Questions based on a plain and simple reading of the US Constitution

quote:

---

Article [IV] (Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure)

​

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

Does a sweep where people are asked to provide evidence they are in the US legally violate this clause unless supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the names of the people or things to be seized?

quote:

---

Article [V] (Amendment 5 - Rights of Persons)

​

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor 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; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

Does this clause require that anyone said to be committing the crime of being in the US illegally must be given full due process and should they lose any property because of deportation that the US Federal Government must provide just compensation?

quote:

---

Article [VI] (Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions)

​

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

---

Does this require that anyone accused of the crime of being in the US illegally must be given a speedy and public trial in the State where they are accused and are entitled to Assistance of Counsel for defense?

quote:

---

Article [VII] (Amendment 7 - Civil Trials)

​

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

---

If deportation should cause damage greater than $20.00 can a civil trial by jury be demanded?

quote:

---

Article [VIII] (Amendment 8 - Further Guarantees in Criminal Cases)

​

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Article [IX] (Amendment 9 - Unenumerated Rights)

​

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article [X] (Amendment 10 - Reserved Powers)

​

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

Are not immigrants, even if illegal, still people?

Please provide the link to the part of the US Constitution that states that?

And again, what does that have to do with any of the parts of the US Constitution I posted? Again, I posted the text of the IV Amendment. Where in it does it say or even imply that it applies only to citizens?In addition, where is there anything in Amendments IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X that might indicate they do not apply to anyone within the borders or the US?

Again, where does it mention that those rights are reserved for citizens?As you point out, the US Constitution applies to people within the borders of the US.That would include illegal immigrants within the borders of the US.

We also tend to forget that the European immigration was an East Coast phenomenon while on the West Coast it was mostly Asians and Mexicans (many who had been there before it was the US) that were building and flavoring the Nation.

Too funny.How the hell can a house or papers be illegal?Even if they were illegal how would that have anything to do with the persons rights as granted under the US Constitution?No wonder the reaction in the Federal Courts to Trumps Executive Orders has been "You did NOT really issue that, did you?"

So an immigrant living in the US since she was brought here at age 14 who is married with two US born children and living and working in the US for 20 years while paying taxes and who is following the procedure she was given by Immigration to report annually showing up for the annual report being arrested and deported, taken from her family, is considered fair and humane?

There is a case that is making its way up to the Supreme Court that will at least partially determine if the US Constitution applies even to non-citizens that are outside the US but near our borders.

quote:

---

In June 2010, Sergio Hernandez, 15, was playing with two friends in the concrete culvert that marks the boundary between El Paso and Juarez, Mexico. Cellphone video shows the boys ran up the culvert on the U.S. side and touched the high fence. They turned to run back to the Mexican side when a U.S. border patrol agent on a bicycle came upon them.

​

Officer Jesus Mesa Jr. grabbed one of the boys and turned his gun toward the other, Sergio, who had hidden behind a pillar about 60 feet away on the Mexican side. The officer fired three shots and killed the teenager.

---

The family of the child that died sued charging the Border Patrol Agent with unlawful use of excessive force and unlawful seizure (IV Amendment) as well as deprivation of life without due process (V Amendment). So far the courts (divided) have held that the US Constitution does NOT extend beyond the border itself and that the family does not have the rights to sue but now the issue has been appealed to the SCOTUS.

quote:

---

As usual, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy appears to hold the key vote. In the past, he has said the reach of the Constitution should turn on practical concerns, including whether U.S. officials are in control. If so, he could join with the court’s liberals to say the Constitution constrains U.S. agents operating on a border, thereby clearing the family’s lawsuit to proceed. Such a decision would surely be cited by lawyers and judges in the litigation over the travel ban.

---

If they decide that the area was under US Control then the suit against the agent and likely the US Border Patrol will proceed.

As you say, Officer Mesa may well be granted immunity however the case may decide how far the protections of the US Constitution do extend.A secondary issue revolves around what justifies extreme responses. Is shooting justifiable when the person is 60 yards away and may throw rocks? Remember in this case the supposed justification was a report of kids throwing rocks.There are many other examples where things are clearer. For example where shots, actual gunfire, is directed from the Mexican side of the border into the US, but this case is no where near that clear.

Yup. Attitudes change slowly and sometimes change faster than the law.

Immigrants, whether here legally or illegally are for the most part great neighbors. They work hard to make a better life for themselves and their children, increase our diversity, obey the laws, pay taxes, help create a better America.It really is that simple.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Of course they can and in fact they do. A great example is the mother of two, married and living in the US for over 20 years, who held a job, raised a family, paid taxes, educated her children and followed the law who got arrested and then deported when she obeyed the law. Sorry but that is a truly stupid statement. Not being screened does not mean they are criminals. That's the same stupid assertion you make about same sex marriage. Sorry but simply bullshit Faith. That is another stupid assertion. Being unhappy is not a justification for either removing due process or discrimination. Am I?They work hard to make a better life for themselves and their children, increase our diversity, obey the laws, pay taxes, help create a better America.How are those facts self-justifying propaganda?

Another utterly stupid comment from you Faith. Hispanic gangs are made up of members that are US citizens and immigrants (legal and illegal) and even folk that are from countries other than Mexico.Yes, often gangs do not make things better but that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of immigration. Another utterly irrelevant and inane comment Faith. Do you really think the husband of the woman that was deported or her two children was offended that his wife was here illegally? Oh, poor baby. But another really inane comment from you. The truth is that rape is bad and it does not matter whether the rapist is a citizen or legal immigrant or illegal immigrant.The problem is that Trump used the ignorance and prejudices of his Fellow Travelers to connect immigration and rape when there are no statistics that show immigrants are as great a rape threat and US born Christian citizens.Some laws should be broken, those laws that discriminate unjustly against minorities as an example. That is how the Rule of Law evolves (just like living things).

There you go again making unsupported assertions like asserting that Black Live Matter is a criminal gang.But the big issues is that Black Lives Matter has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that immigrants in the US legally or illegally still have rights under the US Constitution and the Courts have held the Trump's Executive order violated those rights.

Black Lives Matter protest against St. Paul police brutality (21587635011) [CC BY 2.0 (Creative Commons — Attribution 2.0 Generic — CC BY 2.0 )], by Fibonacci Blue from Minnesota, USA, from Wikimedia Commons Edited by jar, : fix sub-title