Do legal immigrants have the same due process rights as citizens?  If not, why not?
608204
I'm a legal alien (permanent resident) and have the same rights as a citizen.
1014439
Citizen=national.  Those who are  born or naturalized in the US.  Others are aliens, legal or illegal.
444091
***In Response To parrotjohn2001\n\nThe problem is that this (Fourteenth Amendment)has been misinterpreted in recent years to mean simply that anyone born in the U.S, under any circumstances, is an American citizen.\nThis is neither the original intent of the law nor the way it was interpreted by the courts in subsequent decades. Some Americans speak of birthright citizenship as if it were an immutable law of nature. \nIt is not, and most other nations do not, in fact, recognize it. It is only a BAD HABIT that could be broken with a simple Executive Order. \n\nAccording to estimates, some 200,000 so-called anchor babies are born in the United States every year. \nOnce a mother has birthed a child on American soil, she can then seek to obtain citizenship for herself on the strength of the family-reunification laws. \nEven before this happens, she is very hard to deport, as the mother of an American, and the full panoply of welfare benefits is available to her, as is affirmative action if she is a member of a racial minority. \n"The situation we have today is absurd," alleges Craig Nelsen, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, \na group of attorneys and immigration experts that is trying to do something about the problem. \n"There is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant women so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American. \nThis was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes a mockery of citizenship."\n\nThe key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase \n"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF." \nThe whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means: \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873)) \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874)) \nThe phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. \n(Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)) \n\nThere is no automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) \n\nThe Supreme Court has never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. \n(Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982)) \n\nThere are other cases referring to minor details of the question.\n\n the so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either.  In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d  266, 270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so‑called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.\n\nThose facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution.  The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.\n\n The U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States.  As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution.  See Article IV, Section 1.\n\n Judging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so‑called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history.  The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.”   \n\nFor this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the s
997319
there are inalienable human rights, agreed upon in the Geneva Conventions, that apply to all humans.  Though they may ultimately be executed, they are afforded the right to due process.  This prevents using some label like "terrorist" to rob just about anyone of their rights and have them killed.  Like in the days of the Salem witch hunts- all you had to do was call someone out as a witch, and they lost all their rights and were burned at the stake.  If terrorists had no rights by law, then if the system wanted someone destroyed, all you have to do is accuse them or frame them as terrorists and you've got them canned.  At least with due process, the system would have to really spend a heck of a lot of time and effort on pushing a falsely-accused person through the system.  It's always doable, but with due process, framing someone is harder to pull off and there are a lot more chances for the plot to unfold.\n\nWhen people defend human rights rollbacks by saying "if you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear!" it's not true.  We're founded on the principle that we have the right to overthrow our government if it fails to work for the people (Declaration of Independance) and if due process is taken away, we lose that power because the government can annhialate anyone they perceive as a threat.  I hate to sound like some sort of extremist or anarchist, which I'm not, but let's not forget our founding documents and what concepts this country was built on.
878104
Apologies accepted ..........And your question is? If you have a "green card" you are not illegal....so don't worry ........ it is normal , when people olny knows about birth certicficates, we know the diference , that's all  that matters.
890239
Yes i do Don. Why should illegal aliens HAVE more rights than someone who was born and raised here. Yes this may be the land of the free, along with saying what you want, with out being  pentalized. But Americans need to take a stand, and STOP these illegals from coming in and taking over.
373751
I agree. I understand that sometimes people who have no recourse are forced to protest and demand a change in the system. As a previous participant pointed out...women getting the vote and African Americans gaining their freedom from slavery. \n\nHowever, in both of those cases, there are glaring differences from the issue at hand. In the case of women voting...women were citizens of the United States who had no other recourse. It wasn't as though women could vote IF they filled out the proper paperwork and follwed the established laws that would allow them to do so. They couldn't vote at all. Illegal immigrants have legal recourse to establish legal residency or permanent citizenship in the United States. They're protesting for something that they can already acheive should they choose to do so, they simply don't want to be bothered with following the proper procedure. In the case of slaves...they were brought here against their will, stolen from their homeland and sold like animals. It was an inhumane and unfair institution and one that needed to end. These were people in the United States against their will and with no legal recourse to remedy their situation. Again, illegal immigrants did have the opportunity to obtain legal residency and/or citizenship should they have chosen to do so. Instead they chose not to be bothered with the proper procedure and now want to protest for amnesty. \n\nI might understand and actually support their cause if there were not procedures in place for them to come here legally. As it is, I can't support the cause of a group of people who are basically saying "I want to be protected by the laws of the United States even though in the past I have shown no regard or respect for them as I chose to enter this country illegally." Sorry, that's not how it works, you don't get to pick and choose what laws you want to follow and which ones you don't. You don't get to break the laws you don't agree with and still expect to reap the benefits of being a law abiding resident of the United States.
611687
I am the child of an immigrant.  My Mother, who is from Asia, met my Father when she was in the US on a student visa.  They decided to get married and Mom began the process of becoming a legal resident and ultimately a citizen.\n\nIn my life, I have dated an illegal alien.  Had she been the person I wanted to marry, we would have gotten married and found a way to apply for her citizenship.  As someone who is a legal resident of the United States, I would not want to know that my wife was subject to deportation at any time.  What I would not do is carry around a sign in the street saying she has the 'right' to be illegal.\n\nImmigrants have always been a part of this country, and always will be.  But unchecked illegal immigration brings down the standard of living for people in the US.
147024
It seems not as stated below, but you may want to check with a lawyer\n\nWithholding of removal is in some ways similar to asylum, but it has a higher standard. To qualify for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. section 1231(b)(3), the non-citizen must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he/she would be subject to persecution based on race, religious beliefs, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Unlike with asylum, an immigrant who is granted relief under withholding of removal is only given a right not to be removed to a specific country. Unlike asylees, non-citizens who are granted withholding of removal do not have the right to apply for a green card. They actually have a final order of removal against them, so if they travel outside the U.S., they will not be allowed to return.
822403
look pal, as far I understand American Citizen and United States Citizen are the SAME STATUS is just the way you say it.
140455
You may be thinking of the two strands of due process, procedural due process and substantive due process.  Procedural due process requires that the procedures used in your case be fair -- in criminal cases, e.g., you have a right to know the charges, confront witnesses, often have a jury trial, etc.   Substantive due process invokes the idea that there are some fundamental rights which cannot be taken away by law: one in the news these days is the right to privacy (and whether it extends to abortion, contraception, a right to die, gay marriage, etc.)\n\nEither strand can implicate the notion of a right to equality.  Under procedural due process you have the right to the same procedures as others similarly situated, and under substantive due process your rights can not be restricted based on unjustified distinctions between you and another class of people.
1153330
The legal system is not solely devoted to protecting individual rights.  It also regulates privileges, agencies, corporations, etc.\n\nWhich right of law-abiding citizens personal peace and security is being violated by the American legal system that you are referring to?  This question is too vague.
883955
Surley the point of the question is not to keep going over the past, but to query the right of the US to deny to others what it has asserted for itself, that is freedom of movement to other countries.\n\nIt is ridiculous to assert that there were no laws, therefore everything was legal. All societies have rules of behaviour. The settlers simply declared their own rights over the land, and increasingly denied any rights to the Natives as they got stronger.\n\nOf course the past can't be undone, and the Indians were not pure and innocent; and today's Mexicans are in part descended from similar settlers.\n\nBut we could try to accept that there is nothing new about migration, and that immigrants are motivated by the same human desires that inspired the Pilgrim Fathers.
658898
There is no comparison. Civil rights  was for its citizens and illegals are not citizens to claim a right.
322311
From what I've heard, a lot of illegal immigrants are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.  Law-abiding except for the illegal immigration, of course.
88022
Yes, undergod, no undergovernment.\n\n\nThe government doesnt acknowledge anything if a person is illegal, because to them, they're not citizen and dont exist.
337797
Of course. People seem to think that americans somehow have more rights than people from other countries. Why? Because we were lucky enough to be born in the richest country in the world? Our instrinsic value is the same no matter what country we're from or race we are. "American" rights are rights that our founding fathers believed that ALL humans deserved.