Permanent Residents: Constitutional Protections For Americans?

Legal permanent residents in the United States are protected by the Constitution, including the right to due process of law and equal protection under the law. This protection is primarily derived from the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees rights to any person, and the Fifth Amendment. However, there is some legal uncertainty about the extent of these protections, particularly for non-citizens and unauthorised immigrants. While permanent residents are generally protected, they can still be placed in immigration proceedings and deported for political speech, for example.

Explore related products

The Constitutional Protection of Capitalism

$94 $110

Constitutional Protection of Human Rights in Latin America: A Comparative Study of Amparo Proceedings

$148 $70

Violence As Obscenity: Limiting the Media's First Amendment Protection (Constitutional conflicts)

$23.93 $34.95

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$100 $345

The Glannon Guide to Constitutional Law: Learning Constitutional Law through Multiple-Choice Questions and Analysis

$71.95 $71.95

Constitutional Law for Criminal Justice

$117.9 $170

Permanent legal residents are protected under the laws of the United States

The Fourteenth Amendment also provides guarantees for "any person", meaning that permanent legal residents are protected and maintain rights as given by the Constitution, including due process of law and equal protection under the law. These rights are upheld by the Supreme Court, which ruled in Graham v Richardson (1971) that alienage is a "suspect" class. Therefore, any differences in treatment based on alienage must be strictly scrutinized and there must be a compelling state interest to justify the difference in treatment.

However, it is important to note that distinctions between citizens and noncitizens are not unconstitutional prima facie. For example, any non-citizen can be placed in immigration proceedings, including long-time permanent residents. Nonetheless, the Constitution ensures that these procedures are handled fairly and in line with the law.

In addition, there is legal uncertainty about whether the First Amendment applies to non-citizens. While the Constitution speaks broadly about "the people", the Department of Justice has argued that unauthorized immigrants do not get First Amendment protections.

The Fourteenth Amendment gives the right of equal protection under the laws of the United States

Legal permanent residents in the United States are protected under the laws of the United States and all local jurisdictions. They are also protected by the Constitution, which includes the right to due process of law and equal protection under the law. These rights are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies to "any person".

The Fourteenth Amendment, and its extension by the Fifth Amendment, gives the right of equal protection under the laws of the United States to all foreign nationals who are present within the country's boundaries. However, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Graham v Richardson (1971) that alienage is a "suspect" class, and therefore, any differences in treatment based on alienage must be strictly scrutinised and there must be a compelling state interest to justify the difference in treatment.

While the Constitution speaks broadly about "the people", there is legal uncertainty about who that includes and, importantly, who it excludes. The group with the most questions around whether and how the First Amendment applies to them are those with no legal status: unauthorised immigrants. In 2015, the Department of Justice argued in a federal class action lawsuit that unauthorised immigrants do not get First Amendment protections. The DOJ reasoned that the Supreme Court previously suggested First Amendment and other protections apply only to immigrants who enter legally and who have "sufficient connection" to the US. To date, the Supreme Court has not ruled definitively on the question.

It is important to note that distinctions between citizens and noncitizens are not unconstitutional prima facie. Any non-citizen can be placed in immigration proceedings, including long-time permanent residents, and even former US citizens whose citizenship is revoked. The Constitution ensures that these procedures are handled fairly and in line with the law.

The Fifth Amendment extends the Fourteenth Amendment

Legal permanent residents in the United States are protected under the laws of the United States and all local jurisdictions. They are also protected and maintain rights as given by the Constitution, including due process of law and equal protection under the law. These legal rights emanate primarily from the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides guarantees for "any person". The Fourteenth Amendment, and through its extension by the Fifth Amendment, gives the right of equal protection under the laws of the United States to all foreign nationals who are present within the boundaries of the United States.

The Fifth Amendment also ensures that immigration proceedings for non-citizens, including long-time permanent residents, are handled fairly and in line with the law. This includes former US citizens whose citizenship has been revoked.

It is important to note that there is legal uncertainty about who is included and excluded by the Constitution's use of the term "the people". The group with the most questions around whether and how the First Amendment applies to them are those with no legal status: unauthorized immigrants. In 2015, the Department of Justice argued in a federal class action lawsuit that unauthorized immigrants do not get First Amendment protections. The DOJ reasoned that the Supreme Court previously suggested First Amendment and other protections apply only to immigrants who enter legally and who have "sufficient connection" to the US. To date, the Supreme Court has not ruled definitively on the question.

Explore related products

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$104.13 $150

Supreme Neglect: How to Revive Constitutional Protection For Private Property (Inalienable Rights)

$17.49 $29.99

No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States

$18.99 $19.99

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$140

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$163.59 $180

The Constitutional Protection and Regulation of Property and its Influence on the Reform of Private Law and Landownership in South Africa and Germany: ... öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht)

$97.71 $143

The Supreme Court ruled in Graham v Richardson (1971) that alienage is a suspect class

Legal permanent residents have the right to permanently live and work in the United States. They are protected under the laws of the United States and all local jurisdictions. They are also protected by the Constitution, including due process of law and equal protection under the law. These rights emanate primarily from the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides guarantees for "any person".

However, distinctions between citizens and non-citizens are not unconstitutional. In Graham v Richardson (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that alienage is a "suspect" class. This means that any differences in treatment based on alienage must be strictly scrutinised and there must be a compelling state interest to justify the difference in treatment. The Court's decision established that classifications based on alienage, like those based on nationality or race, are inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny.

In the case of Graham v Richardson, Arizona regulations conditioning the receipt of welfare benefits on US citizenship or residence within the United States for a specified number of years failed to meet this test and thereby violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court held that, for the purposes of this case, legal aliens are a suspect class to whom discrimination is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny.

The Court's opinions often speak in terms of the right of "citizens" to travel. However, the source of the constitutional right to travel has never been ascribed to any particular constitutional provision. It is enough to say that the classification involved in Shapiro was subjected to strict scrutiny under the compelling state interest test, not because it was based on any suspect criterion such as race, nationality, or alienage, but because it impinged upon the fundamental right of interstate movement.

The First Amendment and other protections apply only to immigrants who enter legally

Legal permanent residents in the United States are protected by the laws of the United States and all local jurisdictions. This includes the right to permanently live and work in the country.

The Fourteenth Amendment, and through its extension by the Fifth Amendment, gives the right of equal protection under the laws of the United States to all foreign nationals who are present within the country's boundaries. The Fourteenth Amendment provides guarantees for "any person".

However, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Graham v Richardson (1971) that alienage is a "suspect" class, and therefore, any differences in treatment based on alienage must be strictly scrutinized and there must be a compelling state interest to justify the difference in treatment.

To date, the Supreme Court has not ruled definitively on the question of whether the First Amendment applies to unauthorized immigrants. However, it is important to note that the Constitution ensures that immigration proceedings are handled fairly and in line with the law, even for non-citizens.

Frequently asked questions