Summary
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) pushed back against Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, after he suggested the DOJ investigate her for “aiding and abetting” illegal immigration.
Homan accused her of helping people evade ICE by educating constituents on their constitutional rights. AOC dismissed the threats, challenging Homan to proceed and calling him a “coward.”
Tensions are high over immigration enforcement and civil liberties, with AOC arguing that informing people of their rights is legally protected.
Wow, how dare she!
Are illegals constituents? Do non-citizens have constitutional rights?
Yes and yes. This is a long-settled matter, legally speaking.
I’m having a hard time l finding anything that legally states illegal immigrants are considered constituents. What I am finding says that a constituent is a person who votes. Do you know where I can find any material supporting your claim?
Edit: so much for polite. You people need to back off. I’m simply trying to learn something. Jesus, not everyone knows what y’all know.
You righties are fuckin dicks. Illegal immigrants are human beings and have rights.
I’m not a righty. I’m legit trying to find more info and my Google fu sucks. WTH people?
many, many vital constitutional rights extend to anyone in the us, regardless of their status.
everyone is really, really on edge. dont take things too personally.
I appreciate your response.
FWIW, I know that anyone in the US, regardless of citizenship status, has legal rights under the constitution. This is why the constitution uses the language of “people” and “person” and not “citizen”. It’s the use of the word constituent that I was lacking legal/political clarity on.
deleted by creator
A constituent can mean either a part of the whole or someone who lives and votes in a district.
Voting isn’t even a requirement. One definition is simply an individual who resides within an area represented by an elected individual.
I would think “part of a whole” would cover that, but English is a peculiar language.
The person above you that originally asked the question used “illegals” as a noun. Some of the heat focused on you lis probably coming from people who aren’t paying attention to the usernames.
Constituents are the residents of an electoral district or the people represented by an elected official. Undocumented immigrants who live in AOC’s district are her constituents as much as anyone else.
As far as evidence goes, I think all you need is the second section of the 14th Amendment. Undocumented immigrants are counted in the census. I’ve read that if all of the undocumented immigrants suddenly vanished from California they would lose 2 to 4 seats (this could be wrong but it sounds believable so I didn’t dig deeper, feel free to fact check it) so there are literally members of Congress who only have seat because their constituency includes a relatively large population of undocumented immigrants.
“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.”
From a Supreme Court decision in 1952, even undocumented immigrants are subject to the due process clauzes of the Constitution: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep345/usrep345206/usrep345206.pdf
Per Evenwel v. Abbott (2016), even those who cannot vote have a say in policy “Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates and in receiving constituent services. By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total-population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation.”
Undocumented immigrants are also counted im the census, and thus are represented in Congress and the Electoral College. And since they are represented in congress, they are constituents of their congresspeople just the same as citizens or documented immigrants.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/16784218
“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.”
From a Supreme Court decision in 1952: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep345/usrep345206/usrep345206.pdf
It had long precedent and has been upheld since: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/
Now, the question about whether or not they’re constituents could probably be debated, since they can’t vote. But if a person who didn’t vote for an official is still a constituent, then a person who couldn’t vote for an official is as well.
illegals
really, dude? really?
They’re not even human to them
Yes because they’re human, just not American. Inalienable rights are inherent to all people.
Are Navajo constituents? How about Puerto Ricans?
Because they might want to know their rights.
The people related to immigrants are often voting constituents interested in their and their families rights if that’s what you mean. Immigrant do have constitutional rights. For example, you can’t just deny them freedom of speech or enslave them just because they’re non citizens. That would be wild.
I think laws apply to everyone inside a country, not just citizens. Not sure about the US though, I’m not american and who knows what the fuck is going on in that clown country 🤷
I’ve wanted to develop a conversation on this subject for a long time, because it’s a fallacy “both sides” have fallen for: The fact that illegal actions are often right, and legal actions are often immoral.
People will often harp on the fact that an act was “technically not legal”; yet throughout history, we have needed illegal acts to frame what’s right in the world. When we discuss these things online, it’s more honest to talk about “What the harm is” - a subject that often leans in favor of left-leaning opinions both for what’s illegal (living in the USA illegally, generally causing negative harm) and improperly using presidential powers to shut down government agencies (not just illegal, but also extremely harmful).
If you disagree and specifically want to harp on legality, then I invite you to see what happens if you start shooting jaywalkers in the street for their flagrant violation of the law. Prosecutorial discretion exists for a very important reason.