Deportation Brief

Quotas: a challenge to the constitutionality of numerical limitations during a routine deportation hearing

For most up to date version: PDF Version

SUMMARY FOR LAWYERS: Immigrants applying from abroad have no constitutional rights. Their access may be restricted as Congress sees fit, so far as the Constitution and Courts are concerned. But applicants who reside here, even if they reside here illegally, have “fundamental rights” which cannot constitutionally be abridged except by laws which can pass “strict scrutiny”, according to Plyler v. Doe, 1982.

“Liberty” is an enumerated fundamental right. (It is also in the Declaration, where it is the second right listed.)

No one has asked the Court to rule on whether there is a sufficient “compelling government interest” to ration liberty through Numerical Limitations – a literal lottery of fundamental rights.

How about population reduction? Can such a government interest be asserted, as long as populations still shift from farms to cities, people regard as “luxuries” the technologies only possible through large, free, peaceful populations, and federal courthouses are placed in the largest cities?

Plyler mentions an additional test: the “cost to the nation”. Not only must the law not unnecessarily restrict rights, but it must not create unacceptable side effects which outweigh the law’s “compelling government interest”. The “cost to the nation” of Numerical Limitations is our national security. Border agents could easily catch our few thousand violent threats, if they weren’t overwhelmed by having to hunt down millions guilty of hard work. We would no longer have a huge illegal “haystack” in which violent criminals hide, if our “line” accommodated all who obey the same laws which citizens obey. 99% of our present illegal caseload would sign up to “be in the system”.

Can the court count, as a “compelling government interest”, the legislative goal of deporting millions of U.S. residents – or any other goal which is as a practical matter impossible, which has never been remotely met, which Congress refuses to seriously fund, and which would become theoretically possible only at the cost of our freedoms as we know them, through the complete loss of privacy and the absolute power of Big Brother’s national tracking bureaucracy over citizens in every area of life?

When congressional action has utterly and decisively abandoned a goal, can statements about congressional intentions, by a congressional minority, support the finding that the goal is a compelling government interest?

CONTENTS: Summary for Laymen 2 pages.Questions Presented, 1 page. Argument, 8 pages. Footnotes/Cites , 12 pages. Answers to Questions from Attorneys 6 pages.

Summary for Laymen:

(777 words)

“Rule of Law” is being sabotaged by immigration law that violates the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment is being plundered by “Numerical Limitations” on how many “illegals” can apply to remain here legally. The only “line” for them is the same short line we offer applicants from abroad. For Mexicans, the annual limit is so low that even if no one else applies from abroad, it will take about 100 years for slots to open up for all of them. Meanwhile many of them apply for those precious slots, and pay their fees, but can’t wait 100 years to join their “legal” families.

The 14th Amendment says “No State shall ...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Unauthorized residents are under U.S. jurisdiction, according to several Supreme Court decisions (e.g. Plyler v. Doe, 1982), and thus any law that violates their “fundamental rights” is unconstitutional.

“Liberty” is the second most fundamental right.

The Court lets Congress limit applicants from abroad. But the Court has protected several “fundamental rights” of unauthorized residents. Just not the liberty to be here and enjoy all other rights. No one has asked the Court to rule on whether the rationing of liberty, through Numerical Limitations, leaves any rights intact.

Liberty is not some mere “implied” right like abortion. It is “enumerated”. That is, it is specified in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence even says it is a right granted, not just by our amendable Constitution, but by our Creator. And not to just a few, but to “all men”. (Which includes wo-men.)

Sometimes a “compelling government interest” requires restriction of even a fundamental right. For example, our free speech to yell the word “fire” must be restricted in a crowded theater, because of our “compelling interest” in preventing people from being trampled. But the Supreme Court wisely rules that any law restricting a “fundamental right” must be the “least restrictive” way to achieve its “compelling government interest”. The Court calls this the “strict scrutiny” test. Plyler v. Doe mentions an additional “cost to the nation” test: not only must the law not unnecessarily restrict rights, but it must not create unacceptable side effects which outweigh the law’s “compelling government interest”.

What “compelling government interest” justifies not just restricting, but utterly abolishing, through arrest and deportation, the liberty of millions of U.S. residents?

Not population reduction. Populations still shift from farms to cities. People regard as “luxuries” the technologies only possible through large, free, peaceful populations.

Not national security. Numerical Limitations cause national insecurity. Border agents could easily catch our few thousand violent threats, if they weren’t overwhelmed by having to hunt down millions who just want to work hard.

Can the court count, as a “compelling government interest”, the purported legislative goal of deporting millions of U.S. residents – or any other goal which is as a practical matter impossible, which has never been remotely met, which Congress refuses to seriously fund, and which would become theoretically possible only at the cost of our freedoms as we know them, through the complete loss of privacy and the absolute power of bureaucracy over citizens in every area of life?

When congressional action has utterly and decisively abandoned a goal, can statements about congressional intentions, by a congressional minority, support the finding that the goal is a compelling government interest?

Even the Electronic Employment Verification System, in the immigration bill that went down last June 28, was projected by the Congressional Budget Office to reduce the unauthorized population by only 11%.

If the Real ID Card, without which no man can drive, work, fly, bank, or enter a Federal court to sue those responsible, could only reduce the undocumented population by 11%, what more must be added to reduce it 100%? What must be added to the Real ID’s machine-readable digital photos linked to a nationwide database processed by facial recognition software? Surveillance cameras on every street corner, generating computer records of where every citizen goes?

Whatever it will take, it is too high a “cost to the nation”. We don’t appear able to restrict the liberties of our unauthorized residents except to the extent we restrict our own.

Questions Presented:

1. Are numerical limitations, which deny the fundamental right to Liberty to literally 99% of a group of 12 million U.S. Residents, permissible under the 14th Amendment "equal Protection" and 5th Amendment "due process" clauses?

2. If unadmitted adults merit no 14th Amendment protection because they have "broken the law", how about their unadmitted children who are incapable of the "criminal intent" to even be here, as Plyler v. Doe observes?

3. Shouldn't deprivation of the fundamental right to Liberty be reviewed by Strict Scrutiny?

4. Even under the Rational Basis test, can quotas, without which our Border Security problem would evaporate, pass the "cost to the nation" test of Plyler v. Doe?

5. Is there any "compelling government interest" that justifies retaining quotas which deny liberty to 12 million souls while perpetuating our terrible Border Security problem? How about the fear of population growth? Can the court document the greater harm of population growth, in view of the fact that Americans prefer the population density of cities to farms to this day, and every federal courthouse is situated in the centers of the largest cities? Isn't every other real and perceived immigration problem caused by quotas, and quickly curable by reasonable criteria?

6. Can the court count, as a "compelling government interest", the purported legislative goal of deportating 12+ million U.S. residents: or any other goal which is as a practical matter impossible, which has never been remotely met, which Congress refuses to seriously fund, and which would become theoretically possible only at the cost of our freedoms as we know them, through the complete loss of privacy and the absolute power of bureaucracy over citizens in every area of life? When congressional action has utterly and decisively abandoned a goal, can statements about congressional intentions, by a minority, support the finding that the goal is a compelling government interest?

No Court has reviewed the Constitutionality of numerical limitations. When it has mentioned them, it has been with disrespect, hinting that if it ever accepts jurisdiction it will overturn them. Interested lawyers can help by (1) purifying these arguments with your feedback and critiques; (2) using these arguments in a deportation hearing, after you are prepared to carry them all the way up; and (3) while waiting for the Court to accept jurisdiction, adding your voice towards consensus that numerical limitations are actually unconstitutional and Congress, and voters, are invited by the Court's silence to exercise their responsibility to repeal them. Let us declare that while numerical limitations are "the law", they are an unconstitutional law, repeal of which ought to be the top priority of those committed to "rule of law", and enforcement of which ought to shame any law-abiding citizen. Let's not forfeit title to the "rule of law" argument to the Deportation Dreamers.

(If these arguments are sound, and if they are ever presented in court, and IF they survive the first round in court with any credibility intact, the nation's attention will be instantly focused on it, creating instant Higher Education on the subject of just what our "Rule of Law", that so many people are yelling about, really requires. The remotest possibility of a routine deportation hearing turning into a constitutional challenge to numerical limitations will rivet national attention. Although I am not a lawyer I have had fairly robust pro se experience, have lobbied, and have been a candidate for state lawmaker a few times. These 4 pages of Argument represent several weeks of research over the past 2 years.)

ARGUMENT: (Where footnotes are to dissents, keep in mind that dissents are useful sources of strong arguments especially where they are not controverted by majority opinions; which is the case with the dissents cited here.)

1. “Equal Protection”: for “illegals”. Quotas on rights is unacceptable to the Constitution, and would be unacceptable to any citizen upon whom they were imposed. If only 1% of Americans had the right to speak freely, the right to drive to work, or the right to trial by jury, no one would say Americans still had “equal protection of the laws”.

The 14th Amendment, both in its plain language and in its interpretation by the Supreme Court, gives the same “equal protection of the laws”, which citizens enjoy, to “illegals”.1 (Also called “unauthorized immigrants”, “undocumented aliens”, or “unadmitted refugees”.) At least in theory. But because of numerical limitations which only allow about 100,000 Mexicans per year to immigrate legally, only about 1% of our roughly 12 million illegals (largely Mexican) have a line they can get in. Or to put it another way, if no new immigrants apply for those 100,000 slots, our 12 million illegals will all be able to get in line within 100 years. Meanwhile, their “liberty” is very tenuous.

2. But just for resident illegals. These 14th Amendment rights, which theoretically belong to unadmitted residents and citizens equally, do not belong at all to immigration applicants abroad,2 even if they are in a legal line. This distinction is undisputed in Supreme Court opinions, even though news of it will be received in the current immigration debate as ironic to the point of outrage. Nevertheless, in the absence of law or case law providing standing to immigration applicants abroad, this challenge is to quotas only insofar as they restrict the liberties of undocumented U.S. residents, publically and routinely excoriated as “illegals”.

3. As much as for citizens. The Supreme Court is very explicit about wanting to protect the fundamental Constitutional Rights of “illegals” living here as much as for citizens.3

4. Right to Remain Here. A wide variety of Constitutional rights of aliens has been defended by the Supreme Court, but no one has invited the Court to defend the second most basic, the most fundamental right, without which the enjoyment of any other right is impossible: the right to remain here.4

5. Right to Liberty. In other words, “liberty”. Nothing (other than life) can be more important than “liberty” to illegals, and liberty for illegals is also very important to the Supreme Court.5

6. Clearer than Congress’ right to deport. Liberty for illegals is not only important to the Supreme Court, but to the Constitution, which makes the right to liberty, for illegals, clearer than the right of Congress to deport any alien.6 Liberty is a fundamental right explicit in the Constitution’s preamble, in its 5th Amendment, acknowledged in several cases, and listed in the Declaration of Independence as the second most “inalienable right” granted by our “creat[or]” “Liberty” is the foundation of our nation, considering that our nation was officially founded with a document titled “The Declaration of Independence”, and that independence is a synonym of liberty.

7. Liberty can’t be given by percentage. But one’s “liberty” is in name only – a legal fiction – which exists at the arbitrary pleasure of another, 7 such as in the roll of the quota dice.

8. Quotas: Clumsy. Numerical limitations create this unconstitutional denial of rights. The Court has nothing good to say about them.8 Quotas are unconstitutional.

9. Liberty: duty of States & Congress. Quotas are illegal because they make it impossible for either states or Congress to defend the liberty of illegals. The 14th Amendment explicitly prevents states from denying “equal protection of the laws”, while the 5th Amendment explicitly prevents Congress from denying “due process”. The Supreme Court treats the two as if they are linked, or as aspects of the same rights, the same rights restricting both Congress and the states,9 as if rights unequally protected cannot satisfy “due process”.

10. “Strict Scrutiny” Because liberty is a “fundamental right”, not merely implicit but explicit in the Constitution, no mere "substantive right" but a full fledged "enumerated right", Court review of immigration quotas merits “strict scrutiny”. Numerical limitations must end if they are not “precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest”, and especially if they “give rise to recurring constitutional difficulties”.10

Can the Court document a “compelling governmental interest” served by quotas? How about the “valid immigration goal of reducing the number of undocumented aliens arriving at our borders” which the dissent in JEAN v. NELSON, 472 U.S. 846, 880 (1985) speculated (without elaboration or documentation) may have motivated immigration officials?

Is the theory that population growth will harm our nation a "compelling governmental interest"? Is population density undesirable? If that’s it, explain why people, to this day, migrate from rural land to cities! People talk about leaving the city for the suburbs, but most do not move to larger tracts of land. Even the few who do try to stay within commuting distance of cities. And when they leave, others replace them in the middle of the city; some from farms! And those who move farthest away from population centers remain in touch with them, valuing the fruits of large, free populations: technology such as cell phones, GPS devices, TV, internet.

People say population growth is terrible, but who lives as if they actually believe it? In free America, population density is linked to jobs, opportunity, and prosperity, and even to minimal pollution compared with our more rural, more polluted past! Federal courts are situated in the largest cities. Can any federal court document any “compelling governmental interest” in restraining population growth?

How about the theory that the “compelling governmental interest” is “assimilation” of people with other cultures and languages, not population growth of citizens? OK, but what if evidence shows quotas cause the assimilation problem? If 12 million people weren’t afraid to make friends with fluent English speakers, because of numerical limitations which allow only 1% of them to live here legally, they could learn English better!

Can the Government show numerical limitations are “precisely tailored to serve” ANY government interest? Wouldn’t numerical limitations, rather than quotas, solve immigration problems thoroughly and quickly?

If we make English mastery the door to LPR (Legal Permanent Residence), they will study English with the vigor it takes to swim the Rio Grande.

If we think their work for low wages drives our wages down, all we have to do is make getting a good job the condition for the short line. They will produce so many $500/hour doctors, lawyers, and psychiatrists that they will drive everybody’s wages up. (That's how the logic goes, isn't it?)

If we make not taking advantage of emergency hospital rooms a ticket to the short line, they would pay back every nickel of every visit, and turn their receipts in to the USCIS for credit. Immigrants might even help each other bear these costs. It would be unacceptable to repeal laws providing for life-saving care, but there is no legal or humanitarian reason immigration law can’t offer a positive incentive for repaying these bills, and that solution to hospital budget woes would be a far more compassionate solution, a far more effective solution, and a solution far less restrictive of fundamental rights, than numerical limitations.

Congress, if it wants, can even get around Plyler v. Doe’s requirement that our pricey public schools educate illegal children: there is no legal reason Congress can’t offer immigrants positive incentives, like points on their LPR applications, for home schooling instead!

Children born here, whether or not their parents are legally here, are U.S. citizens according to the 14th Amendment. And as citizens, they (not illegal parents, but citizen children) are eligible for welfare such as food stamps. These laws are virtually unchangeable, but nothing prevents our moving LPR applicants ahead in the “line” for repaying these costs when they can. If that is what we want to do. If that is what we want to call a “compelling government interest”. The children will find that more compassionate, and the Court will find that less restrictive of fundamental rights, than deporting their parents.

If we let immigrants in the legal line who learn what keeps us free, and why free populations are prosperous, dreams of Mexico annexing our Southwestern states would become the target of jokes rather than donations. How can any Mexican want to make part of the US subject to the same government that drove him from his homeland? Who could, who understands the relationship between Communism and poverty, and between political apathy and government corruption? Criteria can give them a reason to learn. Every alleged "compelling governmental interest" which numerical limitations pretend to serve will be served with less restriction of fundamental liberties, more effectively, and more compassionately, by eliminating numerical limitations altogether and allowing all to come who meet reasonable criteria which natural born citizens already meet naturally.

Criteria similar to these were proposed in S1387, which was introduced 7/10/3 during the 108th Congress. Less detailed criteria were offered in S1348, the "Immigration Compromise" bill, in 2007, where they were applied to applicants for LPR (Legal Permanemnt Residents), not just to citizens. Criteria are already a part of a U.S. citizenship application, but a very small part. Those who go through it find the hard part is the mind-numbing bureaucracy, not the tests.

Criteria do not violate equal protection of the laws” for all. We don’t let children drive. Yet every child has the opportunity of every adult: to drive after growing old enough to do it without killing everyone on the road. We don’t let just anyone do brain surgery. But anyone can operate after learning how without killing everyone in the hospital. Criteria are acknowledgments in law of natural incapacity to perform restricted tasks. Once this natural incapacity is remedied, Constitutional laws step out of the way of full enjoyment of the rights of U.S. citizens.

Can we agree that border security is a “compelling government interest”? Can we agree that 12 million U.S. residents hiding in our legal shadows is a serious security problem? Can we agree that without a 12+ million haystack to hide in, criminals and terrorists would be much easier to catch? These serious national problems are directly, logically, and inescapably caused by numerical limitations on liberty set at 1%.

11. Proposed 5-Part Test of "Compelling Government Interest". Can the court count, as a "compelling government interest", the purported legislative goal of deportating 12+ million U.S. residents: or any other goal which is as a practical matter impossible, which has never been remotely met, which divides citizens as to whether it is good or evil, which Congress refuses to seriously fund, and which would become theoretically possible only at the cost of our freedoms as we know them, through the complete loss of privacy and the absolute power of bureaucracy over citizens in every area of life? When congressional action has utterly and decisively abandoned a goal, can statements about congressional intentions, by a minority, support the finding that the goal is a compelling government interest?

Deportation is the object of numerical limitations laws as they apply to unadmitted residents above and beyond the number of places in USCIS "lines".

a. Impossible. Deportation of any significant portion of our 12+ million unauthorized residents is as a practical matter impossible.

The U.S. Senate rejected enough Big Brother to achieve even a 13% reduction in their numbers. (Senator Jeff Sessions gave this figure, summarizing the June 4 Congressional Budget Office report that analyzed SA 1150.)

It voted to not require a Real ID card to get a job. The card combines Social Security, FBI, and state driver’s license databases, and collects digital photos which can be processed by facial recognition software, creating potential for hidden cameras across America tracking everyone going by. Even with that much Mark of the Beast prep, the CBO estimated that would only reduce the illegal population by 1.3 million, characterized as a 13% reduction by Senator Jeff Sessions in June 27, 2007 floor debate.

[Page 8 of the CBO report: "Information from the Pew Hispanic Center indicates that as many as 12 million unauthorized immigrants were in the United States in March 2006. CBO anticipates that one million of them would not be affected by the legislation because they will eventually become legal permanent residents under current law. We also anticipate that about 2.0 million of the unauthorized immigrants (workers and dependents) would attain legal status under the legislation through the program for agricultural workers. Of the remaining unauthorized immigrants, CBO estimates that about 60 percent would gain legal status under the legislation. The number of individuals with legal status would decline in later years due to death, emigration, and the loss of legal status for individuals who do not complete the process of becoming legal permanent residents. The largest factor contributing to the population increase in the first 10 years would be changes in family-sponsored admissions, which would add an estimated 1.6 million legal immigrants (or children of those immigrants) to the population by 2017. That increase would occur because the amendment would raise the cap on family-sponsored visas from 226,000 (not including parents of citizens) to 567,000 for several years. Because those limits would drop to 127,000 in 2017, the population increase relative to current law would start to decline after that. CBO estimates that another 1.1 million people would be added by 2017 as a result of the guest-worker program—about half of them authorized workers and dependents, the remainder the result of unauthorized overstays. That figure would grow to 2.0 million by 2027. In contrast, the enforcement and verification requirements of the legislation would act to reduce the size of the U.S. population. CBO estimates that implementing those requirements would reduce the net annual flow of illegal immigrants by one-quarter, reducing the projected population by 1.5 million people in 2017 and by 3.6 million people in 2027 (including the effects on citizen children). Other aspects of the legislation are likely to increase the number of illegal immigrants—in particular, through people overstaying their visas from the guest-worker and H-1B programs. CBO expects that the enforcement measures and the higher number of overstayers would, on net, diminish the number of unauthorized immigrants by about 500,000 in 2017 and about 1.3 million in 2027.” From p. 26-27: “Effects of Enforcement and Verification on Net Flow of Unauthorized Migrants. The potential impact of the border security, employment verification, and other enforcement measures on the flow of unauthorized migrants is uncertain but could be large. While efforts to restrain the influx of unauthorized workers and their families have historically been relatively ineffective, this legislation would authorize significant additional resources as well as a comprehensive employment verification system to deter the hiring of unauthorized workers. Moreover, the implementation of the new guest worker program and the provision of visas to the currently unauthorized population could occur only if the Secretary of DHS certifies that the enforcement measures are in place. CBO estimates that those measures would reduce the net annual flow of unauthorized immigrants by one-quarter. A reduction of that order of magnitude would reduce the 27 unauthorized population in the United States by about 1.3 million in 2017.”]

On June 27, through an amendment to the Immigration Compromise offered by Grassley from Iowa, the Senate refused citizen monitoring designed to detect illegals. (Vote #234. Called Division VII of SA 1934. When it was voted upon, it was called the Baucus-Domenici-Grassley amendment; however, a week prior, a series of letters was exchanged about the amendment between USCIS director Chertoff and Baucus, Grassley, and Obama, and when the vote was counted Domenici had voted against it! So the bill’s only consistent cosponsors were Grassley and Baucus. In floor debate it was called the Baucus amendment, and Baucus is its hero in news articles, but Grassley was the one who stood and spoke for it in floor debate.)

Why did the CBO estimate only 25% fewer illegals flowing in? Past experience: “efforts to restrain the influx of unauthorized workers and their families have historically been relatively ineffective”. (Page 8 of the CBO report: ) Why wouldn’t fences, agents, and overwhelming monitoring completely stop the flow? Even with a secure border, the CBO estimated the source of new illegals would be overstays of the increased temporary work programs. But how could these millions continue to work, with so effective an EEVS (Electronic Employment Verification System)? The CBO didn’t say. But Senator Sessions explained, June 27, how many will still get phony ID’s. And of course many are self employed.

b. This goal has never been met, or even approximated. To the contrary, the unauthorized population has grown five times in the past 20 years, and continues to grow at its present rate with no realistic strategy on any political table. Instead of rational discussion of what it would actually take to achieve the deportation goals of some, there is highly charged blame of agents for not trying hard enough, and of opposing politicians and Christian missions for frustrating deportation goals by sheltering undocumented immigrants in a variety of ways.

c. Citizens divided whether the government's interest is "compelling" or "cruel". Much of the reason deportation goals are never met is that the nation is split down the middle whether they are good or bad. Non-citizens have no right to trial by jury for immigration offenses, but if they did, it would be difficult to voire dire juries sufficiently to assure convictions.

d. No Congressional funding. Jailing, processing, and deporting unauthorized immigrants is estimated by ICE at $94 billion. (ICE chief Julie Myers, answering Senator Susan Collins. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/author/mnizza/ 9/13/7)

That doesn't count the cost of finding them. Over $20 billion just for Real ID, and $11.7 billion per year to expand Real ID into the EEVS, as envisioned in the Immigration Compromise bills, counting the cost to business. [$17 billion was DHS’ estimate March 9. (Minimum Standards for Driver’s Licenses and Identification Cards Acceptable by Federal Agencies for Official Purposes; Proposed Rule 72 Fed. Reg. at 10,845.) $23 billion was Senator Leahy’s estimate June 27, (Congressional Record, page S8599 ) which apparently included the cost of expanding Real ID into the EEVS, since the Congressional Budget Office estimated the EEVS would cost $3 billion over the first five years. (June 4, analysis of S.A. 1150) But this counts only the cost to federal and state government. $11.7 billion a year was the cost, when the cost to businesses was counted, according to the GAO in 2006. (http://www.reason.com/news/show/117343.html “Worse Than a Wall” <> “The immigration solution everyone agrees on may end up hurting the most” <> Kerry Howley | May 2, 2006 “...Every employee must be entered and tracked individually, which may prove impossible for employers who hire large numbers of workers on a seasonal or day-by-day basis and businesses that depend on labor flexibility to stay competitive. It's a 21st century system built for a lost world of 9-to-5 employment, a retro-futuristic vision of time cards, assembly lines, and electronic surveillance. How does the government that brought you the prescription drug benefit debacle plan to manage an electronic system involving every employed person in these United States? The GAO needs a color-coded map to explain, but here is the basic summary: Employers send data for every new hire to DHS, which then sends information to SSA, which then sends information back to DHS, which sends info back to the employer, who can either contest any rejected applicants and begin the process anew, risk fines for not complying, or accept the findings. The burden of contesting mistakes and keeping records lies with employers. The cost, says the GAO, will be about $11.7 billion—annually—‘with employers bearing much of the cost.’”]

But congress rebelled against even enough Big Brother to reduce the unauthorized population by 13%, and now is starving to death even the Real ID Act. [Senate Amendment 2406, by Baucus, was passed by unanimous consent. The amendment was one sentence long: “None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for planning, testing, piloting, or developing a national identification card.”] Meanwhile 17 states have enacted laws against it, and 20 more are in the process. [www.realnightmare.org, a website of the ACLU.]

e. Cost of success: our freedoms. The Real ID and EEVS would have only reduced the unauthorized population by 13%, so what would it take to reduce it significantly? What is the next step, beyond Real ID and EEVS?

[For those not familiar with these technologies, the Real ID card, which states must begin obeying by May 11, 2008, combines state driver’s license databases, and collects digital image files (as opposed to the old laminated polaroid phots on driver's licenses of which no record remains with the state) which can be processed by facial recognition software, creating potential for hidden cameras across America tracking everyone going by. The Real ID Act requires this card for any federal purpose, including boarding a plane, opening a bank account, and entering a federal building. The EEVS (Electronic Employment Verification System), as proposed by the Immigration Compromise which failed June 28, combines the national driver's license database with those of the SSA, FBI Ident, with "information sharing" with the IRS, and requires the Real ID card to get or keep a job.]

The next logical step: linking the EEVS to hidden cameras all across once-free America, fulfilling the dreadful warning of “1984” by George Orwell.

The financial cost of this step has not been estimated. The cost in our freedoms is unacceptable. Unthinkable.

12. Quotas’ “cost to the nation” Plyler v. Doe says that even under a “rational basis” test of a law, the Court should should weigh “its costs to the nation”11 (of allowing the law to stand). How much more, under “strict scrutiny”, any Court ought to weigh the tremendous “cost to the nation” of allowing immigration quotas to stand, as perspective for any perceived “compelling government interest” which they supposedly serve. Plyler v. Doe made a strong case for the value of education, and the high cost to our nation of withholding it. Can’t an even stronger case be made for the value of national security, especially during a time of war whose enemies come, not in waves of tens of thousands, but a few at a time? What good is the best education in the world, if the students are slain?

Replace quotas with criteria, and our 12 million illegal guests will pour out of the shadows to sign up with the USCIS for “line” credit.

(This challenge is to quotas only insofar as they restrict the liberties of U.S. residents, since immigration applicants abroad have no standing under the 14th Amendment to sue in federal court. But if quotas on the opportunities of legal applicants abroad were also replaced with criteria, the flow over the border would also joyfully redirect itself into a legal line.)

Freed from that impossible caseload, USCIS agents will have time to focus on the real criminals and terrorists who won’t sign up. Without millions of others in hiding with them, they will be much easier to spot. That will also make it harder for our citizen criminals to hide. In fact, 12 million who used to help each other hide will become more willing to cooperate with the law, turning in real criminals and terrorists.

Plyler’s “cost to the nation” test shows that even for a “rational basis” review, it is simplistic to consider only whether a law appears directed towards an apparently legitimate state purpose, with no cost/benefit analysis. There should be a comparison, a weighing in the balances, of the good and the bad.

A similar factor is the “power unreasonably or harshly exercised” consideration. Yes, Congress has the power to enact numerical limitations. But are they “reasonable”? Is their impact on millions of people “harsh”?

HARISIADES v. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580, 580 (1952) said the Court might step in if Congressional "power has been so unreasonably or harshly exercised by Congress in this Act as to warrant judicial interference." Or “This brings us to the alternative defense under the Due Process Clause - that, granting the power, it is so unreasonably and harshly exercised by this enactment that it should be held unconstitutional.” (P. 588)

Patently obvious prejudice might qualify as "power unreasonably or harshly exercised". Congressional prejudice might become obvious to the Court if it is shown that tyrannically oppressive restrictions of a group could have been avoided with much simpler restrictions which would have served the purposes of Congress much better, and which Congress knew about. Which, the articles at www.Saltshaker.US (click on “immigration”) show, is the case with immigration law. In the current heated immigration debate, it is not hard to find examples of patently obvious prejudice. Nor is it hard to find examples of immigration debate so clouded with emotion that reason is attacked as unrealistic or worse, leading to legislative agendas which hurt the purposes they are believed to help. This kind of test, where the gravity of the oppression is compared with the availability of relief, is also suggested with the language "The penalty [of deportation] is so severe that we have extended to the resident alien the protection of due process. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath." BOUTILIER v. IMMIGRATION SERVICE, 387 U.S. 118, 132 (1967)

These tests ("power unreasonably or harshly exercised", "patently obvious prejudice", "severity of the defacto penalty", and "tyrannically oppressive restrictions which could have been avoided with simpler, friendlier, more effective restrictions") may be offered to help the Court weigh quotas.

"Power unreasonably or harshly exercised." Is a 1% quota on liberty – allowing liberty to only 1% of unauthorized resident aliens on a roll of the quota dice – “reasonable”? Is its impact on 12+ million people “harsh”?

"Patently obvious prejudice." Is this a possibility when Congress prefers a bureaucratic and security hell for itself, and a generation-long nightmare for 12+ million undocumented immigrants, to a criteria system that would solve all problems?

"Severity of the defacto penalty of deportation." The contrast is between liberty as citizens experience it, and deportation. Banishment. There is no middle ground, unless you count the waiting for the banishment. Or the bad working conditions because you are afraid to complain.

"Whether tyrannically oppressive restrictions could have been avoided through simpler, friendlier, more effective restrictions"; and

"whether the contrast between the oppressiveness of the restriction, and the simplicity of an effective alternative, is great".

(For a series of articles about immigration facts, making the case that criteria will solve the national problems which quotas cause, see www.Saltshaker.US, click on “immigration”.)

CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. v. PUBLIC SERV. COMM'N, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) says the 3rd prong of Strict Scrutiny is that the government's solution for its compelling problem must be effective.12 It can easily be shown quotas are a pretty ineffective way to achieve border security! They cause it! The government must actually present evidence that the solution is effective! There must be an evidentiary record, and it must be convincing! Mere theory or conjecture is insufficient. Liberty certainly merits as much protection as free speech, since it is a more fundamental right. The First Amendment was an Amendment to the Constitution, but Liberty was an enumerated right in the Declaration of Independence, which may be regarded as the cornerstone of the Constitution. Whether this be so, it lists Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and simple reason dictates that life is the most fundamental right, without which no other right can exist; and liberty is next, without which no other right other than life can exist.

13. “Liberty” till they find you. Justices write fiction to the extent they suggest the 5th and 14th Amendments, not merely in intent but in real life, protect the “liberty” of alien residents, illegal as well as legal. A “liberty” that lasts only until the police find your house is not much of a “liberty”.13

14. Jurisdiction: Court Reluctance to review Immigration. It seems clear that if the Court accepts a case challenging numerical limitations, and if it rules consistently with its own case law and dicta, it will overturn quotas. But would the Court ever accept such a case, or rule on such an issue? Court dicta often expresses greater reluctance to review Congress’ work in the area of immigration than in any other area. But the very cases that express such reluctance are cases where the Court was actually ready and willing to constitutionally test Congress’ work, and to overturn it if there was an adequate case.14 (For more discussion see response to anonymous attorney at the end of this file.)

15. The Court’s Conundrum. The Court embraces two mutually exclusive ideals. First, Congress has wide latitude over immigration law, so that immigration law is the last place the Court will want to disturb Congress - even when Congress creates a Numerical Limitations system that denies liberty to literally 99% of unadmitted residents. Second, “unadmitted aliens clearly enjoy constitutional protections”. (Chief of which is the right to Liberty here in the U.S., where all other rights may be enjoyed.) One dissent solved the conundrum by accepting limited Constitutional rights. In the same paragraph, it placed unadmitted aliens clearly enjoy constitutional protections” side by side with Of course, this does not mean that the Constitution requires that the rights of unadmitted aliens be coextensive with those of citizens."15 But the 14th and 5th Amendments are nothing of they accept either “limits” or “quotas” on constitutional rights. Rights that are not “coextensive with those of citizens” are the rights of slaves. However, the Court has never denied the "coextensivity" of the fundamental rights of "unadmitted aliens" with those of citizens.

Those two ideals are mutually exclusive because leaving Congress’ numerical limitations alone, while also protecting the Constitutional rights of 100% of U.S. residents, are logically impossible. The Court must choose between the liberty of 12+ million souls, or the self esteem of 535 souls.

16. ILLEGAL CHILDREN. Illegal adults have an uphill battle in the hearts of Americans, lawmakers, and judges because they have “broken the law”. Albeit a stupid, unconstitutional law which makes men, women, and children “criminals” for merely working hard alongside ourselves, nevertheless “the law”.

But the children they brought with them across the border have broken no law. Without "criminal intent", our laws do not find anyone guilty of a crime. That is why we judge juvenile offenders by different standards than we judge adults. Depending on their age, children have diminished capacity to “intend” to live on one or the other side of the border. They go where they are taken. As Plyler states, “those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. ... the children...'can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status.' ....legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.” (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 220 (1982) 16

1% withstand rational or strict scrutiny. 1% Quotas on the liberties of resident unauthorized alien children cannot withstand any scrutiny of any kind, and are without even the color of excuse.

17. Likelihood of Eventual Legal Status. Plyler v. Doe regards the probability that illegals will eventually become legal as a factor to weigh in deciding how we should treat them.

p. 207 ...under current laws and practices, "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow,"

P. 230 Because the State does not afford noncitizens the right to vote, and may bar noncitizens from participating in activities at the heart of its political community, appellants argue that denial of a basic education to these children is of less significance than the denial to some other group. Whatever the current status of these children, the courts below concluded that many will remain here permanently, and that some indeterminate number will eventually become citizens.

This consideration is expressed in the version of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause which is found in the Iowa Constitution: “Article I, section 22 of the Iowa Constitution provides: “Foreigners who are, or may hereafter become residents of this state, shall enjoy the same rights in respect to the possession, enjoyment and descent of property, as native born citizens.”

For Spiritual Perspective - similar arguments made from the Bible, see Quotas: Illegal


Footnotes

1. The 14th Amendment is for “Illegals” as well as Citizens.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) [[Ed: The large font below highlights a phrases which literally say illegals have equal rights to liberty as citizens! What the dissent said in 1952 (which even then was not contradicted by the majority) the majority ruled in 1982. If the Court meant what it literally said, it was willing not merely to let illegal children in schools, but eliminate the arbitrarily low quotas which give 12 million illegals NO LINE to get in! But no one asked this of the Court. Will the Court today honor this precedent, if asked? Yet notice the last sentence from this selection, which again talks about Congress' almost unreviewable right to decide who gets to come. Obviously the Court accords Congress more latitude over applicants abroad than illegals here!]] "....The Equal Protection Clause [of the 14th Amendment] was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious [offensive, prejudicial, causing hatred] class-based legislation. That objective is fundamentally at odds with the power the State asserts here to classify persons subject to its laws as nonetheless excepted from its protection. ....Indeed, it appears from those debates [during its passage of the 14th Amendment] that Congress, by using the phrase "person within its jurisdiction," sought expressly to ensure that the equal protection of the laws was provided to the alien population. Representative Bingham reported to the House [from committee] the draft resolution of the ...Fourteenth Amendment. [and argued in support]: " Is it not essential to the unity of the Government and the unity of the people that all persons, whether citizens or strangers, within this land, shall have equal protection in every State in this Union in the rights of life and liberty and property?"... Senator Howard, also a member of the Joint Committee of Fifteen, and the floor manager of the Amendment in the Senate, was no less explicit about the broad objectives of the Amendment, and the intention to make its provisions applicable to all who "may happen to be" within the jurisdiction of a State:... "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 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 person who may happen to be within their jurisdiction." (O)ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over the admission of aliens.’ Oceanic Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320, 339 (29 S. Ct. 671, 676, 53 L. Ed. 1013) (1909). 408 U.S. at 753 at 765-67, 92 S. Ct. 2576 ,33 L. Ed. 2d 683 (footnotes omitted)."

2. Constitutional rights are for aliens living here (legal or illegal), but not for immigration applicants abroad, even if they are in a legal line.

1952, HARISIADES v. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580, 598 (Dissent) "...The view that the power of Congress to deport aliens is absolute and may be exercised for any reason which Congress deems appropriate rests on Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, decided in 1893 by a six-to-three vote. That decision seems to me to be inconsistent with the philosophy of constitutional law which we have developed for the protection of resident aliens. We have long held that a resident alien is a "person" within the meaning of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. He therefore may not be deprived either by the National Government or by any state of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Nor may he be denied the equal protection of the laws. A state was not allowed to exclude an alien from the laundry business because he was a Chinese,1 nor discharge him from employment because he was not a citizen,2 nor deprive him of the right to fish because he was a Japanese ineligible to citizenship.3 An alien's property (provided he is not an enemy alien), may not be taken without just compensation.4 He is entitled to habeas corpus to test the legality of his restraint,5 to the protection of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in criminal trials,6 and to the right of free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.7 [[Ed: notice all 7 examples are of U.S. residents.]] An alien, who is assimilated in our society, is treated as a citizen so far as his property and his liberty are concerned. He can live and work here and raise a family, secure in the personal guarantees every resident has and safe from discriminations that might be leveled against him because he was born abroad. Those guarantees of liberty and livelihood are the essence of the freedom which this country from the beginning has offered the people of all lands....There may be occasions when the continued presence of an alien, no matter how long he may have been here, would be hostile to the safety or welfare of the Nation due to the nature of his conduct. But unless such condition is shown, I would stay the hand of the Government and let those to whom we have extended our hospitality and who have become members of our communities remain here and enjoy the life and liberty which the Constitution guarantees.

SHAUGHNESSY v. MEZEI, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953) P. 206: (c) Although a lawfully resident alien may not captiously be deprived of his constitutional rights to due process, the alien in this case is an entrant alien or "assimilated to that status" for constitutional purposes. Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, distinguished. Pp. 213-214.

P. 212: “It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law. ...But an alien on the threshold of initial entry stands on a different footing: "Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned."

[[Ed: in this bizarre ruling, a man was jailed without a right to trial because the land he was on was not counted as U.S. soil so he didn’t get any Constitutional rights. He was on Ellis Island, upon which the Statue of Liberty stands! The following selection condemns this ruling as the most embarrassing ruling in immigration history in the opinion of several published law review articles (see list in footnote 9 of the dissent) – a ruling never taken seriously as precedent. By 2004 in RASUL et al. v. BUSH, Mezei was quoted as authority but it was the DISSENT which was cited! Yet even in this most insensitive of rulings, the rights of aliens on U.S. soil was never questioned. The majority denies 5th Amendment rights to a man jailed at Ellis Island for reasons known only to the prosecutor, who would not give his reasons to the Court, even in secret session, because that would threaten national security! He was free to move to any other country, but after the U.S. "proclaimed him a Samson who might pull down the pillars of our temple, we should not be surprised if peoples less prosperous, less strongly established and less stable feared to take him off our timorous hands."(From a dissent.) (Mezei was jailed there 4 years until the Eisenhower administration quietly released him in 1954, 3 months before Ellis Island was closed. Freed at age 57, Mezei returned to Buffalo. He lived with his wife and four stepchildren in Derby, N.Y., until her death in 1969. He sold their home and returned to Hungary, where he is said to have died a few years later. Source: "Detained, without Details", 21/12/2005 By Richard A. Serrano, LA Times).]]

JEAN v. NELSON, 472 U.S. 846, 854 (1985) Because the current statutes and regulations (Begin page 855) provide petitioners with nondiscriminatory parole consideration - which is all they seek to obtain by virtue of their constitutional argument - there was no need to address the constitutional issue. " The en banc Court of Appeals rejected petitioners' constitutional claim, holding that Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953), compels the conclusion that petitioners "cannot claim equal protection rights under the fifth amendment, even with regard to challenging the Executive's exercise of its parole discretion." 727 F.2d, at 970.[Footnote 8] Before this Court, the Government takes the same position, arguing that "Mezei is directly on point." Brief for Respondents 40. I agree that broad dicta in Mezei might suggest that an undocumented alien detained at the border does not enjoy any constitutional Page 472 U.S. 846, 869 protections, and therefore cannot invoke the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. See also United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 544 (1950); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 601 (1953). This broad dicta, however, can withstand neither the weight of logic nor that of principle, and has never been incorporated into the fabric of our constitutional jurisprudence.

Jean v. Nelson, P. 869: Ignatz Mezei arrived in New York in 1950 and was temporarily excluded from the United States by an immigration inspector acting pursuant to the Passport Act. Pending disposition of his application for admission, he was detained at Ellis Island. A few months after his arrival and initial detention, the Attorney General entered a permanent order of exclusion, on the "basis of information of a confidential nature, the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the public interest . . . for security reasons." 345 U.S., at 208. Mezei was not told what this information was and was given no opportunity to present evidence of his own. Mezei then began a year-long search for a country willing to accept him. All of his attempts to find a new home failed, however, as did the State Department's efforts on his behalf. As a result, Mezei "sat on Ellis Island because this country shut him out and others were unwilling to take him in." Id., at 209. Seeking a writ of habeas corpus, Mezei argued that the Government's refusal to inform him of the reasons for his continued detention violated due process....

Jean v. Nelson, p. 870: The Court first distinguished between aliens who have entered the United States, whether legally or illegally, and those who, like Mezei and petitioners here, are detained at the border as they attempt to enter. The former group, the Court reasoned, could be expelled "only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law." 345 U.S., at 212. The Court, however, refused to afford such protections to the latter group. Citing United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, supra, the Court stated: "`Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.'" 345 U.S., at 212 (quoting 338 U.S., at 544). In Knauff, a 4-3 decision, an alien married to a United States citizen had sought to enter the United States to be naturalized. Upon arrival at our border, she was detained at Ellis Island. Eventually, and without a hearing, she was permanently excluded from the United States on the basis of undisclosed confidential information. The Court refused to find a constitutional right to a hearing prior to exclusion, stating that "it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien." United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, supra, at 543. Even though the procedural challenge in Mezei was not related to an exclusion order, but instead to the Government's refusal to temporarily parole an alien who already had been deemed excludable, the Court in Mezei did not distinguish between the two situations. Instead, it followed Knauff as if it were directly on point. Justices Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, and Jackson dissented in Mezei. Focusing on Mezei's detention on Ellis Island, Justice Jackson asked: "Because the respondent has no right of entry, does it follow that he has no rights at all?" 345 U.S., at 226 (Jackson, J., joined by Frankfurter, J., dissenting). He concluded that this detention could be enforced only through procedures "which meet the test of due process of law." Id., at 227. Similarly, Justice Black stated that "individual liberty is too highly prized in this country to allow executive officials to imprison and hold people on the basis of information kept secret from courts." Id., at 218 (Black, J., joined by Douglas, J., dissenting). He too thought that "Mezei's continued imprisonment without a hearing violate[d] due process of law." Id., at 217. The statement in Knauff and Mezei that "[w]hatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned," lies at the heart of the Government's argument in this case. This language suggests that aliens detained at the border can claim no rights under the Constitution. Further support for that view comes from Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, supra, which was decided after Knauff but one month before Mezei. The alien in Chew was a permanent resident of the United States who was "excluded" upon his return to this country following a 5-month trip abroad as a crewman on an American merchant ship. The Court declined to follow Knauff, which, it stated, "relates to the rights of an alien entrant and does not deal with the question of a resident alien's right to be heard." Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S., at 596. The Court then stated that a resident alien, unlike an alien entrant, "is a person within the protection of the Fifth Amendment." Ibid. Focusing on Chew's hybrid status - that of a resident alien attempting to enter the United States - the Court said: "While it may be that a resident alien's ultimate right to remain in the United States is subject to alteration by statute or authorized regulation because of a voyage undertaken by him to foreign ports, it does not follow that he is thereby deprived of his constitutional right to procedural due process. His status as a person within the Page 472 U.S. 846, 872 meaning and protection of the Fifth Amendment cannot be capriciously taken from him." Id., at 601 (emphasis added). In the Court's view, because he was a resident alien, Chew was a "person" for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment. Also under the Court's view, however, the Executive's characterization of Chew as a first-time entrant - rather than a resident alien - was equivalent to taking away his status as a "person" for the purposes of constitutional coverage. The broad and ominous nature of the dicta in Knauff, Chew, and Mezei becomes clear when one realizes that they apply not only to aliens outside our borders, but also to aliens who are physically within the territory of the United States and over whom the Executive directly exercises its coercive power. Moreover, the dicta do not apply only to aliens in detention at modern-day Ellis Islands; they apply also to individuals who literally live within our midst, as our case law establishes that aliens temporarily paroled into the United States have no more rights than those in detention. See Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228 (1925). [[Ed: You have just read a justice express horror at the thought of an illegal being denied Constitutional rights - a horror NOT reserved for immigration applicants abroad.]]

[[Ed: The flollowing is the same point I made in Mezei: the concurrence cited no authority for its list of things Congress could do that the Courts could not review, and that list defies the record. This dissent makes the same point in this case: unsupported assumptions that aliens have no rights collide with case law saying they do.]] P. 872 The question decided in Chew was that the alien's due process rights had been violated. The broad notion that "`excludable' aliens . . . are not within the protection of the Fifth Amendment," Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, supra, at 600, on which the Government heavily relies in this case, Brief for Respondents 28-29, is therefore clearly dictum, and as such it is entitled to no more deference than logic and principle would accord it. Under this standard, the broad dictum in question deserves no deference at all. Our case law makes clear that excludable aliens do, in fact, enjoy Fifth Amendment protections. First, when an alien detained at the border is criminally prosecuted in this country, he must enjoy at trial all of the protections that the Constitution provides to criminal defendants. As early as Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), the Court stated, albeit in dictum, that while Congress can "forbid aliens or classes of aliens from coming within [our] borders," it cannot punish such aliens without "a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused." Id., at 237. The right of an unadmitted alien to Fifth Amendment due process protections at trial is universally respected by the lower federal courts and is acknowledged by the Government. See, e. g., United States v. Henry, 604 F.2d 908, 912-913 (CA5 1979); United States v. Casimiro-Benitez, 533 F.2d 1121 (CA9), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 926 (1976); Brief in Opposition 20-21. Surely it would defy logic to say that a precondition for the applicability of the Constitution is an allegation that an alien committed a crime. There is no basis for conferring constitutional rights only on those unadmitted aliens who violate our society's norms.

Second, in Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States, 282 U.S. 481 (1931), the Court held that a corporation "duly organized under, and by virtue of, the Laws of Russia," id., at 487, could invoke the Fifth Amendment to challenge an unlawful taking by the Federal Government. The corporation in that case certainly had no more claim to being "within the United States" than do the aliens detained at Ellis Island. Nonetheless, the Court broadly stated that "[a]s alien friends are embraced within the terms of the Fifth Page 472 U.S. 846, 874 Amendment, it cannot be said that their property is subject to confiscation here because the property of our citizens may be confiscated in the alien's country." Id., at 491-492 (emphasis added). Under the dicta in the Knauff-Chew-Mezei trilogy, however, an alien could not invoke the Constitution to challenge the conditions of his detention at Ellis Island or at a similar facility in the United States. It simply is irrational to maintain that the Constitution protects an alien from deprivations of "property" but not from deprivations of "life" or "liberty." Such a distinction is rightfully foreign to the Fifth Amendment. Third, even in the immigration context, the principle that unadmitted aliens have no constitutionally protected rights defies rationality. Under this view, the Attorney General, for example, could invoke legitimate immigration goals to justify a decision to stop feeding all detained aliens. He might argue that scarce immigration resources could be better spent by hiring additional agents to patrol our borders than by providing food for detainees. Surely we would not condone mass starvation. As Justice Jackson stated in his dissent in Mezei: "Does the power to exclude mean that exclusion may be continued or effectuated by any means which happen to seem appropriate to the authorities? It would effectuate [an alien's] exclusion to eject him bodily into the sea or to set him adrift in a rowboat. Would not such measures be condemned judicially as a deprivation of life without due process of law?" 345 U.S., at 226-227. Only the most perverse reading of the Constitution would deny detained aliens the right to bring constitutional challenges to the most basic conditions of their confinement.

Fourth, any limitations on the applicability of the Constitution within our territorial jurisdiction fly in the face of this Court's long-held and recently reaffirmed commitment Page to apply the Constitution's due process and equal protection guarantees to all individuals within the reach of our sovereignty. "These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, by its express terms, the Fourteenth Amendment prescribes that "[n]o State . . . shall 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." In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), we made clear that this principle applies to aliens, for "[w]hatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a `person' in any ordinary sense of that term." Id., at 210; see also Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976). Such emphasis on universal coverage is not surprising, given that the Fourteenth Amendment was specifically intended to overrule a legal fiction similar to that undergirding Knauff, Chew, and Mezei - that freed slaves were not "people of the United States." Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1857).

Therefore, it cannot rationally be argued that the Constitution provides no protections to aliens in petitioners' position. Both our case law and pure logic compel the rejection of the sweeping proposition articulated in the Knauff-Chew-Mezei dicta. To the extent that this Court has relied on Mezei at all, it has done so only in the narrow area of entry decisions. See, e. g., Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 766 (1972). It is in this area that the Government's interest in protecting our sovereignty is at its strongest and that individual claims to constitutional entitlement are the least compelling. But even with respect to entry decisions, the Court has refused to characterize the authority of the political branches as wholly unbridled. Indeed, "[o]ur cases reflect acceptance of a limited judicial responsibility under the Constitution even with respect to the power of Congress to regulate the admission and exclusion of aliens." Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 793, n. 5 (1977).[Footnote 9]

3. Constitutional Rights for “illegals” living here, or “unadmitted aliens”, must be protected AS MUCH AS for citizens:

BOUTILIER v. IMMIGRATION SERVICE, 387 U.S. 118, 132 (1967) (Dissent by Douglas, concurrence by Fortas) "Deportation is the equivalent to banishment or exile. ... Though technically not criminal, it practically may be. The penalty is so severe that we have extended to the resident alien the protection of due process.

HARISIADES v. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580, 599 (1952) (Dissent by Douglas, Black concurring) An alien, who is assimilated in our society, is treated as a citizen so far as his property and his liberty are concerned. He can live and work here and raise a family, secure in the personal guarantees every resident has and safe from discriminations that might be leveled against him because he was born abroad. Those guarantees of liberty and livelihood are the essence of the freedom which this country from the beginning has offered the people of all lands.

4. The Rigt to Remain here: the Fundamental Right

1952, HARISIADES v. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580, 599 If those rights, great as they are, have constitutional protection, I think the more important one - the right to remain here - has a like dignity. The power of Congress to exclude, admit, or deport aliens flows from sovereignty itself and from the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 4. The power of deportation is therefore an implied one. The right to life and liberty is an express one. Why this implied power should be given priority over the express guarantee of the Fifth Amendment has never been satisfactorily answered. Mr. Justice Brewer's dissent in Fong Yue Ting v. United States, supra, pp. 737-738, grows in power with the passing years:

'It is said that the power here asserted is inherent in sovereignty. This doctrine of powers inherent in sovereignty is one both indefinite and dangerous. Where are the limits to such powers to be found, and by whom are they to be pronounced? Is it within legislative capacity to declare the limits? If so, then the mere assertion of an inherent power creates it, and despotism exists. [[Ed: A bit of an overstatement, since “despots” don’t face voters every couple of years.]] May the courts establish the boundaries? Whence do they obtain the authority for this? Shall they look to the practices of other nations to ascertain the limits? The governments of other nations have elastic powers - ours is fixed and bounded by a written constitution. The expulsion of a race may be within the inherent powers of a despotism. History, before the adoption of this Constitution, was not destitute of examples of the exercise of such a power; and its framers were familiar with history, and wisely, as it seems to me, they gave to this government no general power to banish. Banishment may be resorted to as punishment for crime; but among the powers reserved to the people and not delegated to the government is that of determining whether whole classes in our midst shall, for no crime but that of their race and birthplace, be driven from our territory."

[[Context of this dissent: the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibited even one Chinese person from immigrating legally. It was not repealed for 61 years! Finally, in 1943, needing Chinese help to whip the Japs, we magnanimously allowed a whole 150 Chinese to immigrate legally! Before 1882, there was no such thing as a law saying anyone couldn’t come live here. There were waiting periods for citizenship, which meant the right to vote, but no restrictions on coming and living here. So when Congress enacted the ban, before the Statue of Liberty could be delivered but after construction had begun, and so close after the 14th Amendment passed whose spirit was opposite the ban was truly shocking to generous spirits.]]

[The dissent continues, concerning the deportation of communists: ] The right to be immune from arbitrary decrees of banishment certainly may be more important to "liberty" than the civil rights which all aliens enjoy when they reside here. Unless they are free from arbitrary banishment, the "liberty" they enjoy while they live here is indeed illusory. Banishment is punishment in the practical sense. It may deprive a man and his family of all that makes life worth while. Those who have their roots here have an important stake in this country. Their plans for themselves and their hopes for their children all depend on their right to stay. If they are uprooted and sent to lands no longer known to them, no longer hospitable, they become displaced, homeless people condemned to bitterness and despair....There may be occasions when the continued presence of an alien, no matter how long he may have been here, would be hostile to the safety or welfare of the Nation due to the nature of his conduct. But unless such condition is shown, I would stay the hand of the Government and let those to whom we have extended our hospitality and who have become members of our communities remain here and enjoy the life and liberty which the Constitution guarantees.

5. Liberty, Specifically, is Protected for Resident Aliens as Much as for Citizens

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) [[Ed: The large font below highlights a phrases which literally say illegals have equal rights to liberty as citizens! What the dissent said in 1952 (which even then was not contradicted by the majority) the majority ruled in 1982. If the Court meant what it literally said, it was willing not merely to let illegal children in schools, but eliminate the arbitrarily low quotas which give 12 million illegals NO LINE to get in! But no one asked this of the Court. Will the Court today honor this precedent, if asked? Yet notice the last sentence from this selection, which again talks about Congress' almost unreviewable right to decide who gets to come. Obviously the Court accords Congress more latitude over applicants abroad than illegals here!]] "....The Equal Protection Clause [of the 14th Amendment] was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious [offensive, prejudicial, causing hatred] class-based legislation. That objective is fundamentally at odds with the power the State asserts here to classify persons subject to its laws as nonetheless excepted from its protection. ....Indeed, it appears from those debates [during its passage of the 14th Amendment] that Congress, by using the phrase "person within its jurisdiction," sought expressly to ensure that the equal protection of the laws was provided to the alien population. Representative Bingham reported to the House [from committee] the draft resolution of the ...Fourteenth Amendment. [and argued in support]: " Is it not essential to the unity of the Government and the unity of the people that all persons, whether citizens or strangers, within this land, shall have equal protection in every State in this Union in the rights of life and liberty and property?"... Senator Howard, also a member of the Joint Committee of Fifteen, and the floor manager of the Amendment in the Senate, was no less explicit about the broad objectives of the Amendment, and the intention to make its provisions applicable to all who "may happen to be" within the jurisdiction of a State:... "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 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 person who may happen to be within their jurisdiction." (O)ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over the admission of aliens.’ Oceanic Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320, 339 (29 S. Ct. 671, 676, 53 L. Ed. 1013) (1909). 408 U.S. at 753 at 765-67, 92 S. Ct. 2576 ,33 L. Ed. 2d 683 (footnotes omitted)."

1952, HARISIADES v. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580, 598 (Dissent) "We have long held that a resident alien is a "person" within the meaning of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. He therefore may not be deprived either by the National Government or by any state of ...liberty...without due process of law. Nor may he be denied the equal protection of the laws. An alien, who is assimilated in our society, is treated as a citizen so far as his... liberty are concerned. He can live and work here and raise a family, secure in the personal guarantees every resident has and safe from discriminations that might be leveled against him because he was born abroad. Those guarantees of liberty and livelihood are the essence of the freedom which this country from the beginning has offered the people of all lands....There may be occasions when the continued presence of an alien, no matter how long he may have been here, would be hostile to the safety or welfare of the Nation due to the nature of his conduct. But unless such condition is shown, I would stay the hand of the Government and let those to whom we have extended our hospitality and who have become members of our communities remain here and enjoy the life and liberty which the Constitution guarantees.

6. The Right of an Illegal to Liberty is Clearer than the Right of Congress to Deport Illegals

1952, HARISIADES v. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580, 599 If those rights, great as they are, have constitutional protection, I think the more important one - the right to remain here - has a like dignity. The power of Congress to exclude, admit, or deport aliens flows from sovereignty itself and from the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 4. The power of deportation is therefore an implied one. The right to life and liberty is an express one. Why this implied power should be given priority over the express guarantee of the Fifth Amendment has never been satisfactorily answered.

7. Liberty is not Liberty where it Depends on the Arbitrary Will of Another, such as in the Roll of the Quota Dice.

SHAUGHNESSY v. MEZEI, 345 U.S. 206, 217 (1953) Dissent by Black “No society is free where government makes one person's liberty depend upon the arbitrary will of another. Dictatorships have done this since time immemorial. They do now. Russian laws of 1934 authorized the People's Commissariat to imprison, banish and exile Russian citizens as well as "foreign subjects who are socially dangerous."* Hitler's secret police were (start page 218) given like powers. German courts were forbidden to make any inquiry whatever as to the information on which the police acted. Our Bill of Rights was written to prevent such oppressive practices. Under it this Nation has fostered and protected individual freedom. The Founders abhorred arbitrary one-man imprisonments. Their belief was - our constitutional principles are - that no person of any faith, rich or poor, high or low, native or foreigner, white or colored, can have his life, liberty or property taken "without due process of law."

8. QUOTAS STINK, SAYS COURT

1952, HARISIADES v. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580, In their personal views, libertarians like Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Brandeis doubtless disapproved of some of these [immigration] policies [of Congress], departures as they were from the best traditions of this country and based as they have been in part on discredited racial theories or manipulation of figures in formulating what is known as the quota system. ...immigration laws have been crude and cruel,... have reflected xenophobia in general or anti-Semitism or anti-Catholicism, ....deemed to offend American traditions and ....jeopardize peace. In recognizing this power and this responsibility of Congress, one does not in the remotest degree align oneself with fears unworthy of the American spirit or with hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit. One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court.

1985 JEAN v. NELSON, 472 U.S. 846 (1985)

[[Notice the "if" clause: "IF entry quotas may be set by reference to nationality", (which of course is the way it is done), as if that authority is by no means assured! Yet no one has yet asked the Court to overturn Congress' policy, so this justice is dropping us a clue, a plea: "Please ask us!"]] From dissent: “It is also true that national origin can sometimes be a permissible consideration in immigration policy. But even IF entry quotas may be set by reference to nationality, national origin (let alone race) cannot control every decision in any way related to immigration.”

9. Neither State nor Congress can Deny Liberty to Illegals.

1952, HARISIADES v. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580, 598 (Dissent) "We have long held that a resident alien is a "person" within the meaning of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. He therefore may not be deprived either by the National Government or by any state of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Nor may he be denied the equal protection of the laws. ....He can live and work here and raise a family, secure in the personal guarantees every resident has and safe from discriminations that might be leveled against him because he was born abroad. Those guarantees of liberty and livelihood are the essence of the freedom which this country from the beginning has offered the people of all lands.

10. “Strict Scrutiny” or “Rational Basis”?

Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202, 215 (1982) Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

Our conclusion that the illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases may claim the benefit of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection only begins the inquiry. The more difficult question is whether the Equal Protection Clause has been violated by the refusal of the State of Texas to reimburse local school boards for the education of children who cannot demonstrate that their presence within the [p216] United States is lawful, or by the imposition by those school boards of the burden of tuition on those children. It is to this question that we now turn.

III The Equal Protection Clause directs that "all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike." F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920). But so too, "[t]he Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same." Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147 (1940). The initial discretion to determine what is "different" and what is "the same" resides in the legislatures of the States. A legislature must have substantial latitude to establish classifications that roughly approximate the nature of the problem perceived, that accommodate competing concerns both public and private, and that account for limitations on the practical ability of the State to remedy every ill. In applying the Equal Protection Clause to most forms of state action, we thus seek only the assurance that the classification at issue bears some fair relationship to a legitimate public purpose.

But we would not be faithful to our obligations under the Fourteenth Amendment if we applied so deferential a standard to every classification. The Equal Protection Clause was intended as a restriction on state legislative action inconsistent with elemental constitutional premises. Thus, we have treated as presumptively invidious those classifications that disadvantage a "suspect class," [n14] or that impinge upon [p217] the exercise of a "fundamental right." [n15] With respect to such classifications, it is appropriate to enforce the mandate of equal protection by requiring the State to demonstrate that its classification has been precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. In addition, we have recognized that certain forms of legislative classification, while not facially invidious, nonetheless give rise to recurring constitutional difficulties; in these limited circumstances, we have sought the assurance that the classification reflects a reasoned judgment consistent with the ideal of equal protection by inquiring whether it may fairly be viewed as furthering a [p218] substantial interest of the State. [n16]

[[The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed an Iowa law barring illegals from getting drivers’ licenses, quoting Plyler in determining illegals are not a “suspect class” and travel is not a “fundamental right”, like abortion is. (I’m not making it up. Read it for yourself.) The Court further explains the difference between “strict scrutiny” and “rational basis”.]] 2005, Sanchez v. State, 692 N.W.2d 812, 817, 819 (Iowa 2005) The classes argued in their brief that we should apply strict scrutiny in this case. However, at oral arguments, counsel correctly conceded that no suspect class or fundamental right was at issue in this case and that rational basis was the appropriate level of scrutiny. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 223, 102 S. Ct. 2382, 2398, 72 L. Ed. 2d 786, 803 (1982) (“Undocumented aliens cannot be treated as a suspect class because their presence in this country in violation of federal law is not a ‘constitutional irrelevancy.’”); id. at 218 n.15, 102 S. Ct. at 2395 n.15, 72 L. Ed. 2d at 799 n.15 (stating that fundamental rights are those explicitly or implicitly contained in the Constitution).

Under rational-basis review, the statute need only be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 440, 105 S. Ct. at 3254, 87 L. Ed. 2d at 320.  As the Supreme Court has explained:

Under rational-basis review, where a group possesses “distinguishing characteristics relevant to interests the State has the authority to implement,” a State’s decision to act on the basis of those differences does not give rise to a constitutional violation. “Such a classification cannot run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.” Moreover, the State need not articulate its reasoning at the moment a particular decision is made. Rather, the burden is upon the challenging party to negative (sic) “‘any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.’”

11. Even “rational basis”, and much more so “Strict Scrutiny”, weighs not only the “compelling government interest” served by letting the law stand, but also “its costs to the nation”.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 203 (1982) In determining the rationality of the Texas statute, its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children may properly be considered.

(P. 221)...education provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives to the benefit of us all. In sum, education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society. We cannot ignore the significant social costs borne by our Nation when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests....

Illiteracy is an enduring disability. The inability to read and write will handicap the individual deprived of a basic education each and every day of his life. The inestimable toll of that deprivation on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological wellbeing of the individual, and the obstacle it poses to individual achievement, make it most difficult to reconcile the cost or the principle of a status-based denial of basic education with the framework of equality embodied in the Equal Protection Clause. [n20] What we said 28 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), still holds true:


Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school [p223] attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”


12. The Government's Solution must be "Effective"

CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. v. PUBLIC SERV. COMM'N, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) 447 U.S. 557 The State must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions.... Moreover, the regulatory technique must be in proportion to that interest. The limitation...must be designed carefully to achieve the State's goal. Compliance with this requirement may be measured by two criteria. First, the restriction must directly advance the state interest involved; the regulation may not be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the government's purpose. Second, if the governmental interest could be served as well by a more limited restriction..., the excessive restrictions cannot survive. Under the first criterion, the Court has declined to uphold regulations that only indirectly advance the state interest involved. ...

....we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial..., we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. The regulatory technique may extend only as far as the interest it serves. The State cannot regulate [anything] that poses no danger to the asserted state interest,

13. The Legal Fiction of "Liberty" which Lasts Only Until the CIS Finds Them

THE LEGAL FICTION THAT ILLEGALS’ LIBERTY IS PROTECTED BY COURTS SHAUGHNESSY v. MEZEI, p. 220 Dissent by Jackson and Frankfurter “Realistically, this man is incarcerated by a combination of forces which keep him as effectually as a prison, the dominant and proximate of these forces being the United States immigration authority. It overworks legal fiction to say that one is free in law when by the commonest of common sense he is bound. Despite the impeccable legal logic of the Government's argument on this point, it leads to an artificial and unreal conclusion.3 We must (begin page 221) regard this alien as deprived of liberty, and the question is whether the deprivation is a denial of due process of law.

14. Jurisdiction over Congressional Immigration Law

[[Ed: This is Justice Frankfurter’s comprehensive list of the policies Congress can enact without Court jurisdiction to review. But no cites are given, and this is the only justice whose signature is on this list. The majority had concluded there was no 1st Amendment problem, even had the deported communists been citizens; but Justice Frankfurter seems to be implying that even if the legitimate free speech rights of the communists been violated, the Court should have deferred to Congress and deported them anyway. If this is his meaning, he stands against every other court decision, which shows willingness to intervene (on behalf of aliens, whether legal or illegal, who are living here) if there are constitutional violations. But see how much contempt even this this extreme Congress-tolerant justice shows for Congress’ quota system! Even he would joyfully overturn it, should he see his way to jurisdiction over it. He says “what classes of aliens shall be allowed to enter and what classes of aliens shall be allowed to stay, are for Congress exclusively to determine”. This is generally but not absolutely true. It is probably no more true of immigration law than it is of civil rights, 1st Amendment, abortion, or any other area of law where the Court has impacted Congress’ decisions: the Court doesn’t start out writing laws, but when it decides a law violates the Constitution, the law is defacto rewritten.]]

1952, HARISIADES v. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580 MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, concurring. “It is not for this Court to reshape a world order based on politically sovereign States. In such an international ordering of the world a national State implies a special relationship of one body of people, i. e., citizens of that State, whereby the citizens of each State are aliens in relation to every other State. Ever since national States have come into being, the right of people to enjoy the hospitality of a State of which they are not citizens has been a matter of political determination by each State. (I put to one side the oddities of dual citizenship.) "Though as a matter of political outlook and economic need this country has traditionally welcomed aliens to come to its shores, it has done so exclusively as a matter of political outlook and national self-interest. This policy has been a political policy, belonging to the political branch of the Government wholly outside the concern and the competence of the Judiciary. (Paragraph) Accordingly, when this policy changed and the political and law-making branch of this Government, the Congress, decided to restrict the right of immigration about seventy years ago, this Court thereupon and ever since has recognized that the determination of a selective and exclusionary immigration policy was for the Congress and not for the Judiciary. "The conditions for entry of every alien, the particular classes of aliens that shall be denied entry altogether, the basis for determining such classification, the right to terminate hospitality to aliens, the grounds on which such determination shall be based, have been recognized as matters solely for the responsibility of the Congress and wholly outside the power of this Court to control. (Paragraph) The Court's acknowledgment of the sole responsibility of Congress for these matters has been made possible by Justices whose cultural outlook, whose breadth of view and robust tolerance were not exceeded by those of Jefferson. In their personal views, libertarians like Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Brandeis doubtless disapproved of some of these policies, departures as they were from the best traditions of this country and based as they have been in part on discredited racial theories or manipulation of figures in formulating what is known as the quota system. (Paragraph) But whether immigration laws have been crude and cruel, whether they may have reflected xenophobia in general or anti-Semitism or anti-Catholicism, the responsibility belongs to Congress. Courts do enforce the requirements imposed by Congress upon officials in administering immigration laws, e. g., Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, and the requirement of Due Process may entail certain procedural observances. E. g., Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276. But the underlying policies of what classes of aliens shall be allowed to enter and what classes of aliens shall be allowed to stay, are for Congress exclusively to determine even though such determination may be deemed to offend American traditions and may, as has been the case, jeopardize peace. In recognizing this power and this responsibility of Congress, one does not in the remotest degree align oneself with fears unworthy of the American spirit or with hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit. One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court.

1985 JEAN v. NELSON, 472 U.S. 846 (1985) From dissent by Marshall, joined by Brennan: [[This selection articulates fairly clear criteria for what Congress can and cannot do in immigration policy if it wants to avoid being overturned. It takes a more restrictive view of what Congress can get away with than Frankfurter’s List. Actually the case directly reviews a decision by the Attorney General, from the Executive Branch. But it was resolved when the INS hurriedly rewrote regulations previously approved by Congress. Marshall writes that immigration officials become targets of the Court when their decisions seem more attributable to racial or nationality prejudice than to legitimate immigration goals. Otherwise, nationalities cannot be treated differently. Not addressed is how it is possible to treat immigrants of all nationalities to 1% of the liberty of citizens, while saying they are entitled to 100% of the liberty of citizens.]] This dissent is not the place to determine the precise contours of petitioners' equal protection rights, but a brief discussion might clarify what is at stake. It is clear that, consistent with our constitutional scheme, the Executive enjoys wide discretion over immigration decisions. Here, the Government would have a strong case if it showed that (1) refusing to parole Haitians would slow down the flow onto United States shores of undocumented Haitians, and that (2) refusing to parole other groups would not have a similar deterrent effect. Then, its policy of detaining Haitians but paroling other groups might be sufficiently related to the valid immigration goal of reducing the number of undocumented aliens arriving at our borders to withstand constitutional scrutiny. Another legitimate governmental goal in this area might be to reduce the time it takes to process applications for asylum. If the challenged policy serves that goal, then arguably it should be upheld, provided of course that it is not too underinclusive. It is also true that national origin can sometimes be a permissible consideration in immigration policy. But even if entry quotas may be set by reference to nationality, national origin (let alone race) cannot control every decision in any way related to immigration. For example, that the Executive might properly admit into this country many Cubans but relatively few Haitians does not imply that, when dealing with aliens in detention, it can feed Cubans but not feed Haitians. In general, national-origin classifications have a stronger claim to constitutionality when they are employed in connection with decisions that lie at the heart of immigration policy. Cf. Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88, 116 (1976) ("[D]ue process requires that [an agency's] decision to impose [a] deprivation of an important liberty . . . be justified by reasons which are properly the concern of that agency"). When central immigration concerns are not at stake, however, the Executive must recognize the individuality of the alien, just as it must recognize the individuality of all other persons within our borders. If in this case the Government acted out of a belief that Haitians (or Negroes for that matter) are more likely than others to commit crimes or be disruptive of the community into which they are paroled, its detention policy certainly would not pass constitutional muster.

1952, HARISIADES v. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580, 592 To arm all men for orderly change, the Constitution put in their hands a right to influence the electorate by press, speech and assembly. This means freedom to advocate or promote Communism by means of the ballot box, but it does not include the practice or incitement of violence.... We think the First Amendment does not prevent the deportation of these aliens.

1967, BOUTILIER v. IMMIGRATION SERVICE, 387 U.S. 118, 123 Petitioner says, even so, the [law barring immigrants with a "psychopathic personality"] is constitutionally defective because it did not adequately warn him that his sexual affliction at the time of entry could lead to his deportation. It is true that this Court has held the "void for vagueness" doctrine applicable to civil as well as criminal actions. See Small Co. v. Am. Sugar Ref. Co., 267 U.S. 233, 239 (1925). However, this is where "the exaction of obedience to a rule or standard . . . was so vague and indefinite as really to be no rule or standard at all. . . ." In short, the exaction must strip a participant of his rights to come within the principle of the cases. But the "exaction" of 212 (a) (4) never applied to petitioner's conduct after entry. The section imposes neither regulation of nor sanction for conduct. In this situation, therefore, no necessity exists for guidance so that one may avoid the applicability of the law. The petitioner is not being deported for conduct engaged in after his entry into the United States, but rather for characteristics he possessed at the time of his entry. Here, when petitioner first presented himself at our border for entrance, he was already afflicted with homosexuality. The pattern was cut, and under it he was not admissible. The constitutional requirement of fair warning has no applicability to standards such as are laid down in 212 (a) (4) for admission of aliens to the United States. It has long been held that the Congress has plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden. See The Chinese Exclusion Case, [Page 387 U.S. 118, 124] (1889)." [[The Court in this case remains willing to strike down a law that does not meet the "constitutional requirement of fair warning", even for a noncitizen, but even for citizens, the requirement doesn't apply to a regulation about health characteristics, which the immigrant is powerless to change regardless of how much warning he has. Notice that the Court remains willing to safeguard the Constitutional rights, even of an alien. Notice also that the Court says "Congress [can] make rules ...to exclude those [it doesn't want] but that doesn't mean that after Congress makes its rules the Court can't review their constitutionality! Because that is exactly what the Court did in this case! Although the Court found no Constitutional violation, it was willing to look for one.]]

1977, FIALLO v. BELL, 430 U.S. 787, 796 ...This is not to say, as we make clear in n. 5, supra, that the the Government's power in this area is never subject to judicial review. But our cases....are subject only to limited judicial review. [[Ed: Or, if it sounds plausible, that’s good enough.]] [ Footnote 8 ] The inherent difficulty of determining the paternity of an illegitimate child is compounded when it depends upon events that may have occurred in foreign countries many years earlier. Congress may well have given substantial weight, in adopting the classification here challenged, to these problems of proof and the potential for fraudulent visa applications that would have resulted from a more generous drawing of the line. Moreover, our cases clearly indicate that legislative distinctions in the immigration area need not be as "`carefully tuned to alternative considerations,'" Trimble v. Gordon, ante, at 772 (quoting Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 513 (1976)), as those in the domestic area.

FROM THE DISSENT: (P. 805) I also have no quarrel with the principle that the essentially political judgments by Congress as to which foreigners may enter and which may not deserve deference from the judiciary. ....The simple fact that the discrimination is set in immigration legislation cannot insulate from scrutiny the invidious abridgment of citizens' fundamental interests.



15. The Court's Jurisdictional Conundrum

JEAN v. NELSON, 472 U.S. 846, 876 (1985) Dissent of Marshall, with Brennan) Regardless of the proper treatment of constitutional challenges to entry decisions, unadmitted aliens clearly enjoy constitutional protections with respect to other exercises of the Government's coercive power within our territory. Of course, this does not mean that the Constitution requires that the rights of unadmitted aliens be coextensive with those of citizens. But, "[g]ranting that the requirements of due process must vary with the circumstances," the Court is obliged to determine whether decisions concerning the parole of unadmitted aliens are consistent with due process, and it cannot "pass back the buck to an assertedly all-powerful and unimpeachable Congress." Hart, The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic, 66 Harv. L. Rev. 1362, 1394 (1953) (discussing Knauff and Mezei). The proper constitutional inquiry must concern the scope of the equal protection and due process Page 472 U.S. 846, 877 rights at stake, and not whether the Due Process Clause can be invoked at all.



16. Illegal Children

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 219 (1982) The children who are plaintiffs in these cases are special members of this underclass. Persuasive arguments support the view that a State may withhold its beneficence from those whose very presence within the United States is the product of their own unlawful conduct. These arguments do not apply [p220] with the same force to classifications imposing disabilities on the minor children of such illegal entrants. At the least, those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. Their "parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms," and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State's jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status." Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 770 (1977). Even if the State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.


[V]isiting . . . condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the . . . child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth, and penalizing the . . . child is an ineffectual -- as well as unjust -- way of deterring the parent.


P. 202 Although undocumented resident aliens cannot be treated as a "suspect class," and although education is not a "fundamental right," so as to require the State to justify the statutory classification by showing that it serves a compelling governmental interest, nevertheless the Texas statute imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. These children can neither affect their parents' conduct nor their own undocumented status.

P. 207 Finally, the court noted that, under current laws and practices, "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow," [n4] and that, without an education, these undocumented children, [a]lready disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class.”


P. 220 Of course, undocumented status is not irrelevant to any proper legislative goal. Nor is undocumented status an absolutely immutable characteristic, since it is the product of conscious, indeed unlawful, action. But §21.031 is directed against children, and imposes its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control. It is thus difficult to conceive of a rational justification for penalizing these children for their presence within the United States. Yet that appears to be precisely the effect of §21.031.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

QUESTION: If we can establish that all people have a constitutional right to liberty, then what is the definition exactly of liberty? What did the founding fathers intend when they gave us that right? Because I can see ICE and CIS easily arguing that they ARE giving immigrants “liberty” – liberty to go through the deportation procedure and be sent back home. Numerical limitations doesn’t take away THAT liberty. So, how does liberty translate to legal status in the U.S.? That’s my question. -A.N.

ANSWER: From footnote 4 (which you have already read): "The power of deportation is therefore an implied one. The right to life and liberty is an express one." (1952, Harisiades). Where is it "express"? The next sentence: "Why this implied power should be given priority over the express guarantee of the Fifth Amendment has never been satisfactorily answered." 

 
The Preamble: "We the people of the United states of America, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." 

The 5th Amendment (which is quoted side by side with the 14th very frequently in these excerpts): "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."

Amendment XIV. Section. 1. 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.

  Your concern that the word "liberty" itself may be interpreted by the Court as something far less than the common meaning calls for the reassurance of the following points:  

1. Notice that in the 1952 quote above, "liberty" is presumed to be the opposite of "deportation".

2.The same dissent continues: "The right to be immune from arbitrary decrees of banishment certainly may be more important to "liberty" than the civil rights which all aliens enjoy when they reside here. Unless they are free from arbitrary banishment, the "liberty" they enjoy while they live here is indeed illusory." (As I said before, an argument from a dissent is usually the weakest source of winning arguments. But where the argument is not contradicted by the majority, it is a strong source of sound legal thinking. And in the case of this particular dissent, it was actually cited by the majority a generation later, while the majority view in this decision has suffered decades of humiliation.)  
 
3. The Plyler quotes in footnote 5 could not make it more clear that residents, even "illegal" residents, may not be deprived of liberty without destroying the unity of our nation. The degree of "liberty" which they must be allowed is the same degree of liberty which natural born citizens are allowed, according to the Plyler verbiage.
 
4. This same definition was given, with a bit more detail, in the 1952 dissent: "

"We have long held that a resident alien is a "person" within the meaning of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. He therefore may not be deprived either by the National Government or by any state of ...liberty...without due process of law. Nor may he be denied the equal protection of the laws. An alien, who is assimilated in our society, is treated as a citizen so far as his... liberty are concerned. He can live and work here and raise a family, secure in the personal guarantees every resident has and safe from discriminations that might be leveled against him because he was born abroad. Those guarantees of liberty and livelihood are the essence of the freedom which this country from the beginning has offered the people of all lands.."

Can a policeman say "I am giving you the liberty to go to jail" without being LOL'd at? (Laugh Out Loud) Can the CIS claim it is giving immigrants the "liberty" to be deported? Even Tancredo would laugh, although for him the laughter would not be cynical but merry.

QUESTION: I see that you refer to Plyler vs. Doe – my concern there is that basing your argument on case-law rather than the Constitution itself makes for a weaker argument. But this is where my lack of legal expertise may get me down. I’m just speaking from my sense of how the legal system might work – not from a knowledge of how it actually DOES work. - A.N.

ANSWER: The importance of drawing an argument from the Supreme Court is that it is the Supreme Court to whom we appeal. Even if a right has no basis in the Constitution whatsoever, like the right to abortion, we read the Court's opinions about that "right" and get a better idea of how our appeal will proceed than if we read the Constitution.

QUESTION - OR, RATHER, CHALLENGE: I don’t really have time now to engage with this issue -- we’re working on one, maybe two, amicus briefs to the Supreme Court that are due very soon, on cases the Court will be hearing in the next few months, on top of all the other usual stuff. Totally off the top of my head, there is a lot of law about Congressional plenary power (meaning, basically, unrestricted) to decide who enters the US, and what in what categories and numbers. Remember that “aliens” seeking to enter may have some limited right to some procedure, but courts have held that whatever procedure Congress deems appropriate is enough -- and that’s procedural protections, which generally are considered an easier sell. What he’s talking about is a substantive right -- most courts have said there isn’t even a substantive right to remain here or for relief from removal, even for long-term LPRs -- whatever Congress says is enough, the Constitution doesn’t give more rights in that context either. And long-term LPRs within the country have more rights than people seeking to enter. It’s easy to say “unconstitutional” and yes, the quotas may seem unfair, but unfair is not necessarly unconstitutional. There are so many unfairnesses in the immigration system, as we know -- NACARA relief that only applies to people from some countries who entered / registered before certain dates, the diversity lottery, TPS from certain countries and not others etc. This is not to say these are good, and that we should accept them, but that challenges to the drawing up of these categories have failed because people wanting to enter the US have essentially no rights to complain. I hope this is helpful. (Anonymous immigration lawyer who argues before the Supreme Court)

ANSWER: You say “there is a lot of law about Congressional plenary power (meaning, basically, unrestricted) to decide who enters the US, and in what categories and numbers.” Just to be sure we agree on the obvious, of course you are talking about case law that gives Congress such power, not statutory law, since a law by Congress giving Congress unrestricted power would probably not scare anybody.

My treatment of this issue, which you may not have gotten to, was number 14-15 in the arguments and numbers 13-14 in the footnotes. But here are some more ideas along those lines. Of course, the cases I have cited are full of general statements about the broad power of Congress over immigration. One such is “(O)ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over the admission of aliens.’ Oceanic Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320, 339 (1909).” On the other hand, “there may be actions of the Congress with respect to aliens that are so essentially political in character as to be nonjustifiable.’ Fiallo v. Bell, supra, 430 U.S. at 793, 97 S. Ct. at 1478.” Notice these two statements are (1) contradictory, which is made possible without embarrassment because they are (2) vague in scope, and (3) general.

Here are more cites about how much the Court adores Congress’ immigration whims, from the concurrence in Plyler v. Doe - notice the contradiction between the Fiallo quote above, in red, with the Fiallo quote below in red: “Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm’n, 334 U.S. 410, 419 (1948). See Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 378 (1971) (regulation of aliens is ‘constitutionally entrusted to the Federal Government’). The Court has traditionally shown great deference to federal authority over immigration and to federal classifications based upon alienage. See, e.g., Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977) (“it is important to underscore the limited scope of judicial inquiry into immigration legislation”); Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588-589 (1952) (“It is pertinent to observe that any policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference”). Indeed, even equal protection analysis in this area is based to a large extent on an underlying theme of preemption and exclusive federal power over immigration. See Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm’n, supra, at 420 (the Federal Government has admitted resident aliens to the country “on an equality of legal privileges with all citizens under nondiscriminatory laws,” and the States may not alter the terms of this admission). Compare Graham v. Richardson, supra, and Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973), with Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976), and Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 (1976). Given that the States’ power to regulate in this area is so limited, and that this is an area of such peculiarly strong federal authority, the necessity of federal leadership seems evident. 2. I emphasize the Court’s conclusion that strict scrutiny is not appropriately applied to this classification. This exacting standard of review has been reserved for instances in which a ‘fundamental’ constitutional right or a ‘suspect’ classification is present. Neither is present in these cases, as the Court holds.”

Notice that for all these brave words about the supremacy of Congressional immigration whims, the conclusion in this concurrence, as well as in the majority opinion, is that “strict scrutiny” is still the appropriate standard for overturning one of these Congressional whims, if a “fundamental constitutional right” is before the Court. “Liberty” is certainly a fundamental right, but even though it permeated the setting for this case, the issue was not officially raised, so it occurred to no one to address it. Instead the only “right” addressed was public education.

In all these cases, the Court reviews the record seriously enough to give us confidence that were there a case for violation of fundamental rights, the Court would intervene. Where it does not, it is because it concludes the appellants have no case. Where there was no case, my impression was that the Court listed its reasons why the appellant didn’t have a legal leg to stand on,  and then, just to remove any remote possibility of the buck stopping here, it  tells the litigants that if, after all these legal arguments, they still have any fight left in them, they should go bother Congress. If the Court doesn’t want to help somebody, that’s where it will throw in an overstatement about how helpless it is because  Congress has its hands tied. If it is itching to jump in where angels fear to tread, that’s where it will wave the “Congress is too political” flag. (“Congress is too political” - now the basis for overturning a law? Oh well. We’ll understand when we get to Heaven.) 

My serious point is that overbroad statements like these are no guide to the Court’s readiness to intervene in a particular situation. Of much better guidance are its statements where it has intervened. Plyler v. Doe, for example, where it said “fundamental rights” merit “strict scrutiny”, even for unauthorized residents.

You write, “most courts have said there isn’t even a substantive right to remain here or for relief from removal, even for long-term LPRs -- whatever Congress says is enough”. Keep in mind that liberty is not merely a “substantive right”, which Plyler v. Doe treats as a right implied, but not specified, in the Constitution. “Liberty” is an enumerated right. It stands right there, in all its verbal glory, in the text of the Constitution; and, by the way, also in the Declaration of Independence, the foundation for our Constitution, as not merely enumerated as a right granted by a human Constitution, but the second most fundamental “inalienable right” granted by Almighty God which no man can lawfully deny!

Which raises the question, if a ruling has said residents have no “substantive right” to remain here, was the right to liberty, an enumerated right, ever raised in arguments? But then how is it possible for lawyers to stumble around between the lines of the Constitution, searching with Sherlock Holmes magnifying glasses for some implied right for residents to remain here, and miss “liberty”?

If you know any cases that explicitly say residents have no constitutional right to liberty, I will be grateful for the cites.  If there is such a ruling, it will have had to sidestep a logical and surely inescapable contradiction between the fundamental right to Liberty for all U.S. Residents, guaranteed to them by the 14th Amendment “Equal Protection of the Laws”, even if they are “unauthorized” according to Plyler v. Doe, and Numerical Limitations which deny Liberty to over 99% of our unauthorized residents. I would LOVE to study how the Court managed such a feat.

(I realize the 14th amendment, read literally, restricted states, not Congress. Perhaps that is why the Court routinely cites the 5th Amendment “due process” clause together with the “equal protection” clause, as if the latter helps define the former.)

If there is no such explicit ruling yet, then I look forward to seeing how some future court will try to wiggle around this contradiction, after some brave attorney presents the principles in my brief. I would love to hear ANYONE explain their way around this contradiction.  

Not that I don’t expect attempts. I had fun with a couple of them by the Iowa Supreme Court, in disposing of the right to a driver’s license for unauthorized residents. I put them in my P.S. in order to shorten this answer, in case you don’t want to take a little extra time for some humor.  

I appreciate that many cases may be taken to implicitly be satisfied with whatever crumbs of Fundamental Rights which Congress chooses to ration out to U.S. Residents,  because of the fact that  it seems to occur to no one that liberty is a fundamental right that is inexcusably denied by Numerical Limitations.  

If liberty is indeed a fundamental right that is unconstitutionally denied by Numerical Limitations, it is remarkable that this never occurs to anyone, since the protection of the liberty of a U.S. resident would make the controversy over his lesser rights moot.  (For example, deportation of the “spouse” of a homosexual, because homosexual marriages don’t count, would become a moot proceeding if the “spouse’s” right to remain here were established through the fundamental right of every U.S. Resident to Liberty.). But as remarkable as this is, the well known fact is that the Court will (and should) resist reaching larger questions than it is presented, and apparently NO ONE HAS PRESENTED to the Court the fundamental contradiction between “equal protection of the laws” for U.S. residents, and liberty-rationing Numerical Limitations.

I should list the important immigration cases upon which my brief is based, in case you are willing to  suggest to me important cases I have missed:   Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 1950; Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 1952; Shaughnessy v. Mezzei, 1953; Boutilier v. INS, 1967;  Fiallo v. Bell, 1977; Adams v. Howerton, 1982; Plyler v. Doe, 1982; Jean v. Nelson, 1985; INS v. Pangilinian, 1988; Commissioner INS v. Jean, 1990; INS v. National Center for Immigration, 1991; McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, 1991; Reno, Attorney General, v. Flores, 1992; Hoffman Plastic v. National Labor Relations Board, 2002;  Sanchez & Doe v. Iowa, 2005, Iowa Supreme Court (driver’s license case).  

Perhaps my brief and your analysis are meshing poorly because I’m talking about 14th Amendment “equal protection of the laws” rights for residents, while you are talking about “aliens seeking to enter” (from abroad) who indeed have only, as you say, “some limited right to some procedure”.  You add “people wanting to enter the US have essentially no rights to complain.” Obviously the 14th Amendment offers nothing to non residents, which is why my brief does not offer them anything either (directly). Remember also that my brief especially takes advantage of Plyler’s sympathy for children who have no capacity for “criminal intent” in coming here.  

Another point about the “plenary power of Congress”: the Court has alleged this power is found in the Constitution. But before 1880 Congress hardly did anything about immigration: individual states had their individual immigration regulations, subject on occasion to Supreme Court review.  New York v. Miln (1837), reversed in Passenger Cases (1849). State immigration laws were ended, not by Congress, but by the Supreme Court! Henderson v. Mayor of New York (1875).

The fact is that the Supreme Court leaves Congress alone only through great self restraint, which it exercises only sporadically, and there is plenty of reasoning within its rulings to encourage us to present Numerical Limitations, AS APPLIED TO RESIDENTS, for its review. But the Court won’t rule on them, if no one asks.

QUESTION: B-b-but immigrants don’t have a right to immigrate. - S.P.K.

ANSWER: True, they don’t. That is, not under anything in current American law. Furthermore, applicants to immigrate, who are living abroad while they apply, have no Constitutional rights whatsoever. But applicants who live here, even if “illegally”, have “fundamental rights” which our Courts say cannot be abridged except under Strict Scrutiny.

Numerical Limitations violates Spirit as well as Letter of 14th Amendment. It will surely seem to people used to the current reality in immigration law that I am straining for a loophole - a loophole in the sense of finding some sneaky legal device that can achieve a purpose alien to the spirit of the Constitution.

But the opposite is true. The 14th Amendment was enacted before 1882, when the first restriction on legal immigration was enacted, and it is difficult to read the absolute fairness in the Equal Protection Clause and justify any quota on anyone’s liberty. It is a conundrum, as argument #14 observes: “But the 14th and 5th Amendments are nothing if they accept either ‘limits’ or ‘quotas’ on constitutional rights. Rights that are not ‘coextensive with those of citizens’ are the rights of slaves. The language of the Equal Protection Clause is absolute: it is the exceptions justified by ‘rational basis’ or ‘strict scrutiny’ that are the loopholes. Common sense requires some limits on fundamental rights in some situations, in which case ‘strict scrutiny’ is a reasonable standard; but by that standard, the complete denial of liberty to over 99% of a U.S. resident population of 12+ million simply cannot be defended.”

At such point that you agree this is a strong case, the question may interest you: “OK, numerical limitations are unconstitutional. Should the Courts or Congress agree, will there be any law or Constitutional Amendment that can make it Constitutional again?”

Is it possible to amend the Constitution so we can still keep our freedoms, while constitutionally denying them to immigrants?

Is it possible to dumb down the 14th Amendment so it only applies to “me” and not “the other guy”? How about amending our 14th Amendment so it protects everybody but “illegals”?

How about if we amend “any person” so the Amendment reads “No State shall ...deny...the equal protection of the laws... to any person, except persons not born here who aren’t lucky enough to find a spot in our quota line before we slam it shut”?

The problem is that when we start a list of disapproved groups, others will finish it, who may not like us any more than we like them. God has drawn a line of protection around the rights of every person equally. Our nation was premised on this drawing of lines: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...” Shall we say “but that doesn’t mean men not born here, whom we have not admitted to come”? If we say that, we try to move lines which God has drawn, to a place where God has decreed they most not be moved. We cannot push against God without injury to ourselves.

When we ourselves draw a line around others which God does not permit, just because we are the Majority, what answer will we have when a future majority wants to move God’s line around ourselves? Our own logic will condemn us! We will have no spirit then to defend our own rights. We will have no basis for challenging the legitimacy of their oppression of us!

If we deprive any group of persons of the equal protection of just “some” laws, what will prevent depriving that group of the equal protection of any laws? If we may withhold the protection of this law, why not the protection of that law?

If we depart just a little bit from God’s commandment to “have one manner of law, as well for the stranger [immigrant], as for one of your own country”, Leviticus 24:22, we undermine the laws which protect ourselves.

“They break our immigrations laws”, you point out. “Why may we not restrict their freedom, the same way we restrict the freedom of other criminals (by putting them in jail), without you calling that ‘unequal protection of the laws’?”

The difference between “illegals” and “criminals” is that criminals break laws which we do not break, while “illegals” live the same way we do. The only reason they are illegal, and we are not, is that we exempt ourselves from the laws which we enact against them.

They used to be called “hypocrites”, who accuse others of doing what they do themselves. But voters and lawmakers make it “illegal” for 12 million U.S. residents to do the same hard work the rest of us do. Then, because they persist in doing the same thing we do, we call them “criminals” and claim the moral high ground over them.

In other words, we classify our unwelcome neighbors as “illegal” on the basis of “laws” which violate the “Rule of Law”, as our Founders defined the phrase. But we have forgotten its meaning.

The phrase “rule of law” was coined by theologian Samuel Rutherford in his 1644 book “Lex, Rex”. Not “Rex Lex”, that previously unchallenged declaration that “the King is the Law”, also called “the Divine Right of Kings”, based on a careless reading of Romans 13:1. Rutherford’s title announces “The law is the king.” In other words, lawmakers are subject to their own laws; they cannot exempt themselves from the laws with which they bind others.

Rutherford used the phrase “rule of law” only once, in Question 26, “Whether the King be above the Law or no”. But the theme of his book was “no”: even the king is subject to the “rule of law”. The real “sovereign” is the people, who have a duty to resist any lawmaker, including any king, who defies the law.

The book might not have stirred such sensational controversy, had England not at the time had a king who did not agree with those principles, and who had never heard of Freedom of Speech.

Rutherford was imprisoned, and nearly lost his head over it. But his book helped spark English civil war which ended, 43 years later, with a Parliament powerful enough to restrain the king. Rutherford’s vision of a balance of powers influenced our own Constitution over a century later.

That little phrase, “rule of law”, as America’s Founders, including Rutherford, defined it, is the heart of our own Constitution. The whole point of our system of government is to make sure all lawmakers have to feast on whatever they dish out to others.

Our system accomplishes that pretty well. Except in immigration, where voters and lawmakers first create a lottery to determine which of their neighbors not to allow the same opportunities the rest of us have, and then preach against them for trying to improve their lives anyway.

We impose arbitrary, irrational quotas which limit legal residence to a lucky few. To call this “fair” or “impartial” or “equal protection of the laws” just because we let some come would be like calling slavery “freedom” because, after all, we let some of them buy their freedom, so everyone has the opportunity to be free!

We have no King who can lay legal burdens upon others which he himself does not have to touch. We are not governed by majorities, as in a pure democracy. Majorities can vote to hold slaves.

The Iowa Supreme Court (Footnote 10) tries to imagine that some “rights” are more “fundamental” than others. But when even the “smallest right” is protected unequally by law, from one group to another, justice is mocked, and profound injury done.

It’s not just that we are locked into an amendment enacted 140 years ago which we have no further interest in. We still want equal protection of the laws, even today. Not even the hardest hearted anti-immigrant wants it to be legal to murder “illegals”, or to steal from them, or torture them, or to literally enslave them. But we all know that without this in our Constitution, that is literally what would happen: it would literally be legal, once again, to own slaves. In fact, the main reason for the 14th amendment was to help the 13th Amendment finish outlawing slavery, by prohibiting state laws that discriminated against former slaves.

July 9, 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, was 7 years before there was such a thing as an “illegal alien” in America! 1875 was the first law in America restricting the amount of immigration! There was no one at the border checking papers or keeping people from going wherever they liked. It was never illegal for anyone to come here, and it was certainly never illegal for anyone to get a job or to drive down the road! There was a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, but any non-citizen could quickly become a citizen if he liked. The only exception was for slaves, whom the 14th Amendment was designed to set free once and for all.

That’s why the 14th Amendment makes no distinction between persons born here or elsewhere; between citizens and noncitizens; between people here legally or illegally. All “persons” are equally protected by all laws which are Constitutional. If we want it to be otherwise, we should, deciding together as a nation, repeal the 14th Amendment, and live under tyranny, but at least legally. Until that happens, we should not tolerate a few officials simply ignoring it. That is the ultimate challenge to the Rule of Law, dwarfing anything “illegals” do, when we let our very judges ignore our very Constitution!

Can we limit rights for some without limiting our own? The answer is found in a parable. A young man picked up his sweetheart at her parent’s home. As they left, her father said something innocently, at which the young woman screamed in rage, before turning back with a sweet smile to her young man. Shortly afterward, the young man married the woman, confident that she was incapable of the same rage towards himself which he had seen towards her father. How did the story end? Was he right? Was her father surprised?

Is it possible to thoroughly hate an enemy, and thoroughly love a friend?

Other Fantastic Articles, Books, Movies, Music:
Home Sweet Home!
Does anyone care what the word actually means? Get in WHAT Line? For most, there IS no line! Public Schools aren't Free for ANYONE! Emergency Hospital Care Averages $21 Per Illegal PRUCOL: the Legal Illegals in Immigration Limbo Illegals don't receive welfare, unless you redefine either 'illegals' or 'welfare' Why God is not Stupid when He offers Populations the Blessing of Multiplying Rule of Law vs. God-Defying Legalism: how 'Rule of Law' was defined by Americas Founders If the study hadnt counted citizens as 'illegals' it would have concluded illegals contribute $10 billion MORE in taxes than they consume in 'services' 'Moral Conservatives' redefined by Immigration Debate Social Security: Rod of Gods Judgment 'Mark of the Beast' Constructed by Immigraphobic 'Moral Conservatives'; Why God Cares: Why We Should Care! Social Security: Rod of God's Judgment 'Moral Conservatives' redefined by Immigration Debate If the study hadn't counted citizens as Rule of Law vs. God-Defying Legalism: how 'Rule of Law' was defined by America's Founders Why God is not Stupid when He offers Populations the Blessing of Multiplying Illegals don't receive welfare, unless you redefine either 'illegals' or 'welfare'. PRUCOL: the Legal Illegals in Immigration Limbo Emergency Hospital Care Averages $21 Per Illegal Public Schools aren't Free for ANYONE! Get in WHAT Line? For most, there IS no line! Does anyone care what the word actually means? Bueno! Border Security: A Simple, $-Saving, Surprising, Solid, Sweeping, Consummate Solution Immigration Quotas: Unconstitutional 'Immigration Compromise': the whole bill, with Translation and Analysis 'Equal Protection of the Laws' for Illegal Children 'Immigration Compromise': the whole bill, with Translation and Analysis Immigration Quotas: Unconstitutional Border Security: A Simple, $-Saving, Surprising, Solid, Sweeping, Consummate Solution Related Immigration Articles If Solutions are more important to you than Shouting, this is the Site you have been waiting for! Have you suffered enough that telling your story no longer satisfies you, and now you are bristling to slay the Divorce Beast that destroyed your family? This site is for you. 'Sodomites' is what our Loving God calls them. (See Bible study.) Can I say I love them  more, because I call them anything less? Solutions for Education Why the Child Abuse Industry Nabs the Wrong Kids; Why the Child Abuse Religion - Psychiatry - is a fraud;  How Child Abuse Laws need to be changed Some of my Personal Experiences with the Drive-By Media Bible Studies on a Variety of Issues I pray, for Sudan, a government under a Constitution like ours. Heres how it would adapt to their situation, and by the way, this will help Americans understand our own Constitution. A few articles I wrote for voters while running for State Representative I really want your input! Family Music Center in Des Moines Iowa, what pays our bills Some of the good stuff about me - to balance the other stuff youve heard. Personal Leach and Barnes family stuff Every once in a while I remember to keep a record of changes to the site. Spectacular Music Videos of original songs by Dave Leach, produced by Lowbudget Productions Fiction by David Lane, who served time for redecorating an abortion office, daydreaming about what he would REALLY like to have done. Poems by David Lane about abortion, which he went to jail to stop. A roadmap of all the categories, and most of the articles, on this site. A roadmap of all the categories, and most of the articles, on this site. Poems by David Lane about abortion, which he went to jail to stop. Fiction by David Lane, who served time for redecorating an abortion office, daydreaming about what he would REALLY like to have done. Spectacular Music Videos of original songs by Dave Leach, produced by Lowbudget Productions Every once in a while I remember to keep a record of changes to the site. Personal Leach and Barnes family stuff Some of the good stuff about me - to balance the other stuff you've heard. Family Music Center in Des Moines Iowa: what pays our bills I really want your input! A few articles I wrote for voters while running for State Representative I pray, for Sudan, a government under a Constitution like ours. Here's how it would adapt to their situation, and by the way, this will help Americans understand our own Constitution. Bible Studies on a Variety of Issues Some of my Personal Experiences with the Drive-By Media Why the Child Abuse Industry Nabs the Wrong Kids; Why the Child Abuse Religion - Psychiatry - is a fraud;  How Child Abuse Laws need to be changed Solutions for Education Have you suffered enough that telling your story no longer satisfies you, and now you are bristling to slay the Divorce Beast that destroyed your family? This site is for you. If Solutions are more important to you than Shouting, this is the Site you have been waiting for! Other Issues on this Website 'Ancient Riddles Solved!' 'Never Before Revealed Theological Secrets!' 'From the diary of an angel! A fictitious angel, but an angel nonetheless!' (Scroll half way down the page) Hell really makes a lot of sense, understood Biblically. We all know what its like to resist good, God, light, love, truth, evidence, life, and grace. Explain how it is possible  to choose such woe even for a moment, before you reject Biblical evidence that some harden their hearts so much that they will resist forever! Will you? (Scroll almost to the bottom of the page) Spectacular Music Videos of original songs by Dave Leach, produced by Lowbudget Productions Spectacular Music Videos of original songs by Dave Leach, produced by Lowbudget Productions Hell really makes a lot of sense, understood Biblically. We all know what it's like to resist good, God, light, love, truth, evidence, life, and grace. Explain how it is possible  to choose such woe even for a moment, before you reject Biblical evidence that some harden their hearts so much that they will resist forever! Will you? (Scroll almost to the bottom of the page) Really Great Books and Music! Deportation Brief