lawyers are using similar tactics in the legal arena: filing accusations of denying legal aid to illegal aliens, complaining about racial profiling used to discover and arrest illegals, and on down the line.  Indeed, advocacy groups are spreading the word to the illegal aliens themselves:

A skit at the rally reminded people what to do to protect their civil rights in the case of an immigration raid. Local advocates, members of the immigration rapid response team, have been organizing trainings to prepare immigrants on what to do when ICE arrives at the door.

It's hard to know exactly how to respond to this.  One doesn't wish to compare those who advocate illegal immigrants with Hitler, but it's impossible not to be reminded of his infamous Big Lie technique - that is to say, a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".

Yet, that is exactly the situation with which we find ourselves presented.  These marches, these demands, these lawsuits over the civil rights are entirely irrelevant, for one simple and fundamental reason:

Illegal immigrants HAVE NO CIVIL RIGHTS.

In fact, legal immigrants have no civil rights.

To argue that their civil rights are being denied is "sound and fury, signifying nothing."  It's like looking for a male patient in a maternity ward: by definition, there is no such thing, and can never be, no matter how loudly it's argued.

What Are Civil Rights?

As with so many issues these days, what appears to be impenetrable legal murk can be instantly cleared by a quick grab for the dictionary.  And sure enough, the dictionary doesn't disappoint.  According to Merriam-Webster, "civil rights" are:

The nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress.

Notice those ever-so-essential three words: of a citizen.  It's as plain as the nose on your face: by definition, civil rights are rights that you get when you are a citizen.  Illegal immigrants, by definition, are not citizens; therefore, by the inherent meaning of the words themselves, they cannot have civil rights!  They are flatly ineligible!

Black people who agitated for civil rights in the 1960s were citizens.  They were born in the United States, and raised in the United States.  They were not citizens of any other country.  They served in the military, worked legal jobs and paid taxes, and were citizens in every logical way.

But, simply on account of their skin color, they were in many places denied their full rights as the citizens they were: to ride on public transportation like anyone else, to eat in public restaurants like anyone else, to use public restrooms, water fountains, hotels, and so on down the line.  These are all aspects of personal liberty that should just exist in a free society; but for black people, they weren't.

It goes without saying that this was wrong, and the protesters had plenty to legitimately protest about.  It is to the credit of the American people that they took note of Jim Crow, recognized it for the injustice that it was, and made changes.  As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial,

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned.

Notice his words: " which every American was to fall heir."  Blacks in the United States were, are, and always have been Americans, and fully deserve the privileges and the civil rights which come with that status.

What Is An Alien?

Contrast this with the case of a foreigner - someone who is not an American citizen.  By definition, a foreign national holds allegiance to a different country.

There are many Germans, Chinese, Liberians, Indians, and people of every nation and continent living in the United States.  They may hold an affection for America; obviously they like it here well enough or they'd go home.  But their allegiance is to their home country.

This is a fairly elementary observation: you're naturally going to be loyal to your own land.  This isn't related to where you physically are at any given moment; American tourists abroad are no less loyal Americans for being in Madrid, Budapest, or Shanghai on a particular day, and vice versa.  Nor is it necessarily related to where you happened to be born, as we've discussed in the case of John McCain; in a very real sense, it's in your head, or your heart.

But it's also reflected on paper and through legal forms: if you are in some other country, then you normally need to have a passport from your home country to show who you are and where you belong.  You also need a visa or other paperwork from the country you're visiting to show that you have permission to be there.

That is the essential distinction: A citizen has a right to be in his home land.  Now, he may be incarcerated in a prison in his home land, or suffering some other sort of punishment; there could be many reasons why he'd rather not be home just at the moment.  But if a citizen wants to return to his own country, normally speaking, he has an absolute right to come home.

We rightly look askance at other countries that practice banishment, where a citizen is thrown out of the country and told that he cannot come home again, even under penalty of law; the Soviet Union made extensive use of this historically, and Pakistan has made quite a habit of it with their ex-leaders.  No free, modern country does this.

But nobody has a right to be in some other country.  In a world of fast air travel and the "visa-waiver" program, and especially as Americans who are welcome in most places, it's easy to forget this; but under international law, each nation has an absolute right to control who is allowed in.

We may deride North Korea as being the "Hermit Kingdom", but nobody questions the right of the North Korean government not to allow foreigners to visit.  It's a difficult task even for accredited diplomats to be granted entry; this is considered rude, no doubt, but it's not against any foreign treaties or even the customary law of nations.

There are many things that international law prohibits a country from doing to another nation's diplomats - you can't arrest them, for one thing, even if they have provably committed horrible crimes.  But you're always allowed to throw them out of the country, for any reason or none - and it happens often enough that some diplomats carry insurance against being declared persona non grata.

This is not to say that most countries make a habit of keeping people out.  It's long been recognized that trade and tourism are excellent for the economy, for education, and for a nation's image in the world.  Nobody has proposed that the United States should become like North Korea where nobody is allowed in or out; that would be absurd.  But once you recognize that foreigners are allowed into our country, not by right, but as a privilege, then it makes much more sense as to why they are not entitled to the same status as citizens.

Whose Home Is It, Anyway?

It sounds trite to say this, but our country is our home.  Most people don't live alone in their house, and we aren't alone in our country either.  People can be added to the family in many ways - by being born in the home; by being borne elsewhere to someone who lives in the home; or by being adopted.

Then, there are people who might be in the house, but don't belong there - that is, guests.  Some of them may stay just for dinner.  Others might come for a few weeks.  Sometimes there may be someone renting a room, who may stay for months.  But there's never any doubt as to who is part of the family and who is the guest.

As a homeowner, you always have the right to ask guests to leave; throwing out a member of the family is much more serious, and rightly frowned upon, just as we don't like countries that exile their own citizens.

Because we're a kindly and generous nation, we extend many privileges to our guests.  We provide a good bit of free education; recourse to welfare and a minimum of health care; and the natural benefits of our infrastructure, police, fire, and so on.

If Bill Gates invited you as a guest into his house, you'd be living a very nice life, with access to his masseusse, his on-call chef, 24-hour maid service, no doubt a great Internet connection, and surely an extremely cushy bed and plush bathroom.

But does that mean that you have the right to those things?  Of course not - because they do not belong to you.  They belong to Mr. Gates, his wife, and his children.  They're the only people who belong there.  At any time, Mr. Gates would have a perfect right to ask you to go home, please.

And that's an analogy to legal aliens - that is, people who have come to this country, following the rules.  How is it that anyone can even dream up such nonsense as rights, not merely for law-abiding foreigners, but for people who broke in?

If a burglar opened a window and sneaked into Bill Gates' mansion, it might take him a while to get caught - it's a really big place.  Suppose he dodged the guards for a while before finally getting bagged.  Does he now have the right to say, "I have been living here for a week, and I haven't broken anything; leave me alone!"  Of course not.

What Is A Right?

Our Founders, in writing their Declaration of Independence, said,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

But they continued on:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

A right is something that you are entitled to simply because of who or what you are.  Today, we talk of human rights, which every human being should be allowed to have - chief among these being the right to life.  And aliens, even illegal aliens, are still humans and have human rights.  It would be wrong for us to, say, shoot them on sight, or to torture them when they're caught.  Even though they have no right to be here, that doesn't make them less than human.

But there are a whole host of rights that apply specifically and only to citizens.  Voting is one of these.  Another is the right to an attorney.  Consider this news report:

Civil rights activists have accused U.S. immigration officials of denying legal aid to some of the 130 suspected undocumented workers caught during a raid by federal agents.

That makes about as much sense as complaining that the officials didn't give the arrestees keys to the Mercedes.  Sure, they didn't.  So what?  Why should illegals be entitled to that?  The right to counsel is not a human right, it is a civil right, available to all citizens, but only to citizens.

Setting The Terms And Terminology Of The Debate

In George Orwell's classic novel 1984, the totalitarian Party of the future controls every aspect of the lives of its citizens, including even the words they use.  The language of 1984 is called "Newspeak", and a major element of control is the constant revision and redefinition of words and even the removal of words from the very language.

The idea is, if people do not even have the words to think about rebellion, they'll have a hard time starting one.  Those who promote open borders are attempting very much the same thing.

The term "Civil Rights" has a very definite meaning - the privileges to which all citizens are entitled.  This meaning has held true for many years, and is core to American, and indeed to Western political thought.

But to promote their political cause, the left and their allies in the media are replacing that meaning with something more along the lines of "Something we think illegals should have."  They think that illegal aliens should have all the rights of citizens, regardless of their criminality and the offense of their simply being here; so, that becomes a "Civil Right."

They think the government should provide health care?  Suddenly, health care is a civil right - or even a human right.  Likewise with food, housing, water, a clean environment, and all manner of things that are mostly not rights at all.

But by allowing the words to be devalued, it becomes very difficult to wage a sensible debate.  It's time we stopped talking in terms of "rights" for foreigners - and especially for illegal aliens - and started using the correct word: privileges.

If we generously allow you, a foreigner, to be present in our country, that is a privilege; one which can be revoked at any time, and which carries with it a heavy load of obligations, not least of which is to respect our laws and learn our language.

Petrarch is a contributing editor for Scragged.  Read other articles by Petrarch or other articles on Immigration.
Reader Comments
I would think that the US Constitution a better source of what Civil Rights mean in this country than the Merriam-Webster dictionary, no? You know, it being the law of the land and all that. Let us have a look at a small piece then:
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1964, Sec. 201:
"(a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Hmm seems is says "all persons" and even specifically mentions discrimination due to "national origin"! That's some quality investigative work there Mr. Petrarch, keep it up.
March 18, 2008 2:38 PM
Kenny, the US Constitution was designed by and for US citizens. I cannot believe you actually think "all persons" refers to the entire planet, instead of all persons who are citizens. In the event, that you still try and force the point, notice your last sentence: due to "national origin". The word "origin" implies that you are no longer there. If the Constitution applied to other nations, why then would it use "origin" and not just say "without discrimination on the ground of NATION"? Don't be absurd.
March 18, 2008 2:51 PM
Oh, it gets better... Kenny is citing the Civil Rights ACT of 1964. Act? Yeah, that would be a law... not a part of the Constitution at all. Go fig. Yes, I agree that the Constitution would be a better source to find Civil Rights. Take a look at, eh, the actual Constitution then.
March 18, 2008 3:07 PM
Good point, Kenny!
March 18, 2008 4:12 PM
No... BAD point, Kenny. I'm not sure if Karl is being sarcastic, but you guys are nuts if you think that that is valid in any way.

I didn't even pick up on the REAL issue which is that he's quoting the Civil Right's Act for goodness sake. That isn't the Consitution at all! Sheesh....
March 18, 2008 5:09 PM
twibi, First of all, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, there was no such thing as a US citizen! That was not defined for the first time until years later by the Naturalization Act of 1790 to include "free white persons." So are only white people citizens? I think that "all persons" is as clear as one can be if one wants to say "all people, everyone" - you'll have to point to something specific that would dictate your much more conservative interpretation of that phrase.

Yes, you're right, that was a mistake on my part. My point still stands, however.
March 18, 2008 5:42 PM
The "free white persons" point is a red herring; that was quite thoroughly addressed by the 14th and 15th Amendments. Concerning the definition of a citizen, you'll find it in the 14th Amendment, as follows:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Note the caveats. Petrarch previously wrote an article discussing the history of this amendment, the debate surrounding it, and its meaning as understood by the Congress who passed it and the courts of that time.

Take a look, you may find it enlightening.
March 18, 2008 6:23 PM
Kenny, you're using history wildly out of context.

The Naturalization Act of 1790s and all the Naturalization Acts that followed and superseeded it were about NATURALIZATION (sort of like the name implies). In case you don't have a dictionary handy, naturalization is the process whereby you grant citizenship upon someone who does NOT already have it. The Act of 1790s did not establish citizenship; it established the rules for GRANTING citizenship to those who aren't citizens.

As for those who are (and were before 1790) American citizens, they were granted that citizenship through their birthright. Even though we did not officially establish it until the 1800s, it was based originally off of English Common law. If you read texts by the founders (or others like William Blackstone) you can see what their intentions were from the beginning.

Claiming "Naturalization Acts after the Constitution" is traditional with pro-illegal immigration people because it provides some shred of legal whiggle room where there never was any.
March 18, 2008 7:49 PM
Aliens, whether present legally or illegally, are entitled to some civil rights. If the government wants to deport an alien for entering illegally or prosecute for violating 8 U.S.C. 1325 (first illegal entry a federal misdemeanor, subsequent ones a federal felony), the government must prove its case and anyone, even an illegal alien, is entitled to contest the government's claim. If an illegal alien owns property the government wants to take for a public use, the alien is entitled to compensation. These are civil rights all enjoy, legal or illegal. Where the illegal alien advocates go wrong is when they try to label as a civil right an illegal entry or remaining after a visa expired. A civil right must be consistent with the law not in violation of it.
March 19, 2008 9:31 AM
No, William, that's a misunderstanding of civil rights.

It is true that aliens, legal or illegal, do have rights - just not CIVIL ones. They have HUMAN rights, for sure. So we cannot torture them, or shoot them out of hand, or that sort of thing. Similarly, we cannot just lock them up for no reason.

But an independent nation has an absolute right to throw ANY foreigner out - for any, or no reason. There is no right to legal recourse. If we wanted to, we have every right under international law simply to round up any people who are not citizens - regardless of legal status - and throw them on the next plane back to their homeland. And, legally speaking, there is nothing they or anyone else could say or do about it.

Now, we are not advocating that this is a good idea. And currently, our laws do state that they can have a lawyer and an appeal. But this is not a RIGHT, in the sense that it is something they are entitled to absolutely. It is a PRIVILEGE that we have chosen to extend to them, and which we can choose to revoke at any time, for any reason or no reason, in accordance with whatever law we choose to pass.

This is the confusion between rights and privileges. I certainly believe that legal aliens should have most if not all of the same "rights" that citizens do (barring voting and officeholding) - only technically, for them it would be privileges, not rights, since they are granted by law and can be removed by law.

The thing with a Constitutional Right is that it is something that CANNOT be taken away. If you pass a law removing a Constitutional right, then the law itself is unconstitutional and, in theory, the Supreme Court will find the law invalid, null, and void. That explicitly does not apply in the case of aliens. Now, the constitution does place treaties at the same level as itself, and we do have some treaties with various countries as to how their nationals ought to be treated, so in that sense they have something resembling rights (e.g. the right to talk to their country's consulate if they get into trouble). But nowhere is there any right to be present in our country, or to appeal if we want them to go; and in any case, those treaties normally do not apply to people who are here illegally.
March 19, 2008 10:35 AM
Our difference seems to be one of terminology. I have a broader understanding of civil rights as including all rights guaranteed by the Constitution conistent with substantive and procedural due process of law. I disagree that the rights of lawful aliens and some rights of illegal aliens are privileges. First, the proper concept of a privilege is something as to which there is no legally enforceable right. If someone asks me to allow them to walk accross my real estate, I may grant or deny that request.The person has sought a privilege. Second, aliens have some rights found in the Constitution and others found in statutes. Both can be withdrawn, but the process for doing so is different. If the US seeks to deport an alien, our Constitution gives the alien a right to a hearing based on the language that no person can be drprived of life, liberty or property except by due process of law. If an alien is charged with a serious criminal offense, the alien, whether legal or illegal, is entitled just as a citizenb is, to be represented by an attorney and to a trial by jury and the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. These rights find their source in the Constitution and may be abrogated only by its amendment. As to treaties they are not quite on the same level as the Constitution. A treaty may prevail over a prior, inconsistent statute, but may not do away with a right granted by the Constitution.
I agree that aliens have no right to enter or be present in the country, but once they are here, whether legally or illegally, they are entitled to certain rights set forth in the Constitution.
March 19, 2008 12:09 PM
William posits that once an illegal manages to step across the line - no matter where or how - they have all the same rights as US citizens. There are numerous simple ways of jumping the border. So the pratical effect of William's assertion is complete and total open borders. (Unless we have a ring of soldiers standing around the entire nation with guns drawn and ready to fire)
March 19, 2008 12:27 PM
There is no doubt some confusion of terminology going on here; as Petrarch pointed out in his article, this is more than a little bit intentional by the open-borders crowd.

To say that illegal aliens have constitutional rights is, as pointed out, quite a stretch. Yes, you could derive their HUMAN rights (which they have no matter what, being human beings) from the constitution, so in that sense you could say they do have "constitutional rights." But they certainly do not have anything resembling the rights we have as citizens.

You quote that "no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." However, read it carefully - "deprived" means "taking away something they already had." When a convicted felon escapes from prison and is recaptured by police, they do not have to go to court all over again to put him back in jail - they can throw him in the jug straightway. They are not depriving him of his liberty without due process - he was not entitled to that liberty in the first place, having previously had it removed.

Similarly, an illegal alien, by being summarily deported, is not being deprived of his liberty - HE HAS NOT GOT ANY. He has no right, privilege, or grant to BE here. He has the same right to freely walk the streets that a prison-escapee has - which is to say, none at all.
March 19, 2008 12:40 PM
While an illegal alien has no right to be in the US and may be deported, first there has to be a determination that the alien is illegally present, which, unless the alien consents to the determination, requires a hearing before an impartial adjudicator. Just as the police officer can apprehend someone the officer claims is a criminal, so the immigration officer apprehends someone claimed to be in the US illegally. Neither officer is granted the legal authority to make the final determination. This is different from an officer's apprehending an alien in the course of illegal entry, in which case the officer can prevent the entry, using force if needed.
Twibi is mistaken in claiming that I posit that that the illegal alien has the same rights as a citizen. Certain rights accrue under the Constitution to any person, legal or illegal. Other rights, such a voting, are only for citizens, and even others, such as being President are only for naturally born citizens.
Apprehension and deportation is certainly a costly process for dealing with illegal aliens. More effective may be denying the incentives for the entry, such as employment, and creating an environment encouraging aliens to self deport, as by denying government benefits. The law presently forbids denying some benefits, such as emergency medical treatment and primary and secondary school education for minor illegal aliens.
March 19, 2008 1:22 PM
I did overstate what you said by saying ALL rights when you said SOME rights.

But how do you claim that "certain rights accrue under the Constitution to any person, legal or illegal"?
March 19, 2008 1:46 PM
I posit that certain rights accrue to any person because the Constitution distinguishes between citizens and persons. For example, the 14th Amendment refers to "all persons" born or naturalized and then proceeds to call them "citizens" of the US and the state wherein they reside. In other instances such as the 4th and 5th Amendments protections are extended to persons without regard to their citizenship or immigration status, and courts have interpreted these provisions that way. Thus, an alien even if an illegal alien, is entitled to a hearing before being deported. Affording a hearing before an impartial adjudicator before the government acts against a person is the essence of due process of law, guaranteed by the Constitution.
March 19, 2008 4:45 PM
"Affording a hearing before an impartial adjudicator before the government acts against a person is the essence of due process of law, guaranteed by the Constitution."

Which, as we've previously noted by a look at the text, is not applicable here, because they're not being deprived of anything that was theirs to begin with.
March 19, 2008 5:12 PM

The person seeking relief against another (the government seeking a deportation order) is to prove the facts supporting granting the order by the required burden (e.g., preponderance, clear and convincing or beyond a reasonable doubt) before an impartial adjudicator. Until there is a hearing and the claimed illegal alien has a chance to make a case and rebut the government's evidence, one does not know if the person would be wrongfully deprived of something the person is entitled to. For example if a deportation order were sought against a permanent resident alien because the person committed a crime, but the crime was committed by someone whole stole the alien's identity, the alien's right to permanent residence status would be wrongfully deprived based on an identity theft.
March 19, 2008 5:57 PM
Under current law, you are correct - and, as it happens, I do think that's appropriate. (I am far, far more sympathetic to foreigners who have followed the rules and come here legally.) It is not, however, a Constitutional requirement.
March 19, 2008 6:03 PM
William, you keep saying the Constitution states but you never quote where or what, specifically.
Your interpretation of the Constitution seems exceeding liberal.
I am a simpler person, what part of "illegal" is being misunderstood?
From my memory, initially criminals lost their rights when imprisoned.
April 4, 2008 2:43 PM
JoeS is correct in that criminals were originally thought to have lost their rights when imprisoned, BUT that was before the liberals decided to legislate from the bench what they could not get from the legislature. Judges have issued court orders giving imprisoned felons ALL KINDS of rights. Thanks to a sheriff out in Arizona, they don't have the right not to be served bologna and peanut butter, but incarceratees have many rights.

If nobody believed they did, there would be less stink about Gitmo which is, of course, another issue entirely. Many of the Gitmo-ites are neither POWs, who have some well-defined rights, nor citizens of the US. This leaves their status ambiguous, a situation which appeals greatly to starving lawyers as Scragged has noted before. Recall that a wealthy lawyer may feel starved for publicity as in Spitzer....
April 4, 2008 3:49 PM
In dealing with crime, all legal analysts, regardless of their politics, agree there are two distinct phases: (1) determining guilt and (2) assuming a finding of guilt, determining punishment. The 8th Amendment to the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishments. There can be honest disagreement as to whether a particular punishment meets this standard, but no one faithful to the Constitution can deny that if a punishment is cruel and unusual it is forbidden. I think the interpretation of illegal aliens' rights I have put forth is consistent with existing law. I may not like it but it's important before changing the law to understand first just it is. Many agree that the judiciary has gone too far in protecting alleged and convicted criminals. The answer is a chorus of thoughtful criticism and appointment of judges who place more emphasis on society's rights to control crime and victim's rights to be protected from crime and compensated by criminals.
April 4, 2008 7:37 PM
I go with all that willaim Garland said, and illegal immigrants have Rights!!
April 9, 2010 4:06 PM
There is a reason they are called illegal. At this time I do not know much about law and all the Amendments thoroughly but I think that illegal immigrants shouldn't be given = rights as normal U.S. citizens. If they should be given these rights shouldn't the government jus t forget about calling them illegal? Please respond. Please!!!!!!
May 8, 2010 9:50 PM
Sounds like you're smarter than any Democrat, Al. Scragged has written a good deal on this topic, with more to come.
May 9, 2010 6:51 AM
Mr Petrarch, had a well though out article.
Illegal ALIENS do NOT have rights. They break the law when enter this country.(hence ILLEGAL aliens. Is it fair that we give these criminals rights when they jump the border illegally when millions of people are waiting in line to get in this country. They wait many years in some cases and even learn English!

Next issue is the harm they are doing to our economy. They come here illegally work under the table (do NOT pay taxes) and send the money they earn back to their home country.
Also, should illegals be allowed to come over the border illegally and have 6 kids that also work tax free and not put their earning back in to our economy.

Ive witness something pretty terrible driving by a mexican "parade" held in southern califonia. Illegal aliens walking up and down the street hold Mexican flags, while dragging American flags behind them. They were demanding to be US citizens a even though they illegally came here and have no rights.

I think the poor guy from China looking for a better life in America that is taking the Legal path to citizenship, and has been waiting 5 years; deserves the right to be a citizen and have RIGHTS.

There must be a reason the call them ILLEGAL ALIENS...
July 2, 2010 10:38 AM
What a word to use for foreigners.

August 19, 2010 8:40 AM

Look up the word in the dictionary:

Primary definition:

"a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen)."

Let me guess - you went to public school?
August 19, 2010 8:55 AM
Actually Illegal immigrants have NO rights and are afforded NO protection under the Constitution or United States Law. Legally speaking, these people can be detained, deported and/or executed on sight with or without cause by any citizen as foreign invaders. If they rent live on or purchase property it is an act of war as they are occupying US soil. If you see an illegal detain them by any means and call 911 and demand they are deported immediately or you will execute them
September 22, 2010 1:20 PM
Sorry, I don't think we should be gunning people down on the streets just for standing there - not even illegal immigrants. They should be arrested and immediately deported, but illegal immigration is not a capital offense. They are still human beings and have human rights.

And I definitely don't recommend that anyone call 911 and tell them you're about to execute an illegal immigrant. Or that you execute anyone, unless you are a prison official holding a death warrant signed by the governor.
September 22, 2010 2:05 PM

Everyone should be able to recognize and agree that our Constitution and our laws do NOT apply to other countries or their citizens. Clearly it was never intended to, and it would be ludicrous to suggest our laws and constitutional rights apply to the citizens of Canada, Mexico, or Yemen. Other countries have the right to establish their own laws, which are established by the citizens of those countries for the benefit of the citizens of those countries. Just like our laws don’t apply to them their laws don’t apply to us, provided they do not in any way impact our sovereign rights.

The very beginning of our Constitution states:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This says several very important things. First, it states the Constitution was established BY the People (i.e. the citizens) of the United States. Second, it declares who the Constitution was being established FOR – the People of the United States and their progeny and descendants. Finally it says why the Constitution is being established, for the benefit OF the People of the United States. It clearly was not established for the benefit of other countries and their citizenry. Our laws do not apply outside our borders.

By definition, when someone enters our country illegally, they do not become a citizen of the United States just because they got here. When someone chooses to enter our country illegally, they are breaking the law, and as soon as they elect to cross that line, they choose to become a criminal and a fugitive. Under our laws, when someone enters the country illegally, they are “entitled” to one thing, and one thing only – deportation. It is our responsibility to ensure that we deport only those individuals that are in the country illegally, and that responsibility implies due process as it relates to the establishment of residency status – but that is not the same thing as granting rights to criminals that are here illegally. By definition, everyone that is in the country illegally is in fact a criminal, and should be held accountable in a manner dictated by our laws.

If people enter the country illegally and commit other crimes while they are here (e.g. drug runners, terrorists) they should be held accountable for those crimes. But each crime must be separately evaluated to determine proper jurisdiction. For example, a drug runner may be a violent criminal, and should be processed and handled in our criminal court system. However, an Islamic Jihadist that has declared war on the United States, and is actively attempting to kill the citizens of the United States as part of that declared war is no mere criminal. They are a war criminal. They are an enemy combatant (under their own declaration of war on the citizens of the United States), are present on our soil illegally (including our embassies, which are part of the United States), and they should be tried in a military tribunal, just as we have done with enemy combatants in every other war. It does not matter who declares the war.

The arguments regarding the idea that illegal aliens are here doing jobs that others don't want is totally irrelevant. They are breaking the law, pure and simple, and in accordance with our laws should be deported. Individuals (such as those that hire, harbor or rent housing to illegal aliens) and businesses that hire or foster illegal aliens should also be held accountable including stiff financial penalties and criminal sanctions for repeat offenders, because they are also breaking the law (and doing so simply to make a profit).

November 20, 2010 9:38 PM

Politicians in cities like San Francisco and others that have declared themselves a "safe haven" for illegal immigrants are actually committing a felony, and inducing others to do the same. They should be punished accordingly.

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact; has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months, followed by deportation. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

Furthermore,under Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or

* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.

November 21, 2010 1:48 PM

Citizen is quite correct; following the law seems to have become optional as the folks at Scragged said some time ago:

November 21, 2010 2:51 PM

When we will be hear from the govt of Mexico regarding its citizens illegally in the USA?

The foreign govt is first to blame. Second is the families who misinform those coming over our borders without any knowledge of the international crime they are committing or its consequence. They put their children at risk, and now, with federal ICE raids, Mexico's problems have become ours.

Legalizing marijuana would help alleviate the trafficking problem, but there would still be other problemas.

The USA has bent over backwards to accommodate illegals with language, and social services. Now we are expected to erase crimes committed here by non-citizens. Would not the USA step in were any US citizen to commit a crime in a foreign country? Would Mexico treat our US citizens so accommodatingly as we have treated its citizens?

In 1991 or thereabouts, 40+ Mayan Indians were killed in the Mex Province of Chiapas without much ado here, or any statement from the Mexican Govt., yet President Calderon has the gaul to complain about Arizona's law?

January 26, 2011 10:28 AM

Love your article. A lot of times politicians, judges, and lawyers can complicate tic tac toe. If a person is in the country Illegally they should have 1 option under the law jail time, or fine for the first offence,and 2 years jail time for the second. Even though I believe these politicians and Judges have some type of Anti-citizen agenda. It is very basic just enforce the law.

my blog:

January 26, 2011 11:50 PM

Nah, it costs too much to keep them in jail. Just turn 'em out and JAIL whomever employed 'em. If anybody who hired an illegal went to jail, there'd be fewer of them.

January 27, 2011 6:37 PM

The USA has no contract with those who are not legal. There is no contract to break. They are invaders and those assisting them should be treated as enemies of the USA. The USA has an obligation to her citizens, a contract of sorts with her citizens, the Constitution. That USA Constitution was written for her citizens who are legal. We have a right to protect our life, limb and property from invaders. If those in power will not do this, they need to be fired and as we have to do this job ourselves, putting ourselves in jeopardy and liablility by those very invaders. We have a right to our God, our families and to our country to protect her and be protected by those we chose to represent the USA and her Contitution. If those in power do not do this, then they are treasonous and not for what this country. We owe illegals nothing, but the kindness of treating them with respect as humans and returning them to their country. We do not owe them our resources and our rights as citizens to be trampled own in order to oblige them in their endeavor to invade this country and bring their cultures her and then demand from us our security and strength. If we did what they did in their country, we would be prosecuted to the highest extent or even killed. They need to stay at home and apply and pass the smell test like everyone should coming into this country.

February 9, 2011 2:00 PM

It is a shame that people have to leave their own country and come here for protection and benefits that should be afforded by their own country. On the otherhand, they need to get together and write their own Contitution and be afforded the protection we are, as citizens, supposed to have. They want to leave their country and leave their allegiance there as well. This country is giving away its very foundation by those who have an agenda to destroy this country and using illegals as pawns in the game. They are only one regiment of pawns. Those who are in power are using the Constitution without the Spirit and meaning to destroy this country. They are twisting the meaning because they have no true American Spirit within them. Watch how they are trying to destroy the Christian Church and the Ten Commandments? This is the basis of the Law in this country. There is nothing bad in these Commandments, they are for the good of all people, but this country is not for all people who are illegal or are against for which this country stands.

February 9, 2011 2:12 PM

No wonder the terrorists are coming in through the Southern borders, they are getting treated as citizens so they can entrench, kill and destroy real Americans. Their goal is to establish their laws and religion in this bountiful country. Those in power are just paying them to do it. Why, where is the allegience those in power swore to uphold when taking their oaths of office to lead this this country?

February 9, 2011 2:29 PM

Your comment were right on, have to agree our political and judicial leaders are missing the American spirited the don't seem to have any allegiance to this country.

Illegal conspiracy

March 30, 2011 11:01 PM

I am tired of these terrorists coming into this country and taking over, coming into my work and tearing it apart and tell me that they don't have to clean up after themselves or watch their children. Most of the illegal Mexicans (and I know not all are Mexican) don't care what happens to their kids as long as the US taxpayer is giving them welfare for popping out more. I believe that we should sterilize all the illegals that we send back, so they can't have the excuse that they have children born in this country.

July 25, 2011 8:34 PM


April 18, 2012 9:56 PM

My problem is ILLEGAL immigrants! I am part Native thank you very much and I appreciate the people who come here and ARE respectful and do naturalize to this country and I invite more of those kind of people to live here. I want the criminals that want to continue their criminal behavior here where I was born to take their stupid ways back to their area because we are ALL FULL UP of STUPID PEOPLE HERE! I feel that they are threatening to cause a civil war because of their actions and I don't like it. Peace.

April 19, 2012 7:57 PM


Are you and your husband legal? Then no problem. If not, you're criminals and ought to leave.

April 20, 2012 6:35 AM

Ignorant illegals have no rights regardless how you dress it up, these people are saboteurs killing Americans every day. Oh, and I'd rather be called a "nazi" than buy that pc crapola about them being 'people". We bombed the hell out of Europe in ww2 but we cant kick out the narcoterrorists? It's high treason and every politician responsible deserves their head on a chopping block. It's not "your" land anymore, gringo messicans, your leaders signed it over to us. VIVA la raza BLANCO!

October 12, 2012 3:39 PM

Hang on everyone, so far the threat of deportation was the ONLY thing half way keeping them in order. However, my experience with them has been one horrible nightmare after another. I was gang stalked by a big group of them in a small western Kansas town.Big dairy and cattle farmers. These people had taken over this town, and the law didn't pertain to them. Broke into my house,storage unit, and truck, on a daily basis. They worked like a pack of vicious dogs. The sheriff was also a mexican. How handy? I started going to therapy, thinking surely this was only happening to me. My therapist said the same thing was happening in another small town next to us to a woman that was also single. She had reported the attacks numerous times to the police, they did nothing until they started shooting at her. The police suggested she move away, and that is just what she had to do. These animals made a fun game out of terrorising people they didn't even know. You have no idea the horrible horrible things they did. I moved to town to start a business. I had to pick up and move as I was afraid for my life. I made several police reports, nothing was ever done. They took so many things, anything they wanted, things my children had given to me. I am a woman who at a difficult time in my life, chose life, and surrendered a beautiful baby daughter to a couple that desperately wanted to be parents. Her original birth records and adoption papers came up missing along with a wind chime that said MOM on it she had sent to me one Mothers day. Nobody cared, namely the police. On another occasion in a different town I was at a garage sale, purchased several bags of very expensive clothing, set them aside while I shopped and paid for them. I loaded them up in my van, got home, discovered the pack of mexicans that was hanging around, looking at me strange, and acting weird, had switched the bags of cloths. I spent almost 200.00 on designer jeans, coats, ect. only to get home with some bedspreads,pillows, and a lot of crap.
These people were supposedly on their good American behavior.
What in the hell is going to happen now that they can get away with breaking the law over over and over without fear they will be deported??????
God Help Us All.

November 21, 2014 3:37 PM

i just wanted to asked you… where are you grandparents from????

February 24, 2015 11:38 PM

My grandparents are Native American. My great great grandfather was a Indian Chief.

February 27, 2015 3:19 PM

I've seen the disrespect for US citizens from illegals ganging up one time and smiling the next .My stepson worked painting with some mexican illegals and they did everything to get him to quit . Put a cup of ants on him , threw a cup of urine on him . shook a ladder that he was on , they were over some rocks very high up . They were working in rental construction . The place I work hires mexicans to work in their werehouse . They put poop covered paper behind the toilets all the time . They pee on the walls when the company wants them to keep things clean . The reason they smile at school teachers is evident if you read up on the problems in Mexico with teachers . Its fear not happiness .

September 17, 2015 8:54 AM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...