(Updated below)
I was looking up something in that quaint old document, the United States Constitution, and now, more than ever, I am moved to ask: How does the government get away with ill-treatment of non-Americans, given Amendment 14, Section 1?
I quote (emph. added):
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
Update
2007-10-09 17:48
I have been straightened out on this one, thanks to Don McArthur. Further clarification in the Comments.
4 comments:
I understand your point, but I think it would have to read '...OR subject to the jurisdiction thereof...'. It's a two-part test for protections, and non-citizens don't pass. In fact, you could be giving certain parties ammunition for further depredations.
I think the focus should be on the distinction between "citizens" and "persons." "Citizens" are defined in the first sentence as a subset of "persons." Thus, the privileges and immunities clause (as it's called) only applies to "citizens." But all "persons" (the more encompassing category) at least have the same due process and equal protection rights as "citizens."
It's all in how you define "due process" also. Due process might mean a kangaroo court of military officers reading up about the defendant on CIA documents and holding some kind of military tribunal. It's only by tradition and Supreme Court cases that we came to think of due process as a fair trial with lawyers and witnesses, a presumption of innocence and all of that. The neocons and the current SC are busy redefining all of that. In any case the Constitution never applied to prisoners of war, or all of the Germans and Japanese prisoners in WWII could have had court trials and if they won they got released back in Germany in the middle of the war?
I think Don's comment straightens me out. Upon re-reading the amendment, I have to agree -- this is not listing another class of person, but adding to the definition in the previous phrase.
Clare: I think the first sentence explicitly says "all persons are citizens" provided they meet the listed qualifications (born or naturalized in the US, and subject to its jurisdiction). The only distinction that seems to be suggested is that an American citizen could be in another jurisdiction (outside the US), where the protections wouldn't apply.
TC: You're right about "due process" being vague, but there are two responses. First, the rest of the Constitution helps define due process, at least by limiting what the state is not allowed to do. Second, the classic teaching of the Constitution is that it survives and applies because it does not attempt to be too specific in all terms, but instead relies upon the legal structure to define and uphold whatever might be the consensus definition of a term like "due process" at the moment.
Admittedly, with the current Administration, we're starting to see some possible limitations to these assumptions.
Post a Comment