(08-03-2024, 04:59 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(08-03-2024, 03:51 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: Did you actually read everything in that article? There are many nuances to the rights non-citizens have and they are not the same as for citizens. All of these are directly from the article.

Example #1 on voting: The Constitution does not prohibit anyone from voting. Instead, it spells out who cannot be denied the right to vote. If you are not a U.S. citizen, voting in a federal election could land you in prison for up to three years or lead to deportation. States can impose their own, sometimes harsher, penalties for breaking the law. However, because elections are largely a local affair, some states allow local governments to decide whether noncitizens can vote in local elections.

Example #2 relating to due process: The Fifth Amendment states that “no person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  Immigrants have the right to due process. But in reality, says, Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, “courts of law run the gamut.” “In immigration court, you have very few rights,” said John Gihon, an immigration attorney who spent six years as a prosecutor for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement before moving into private practice.

Example #3 the right to legal counsel: The Sixth Amendment states that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall…have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” Because most deportation proceedings are civil rather than criminal cases, the right to legal counsel often doesn’t apply. Under the law, anyone facing a criminal charge has the right to counsel. However, the government is only required to provide counsel if the person is accused of a felony. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor.

Absolutely I read the whole article, and nothing you wrote there contradicts anything I said.  Heck, I'm the one who posted the article in the first place.  And I'm glad you read it.  All I was saying was that illegal immigrants have some rights, and the assertion that they do not have any rights is erroneous.

But it's an interesting discussion.  To me, the reason illegal immigrants should have some (not all) Constitutional rights is that otherwise anyone can be picked up and deported without a right to counsel or a trial.  Just picked up and ejected from the country.  Maybe it would happen to you.  You could say, but I'm a citizen, but then they could say, I don't believe you so I am putting you on a plane to Mexico.  Bye.  If illegal immigrants had no Constitutional rights, all the government has to do is accuse you of being an illegal immigrant, and they can do whatever they want.