IMG_1828

Some facts about another MEME circulating, but please do your own research these facts were collected by only 55 sources! No, these are not accurate statements of U.S. law or Supreme Court precedent. They reflect common misconceptions about constitutional protections, immigration authority, and due process, but they overstate limitations on rights and mischaracterize key legal principles. I’ll break them down one by one, drawing on established Supreme Court rulings and statutory frameworks for clarity. 1. “The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over foreigners only when they are in the country lawfully.” This is incorrect. The Supreme Court (and federal courts generally) has jurisdiction over non-citizens based on their physical presence within U.S. territory, not the lawfulness of their entry or status. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments extend due process and equal protection to all “persons” within U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of immigration status. For example, in Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei (1953), the Court affirmed that even non-citizens who entered unlawfully (“aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally”) are entitled to due process before expulsion. Similarly, Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) held that the Due Process Clause applies to all aliens in the U.S., “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Lawful presence may enhance certain protections (e.g., for long-term residents), but jurisdiction itself does not hinge on it. 2. “The Constitution does not apply to enemy combatants on American soil, illegal immigrants, or to foreigners in their home countries.” This is false across the board, though with nuances for each category: • Enemy combatants on American soil: The Constitution does apply, including core due process rights. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the Supreme Court ruled that U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants (like Yaser Hamdi, captured abroad but held on U.S. soil) must receive a “meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.” Non-citizen enemy combatants on U.S. soil also get habeas corpus review and other protections, as affirmed in cases like Rasul v. Bush (2004), which extended jurisdiction to challenges by foreign nationals detained in U.S. custody. The Court has never created a blanket exemption for combatants on U.S. soil. • Illegal immigrants: As noted above, the Constitution fully applies to undocumented immigrants physically present in the U.S. They are “persons” under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, entitled to due process in removal proceedings, protection from unreasonable searches, and equal protection under the law. Plyler v. Doe (1982) struck down a Texas law denying public education to undocumented children, affirming their constitutional rights. Even in deportation, they get notice and a hearing. • Foreigners in their home countries: Correct here—the Constitution generally does not apply extraterritorially to non-U.S. persons abroad with no substantial U.S. connections. In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not protect a Mexican citizen’s property search in Mexico. Exceptions exist for U.S. citizens abroad or in U.S.-controlled territories (e.g., Boumediene v. Bush (2008) extended habeas to Guantanamo detainees), but not routine application to foreigners overseas. 3. “Deportation is not a punishment.” This is technically accurate as a matter of Supreme Court doctrine, but it’s a narrow and often-criticized distinction. Deportation is classified as a civil proceeding, not criminal punishment, so it avoids certain criminal protections (e.g., no right to government-appointed counsel, lower evidentiary standards). The Court has upheld this since Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), calling it a “refusal by the government to harbor persons whom it does not want” rather than retribution for past acts. However, the Court has acknowledged deportation’s “severe” consequences—often likened to banishment or family separation—and still requires due process. Critics argue this civil label is a “legal fiction” that erodes rights, but it’s settled law. 4. “Foreigners have no right to appeal their removal to their home countries to American courts.” This is misleading and partially false. Non-citizens do have rights to appeal removal orders, though the process is administrative (not always full Article III court review) and varies by case: • Most non-citizens in formal removal proceedings get a hearing before an immigration judge, with a right to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) within 30 days. From there, they can petition a federal circuit court for review of legal or constitutional errors (e.g., via habeas corpus). • Exceptions: Expedited removal (for recent border crossers) limits appeals, but even then, credible fear claims (e.g., asylum) trigger hearings and review. Asylum seekers or those fearing persecution get mandatory hearings and appeals. Recent 2025 rulings reaffirmed habeas rights for certain deportees, like those under the Alien Enemies Act. In short, appeals are available but streamlined as civil matters—Congress can limit them, but not eliminate due process entirely. 5. “Just a fundamental misunderstanding by the entire legal profession about what citizenship means.” This is an overstatement and unsubstantiated. The legal profession, including the Supreme Court, has consistently distinguished citizenship (which grants full rights like voting and protection from deportation) from personhood (which triggers basic constitutional protections for all in U.S. jurisdiction). Citizenship is a privilege with unique benefits, but it doesn’t negate the Constitution’s broad language covering “persons” or “the people.” Debates exist (e.g., over extraterritoriality or criminal vs. civil deportation), but they’re grounded in precedent, not misunderstanding. These claims seem to echo restrictive views of immigration enforcement, but U.S. law balances broad federal power over borders with constitutional safeguards to prevent arbitrary action