due process were supposed to be the same for a citizens and non-citizens, because that's the law of the land, which only count the land, not the residence status, also because if that is difference, then you are going to have a different responsibility between citizens and non-citizens, because rights (things like due process) and responsibilities goes hand in hand.
Expedited process is a difference in 'due process' between one illegal alien vs another illegal alien.
www.law.cornell.edu
The Supreme Court, however, has suggested that the extent of due process for aliens present in the United States “may vary depending upon [the alien’s] status and circumstance.”
So already SCOTUS acknowledged that under certain circumstances, there are different 'due process' for illegal aliens, such as...
Expedited removal is a process by which low-level immigration officers can summarily remove certain noncitizens from the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge.
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” which, among many other actions,orders a significant expansion of expedited removal in the United States. On January 21, the Trump administration published a Notice in...
immigrationforum.org
Before President Trump expanded the program in his first term, regulations from 2004 – put in place under the George W. Bush administration – limited expedited removal to noncitizens entering the U.S. without authorization who were apprehended (1) within two weeks of their arrival in the U.S. and (2) within 100 miles of a U.S. land border. The guidelines set forth in 2019 under the first Trump administration expanded the temporal restriction to its full extent of two years and removed the geographic restriction. This expanded expedited removal policy was subsequently rescinded by the Biden administration in March 2022. The Trump administration’s most recent notice has rescinded the Biden administration changes and effectively reverted to the guidelines set forth in 2019.
Bush => Biden => Trump. The fact that we have this on/off policy regarding illegal aliens does not negate the fact that there is a separate 'due process' for illegal aliens.
If 'the end does not justify' the means, then should we say that ignoring enforcement laws, such as how the Biden Admin did, qualify as an illegal mean in itself? Yes, we can.
...as I said I am as against birthright citizenship as the next person, but I believe in if you want to change it, you need to change the constitution, not simply by-pass it with an EO. That's not how things is done here.
I believe there is no need to change the US Constitution. And SCOTUS may say so.
The text of the 14th is...
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.
The key argument lies in the highlighted above.
Now let us examine the original intent of that sentence.
- All persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens.
Except for
CHILDREN of...
- Diplomats
- Invading/occupying army
So now with the 14th, we have two classes of persons whose
CHILDREN are exempt from being automatic citizens.
What is/are the
MORAL argument(s)
AGAINST adding illegal aliens to that list?
We know that a diplomat is a friendly agent of another state. That other state maybe hostile to US, but the diplomat is essentially friendly due to the nature of his position. We also acknowledged that even though he is friendly, he is not subject to US jurisdiction, meaning he is politically apart from US. He has to obey traffic laws, for example, but he does not have to obey the US government in everything. Therefore, because he is not 'subject' to US jurisdiction, we agreed back in 1868 that his children cannot be automatic US citizens.
An invading/occupying army is a hostile force. Like the diplomat, this army is an agent of another state, however, the difference is that this army was not invited under friendly terms into the country, therefore, any children from this army cannot be automatically US citizens. Also agreed back in 1868.
So today in 2025, how should we regard an illegal alien?
- Friendly (like a diplomat)?
- Or hostile (like an invading/occupying army)?
What is/are the
MORAL arguments
AGAINST this list?
The children of:
1- Diplomats
2- Invading/occupying army
3- Illegal aliens
Cannot be automatic US citizens.
I dare say that for all the critics of US, none of the critics would disagree of that list if applied in their countries. Maybe that list is already applied as law in their countries, and if so, how convenient, just to criticize US in this little corner of the internet, they would refuse to allow US the same list.
www.foxnews.com
