Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Do immigrants have constitutional rights?

People standing near tents

Asylum seekers wait to be processed by border patrol agents at an improvised camp near the U.S.-Mexico border in Jacumba Hot Springs, Calif.

Qian Weizhong/VCG via Getty Images

This fact brief was originally published by Oklahoma Watch. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.

Do immigrants have constitutional rights?

Yes.

All immigrants, documented or undocumented, are guaranteed certain constitutional rights. Basic rights such as freedom of speech, due process, and the right to a jury trial are granted on the basis of personhood, not citizenship.


The Supreme Court has gradually established that many constitutional protections apply to all people residing in the U.S. on the basis of legal language specifying persons, rather than citizens, in the Bill of Rights. Other rulings, such as Plyler v. Doe (1982), affirmed that undocumented immigrants are also viewed as persons in the eyes of Constitutional law.

In practice, laws vary widely, such as the expedited removal process enacted in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Under this law, undocumented immigrants who have lived less than two years in the U.S. and are arrested within 100 miles of the border can be deported without a court hearing.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Constitution Annotated ArtI.S8.C18.8.7.2 Aliens in the United

States National Archives The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

PBS NewsHour What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?


Read More

United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less
Bill of Rights
Happy 230th birthday, Bill of Rights
leezsnow/Getty Images

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the first of three parts exploring “Article the First,” the forgotten proposal in the original Bill of Rights. For 237 years, a single, inverted word has created a “semantic illusion,” leading historians and policymakers to misread the founders' intended guarantee of a growing House as a ceiling. This series uncovers the error, tracks its consequences, and explores why reclaiming the founders’ original vision is the path to meaningful representation reform.

Part 1 — The Inverted Word

Keep ReadingShow less