Undocumented Persons Have Constitutional Rights

Although right wing talk radio hatemongers, such as Glenn Beck, and proponents of Arizona's racist "papers please" law frequently cite the constitution during their racist, anti-immigrant rants, they actually know little, if anything, about the United States Constitution.

Beck, et al attempt to support their anti-immigrant rhetoric by citing the fact that the words "illegal aliens" don't appear in the constitution. Therefore, they claim, undocumented persons have no constitutional rights. The courts have held otherwise.

Contrary to the claims of Beck and his fellow travelers, the constitution is a "living document" and has repeatedly been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and Congress in order to address the ever-changing needs and demands of the people. While Beck, et al may argue "We the People of the United States" refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)

Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, stating "...it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of undocumented persons in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The undocumented persons who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term... The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."

When the Supreme Court decides cases dealing with First Amendment rights, it typically draws guidance from the Fourteenth Amendment's principal of "equal protection under the law." In essence, the "equal protection" clause extends First Amendment protection to anyone and everyone covered by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Through its consistent rulings that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments apply equally to undocumented persons, they also enjoy First Amendment rights.

In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the Fourteenth Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment:

"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the Fourteenth Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."

While undocumented persons do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to citizens of the United States who are convicted of felonies. In the final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, undocumented persons are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.