Recently, I wrote an article on the immorality of presidential candidates talking about banning an entire religious group from entering the United States. I referenced Harvard legal reviews about violations to the first amendment, and a general look at the morality of illegal orders (and their application to the military).
The response I received back was incredible. The vast majority of commenters proclaimed with exasperation that the Constitution does not apply to non-citizens, and that we have a legal right (as demonstrated through past examples) to protect ourselves. So, I felt the need to provide this as a follow up article. Not to insult anyone’s intelligence, but because ignorance should never be allowed to fester in a darkened room, knowledge should always be applied and the lights turned on.
The founding fathers of our country established their concepts of what a just and ordered society should be through the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States. At the time, none of them were citizens of anything much more than the British crown. They proclaimed through the Bill of Rights, which would represent the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, specific clauses by which their government would recognize. The most commonly known ones are the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth amendments.
Now the Bill of Rights does not use the word citizen in it, but the Constitution does. It details very clearly which elements of the Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to United States citizens, and which applies to everyone else.
The limitations come up 11 times. A person must have been a US citizen for at least seven years as part of the pre-requisite to become a Representative, and nine years to become a Senator. One must be a natural born citizen to become President of the United States. A citizen charged with treason, felony, or other crime in one State, who flees from justice to another, will be returned to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.
Georgetown Law did an analysis of the Constitutional question, whether foreign nationals are entitled to the same Constitutional right as citizens. Here is where the waters get a little murky. In 2003, the Supreme Court “upheld a 1996 statute imposing mandatory detention on foreign nationals charged with being deportable or having committed certain crimes.” In this case, Demore v. Kim, even though the foreign national was not considered a danger or a flight risk, the court upheld ‘preventative detention’ without assessing whether there was a need to detain. This violates the due process clause, which only fifty years’ prior, in the case of Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding (1953), the court stated that “the Due Process Clause does not acknowledge any distinction between citizens and resident aliens.”
To muddy the waters further, after nearly 100 years of identifying foreign nationals as “Persons within the meaning of the Constitution,“ and protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens [the elements listed above and the right to vote]”, the courts validated racist laws to bar foreign nationals from owning land. In Porterfield v. Webb (1923) and Terrace v. Thompson (1923) in both Washington and California, it was illegal for Japanese to purchase and own land.
So, in its simplest form, the Constitution and Bill of Rights establishes clear guidelines by which the country will govern itself. The document applies to all individuals within the country, and establishes an additional criteria (citizenship) for specific functions (serving as a delegate, voting, being president). The First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, providing due process and equal protection is to all ‘persons’, or “the accused”, not all “citizens.” The court cases which muddy the waters are seen today as being based more on racism, or a response to fear after a terrorist attack, than on a legal foundation within the Constitution.
A valid argument can be made that denying someone who is neither an American, a resident or currently on United States soil, the right to enter the US does not violate their individual constitutional rights, but it does violate the very nature of the first amendment, that by prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of an established religion], the country would become selective in which religions it accepts.
Should the Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and all associated departments conduct a thorough review of anyone seeking asylum or immigration? Absolutely. Should we ban an entire religion or race because fear mongering has become a way to get votes? The answer is no.
Disclaimer: The content in this article is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of US Patriot Tactical.