I've a pocket copy of the Declaration of Independence & Constitution of the US, that I've read a few times over the years. Where have I missed where it says people here illegally,... must be afforded due processes, other than a bullet? When did telling a lie over & over change said lie into the truth?
The Constitution was written by some very intelligent lawyers/statesmen. I do not believe they chose the words they used casually at all. The Bill of Rights does not use the term "Citizens". It does not use the term "Residents". It uses the broadest term possible "The People".
This was absolutely intentional, IMHO, to maximally limit the government's power over the governed no matter their legal status or what they've been accused of doing. While I don't believe for a second the leftists on the court care about the Constitution at all, but rather are governed by their partisan politics in almost every decision, and will torture and contort the language to fit whatever their flavor of the day is (they are entirely unprincipled, or at least lack the principals of the oath of office they take), that isn't so for the Conservative majority. All of them ought not be deciding cases based on the zeitgeist of the moment, but on limiting the power of the Federal Government in perpetuity. Whenever they rule for the government they essentially expand it's power, which has been a major failing of the system since at least Reconstruction.
In my reading of the bill of rights it applies to every human being within our borders and under the authority of our Constitution. Our government is restricted by our Constitution to apply force and dominion on every human soul within our borders. Whether you are a citizen, or have a green card, or are a visitor your rights are inalienable, and our government is restricted by our Constitution from violating those rights.
The valid Constitutional arguments rest on what kind of due process for illegal aliens is Constitutional. That gets pretty dicey, because they violated the law and the process by sneaking into the country. Yet, till there is due still due process and until it's proven in court it remains an accusation from the government. It is further complicated by an administration that violated the law and aided them in their criminality.
It isn't so cut and dried. It's actually pretty complex with a bunch of highly noble and altogether good principals competing against each other. I would not be so fast to condemn Coney Barret for being a leftist, when I can think of so many strong arguments for restricting the government's power to violate due process and the rights of any human being no matter their status. We have to always be thinking about what decisions could mean, even if we don't like the result in the moment. You needn't look further than "The USA Patriot Act" to see how our government starts abusing questionable laws before the ink is even dry. That abomination needs to be shitcaned post haste. I cannot believe it is still around after the wholesale abuse of the secret courts to attack a sitting President. Uniparty bullshit.
The Declaration of Independence (natural law) lays out truths to be self evident for all people, just as the BOR states "The People". Because in the end human beings either have rights or they don't, and citizenship never even enters into it.
She did not agree with all of Sotomayor's bullshit, leftist opinions. She only agreed with criticisms of the process. Much of the scorn heaped on her is not justified. Roberts deserves the majority of the criticism as dished by Alito in the last emergency case. I believe Roberts is the problem and not Barret. He's too concerned with political perceptions about the court rather than making Constitutionally sound decisions.
