Every few weeks, a new wave of commentary washes across American media insisting that undocumented immigrants “don’t get due process” because — wait for it — “they’re not citizens.”
A bold claim. A confident claim. A claim that would be devastating… if the Constitution didn’t exist.
The Fourteenth Amendment: The Part Some People Keep Pretending Isn’t There
Let’s take a leisurely stroll through Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the part that deals with due process. It starts strong: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States… are citizens…”
Great. Clear. Straightforward. The word citizens appears twice. No confusion there. But then — plot twist — the language suddenly changes: “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”
Person.
Not “citizen.”
Not “citizen-ish.”
Not “citizen-adjacent.”
Just… person.
It’s almost as if the framers knew exactly what they were doing. Almost as if they intentionally distinguished between rights exclusive to citizens and rights that apply to everyone under U.S. jurisdiction. Almost as if they didn’t expect future generations to pretend the word “person” was some kind of typo.
“But They Broke the Law!”
Yes. And in a shocking twist, the American legal system does not operate on the principle of “you broke the law, therefore we skip the law.”
If that were true, courts would be out of business, and we’d all be living in a very different country — one where the Constitution is more of a decorative suggestion.
Even people accused of the most serious crimes get due process. That’s the whole point. Due process is not a prize for good behavior. It’s a limit on government power.
Even Justice Scalia — Yes, That Scalia — Agreed
When asked whether undocumented immigrants have First Amendment protections, Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative justices in modern history, didn’t hesitate: “Anybody who’s present in the United States has protections under the United States Constitution.”
If Scalia — the judicial equivalent of a constitutional originalist laser beam — says the Constitution applies to “anybody present,” that’s not exactly ambiguous.
Plyler v. Doe: The Supreme Court Says “Yes, They’re Persons”
In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas couldn’t deny public education to undocumented children. Why? Because the Fourteenth Amendment protects persons, and undocumented immigrants are… persons.
This was not a controversial interpretation. It was the Court reading the text exactly as written.
The Constitution Isn’t a Loyalty Program
Some rights are exclusive to citizens — voting, holding federal office, serving on a jury.
Other rights apply to everyone — due process, equal protection, basic constitutional safeguards.
The framers didn’t hide this in invisible ink. It’s right there in the text.
So Why the Confusion?
Because it’s easier to argue that certain people “don’t deserve rights” than to grapple with the fact that the Constitution doesn’t work that way. It’s easier to claim the framers “really meant citizens” than to acknowledge they deliberately wrote “person.”
And it’s easier to repeat a talking point than to open a history book.
A Better Conversation
If we want to debate immigration policy, let’s do it honestly:
- How should the system work?
- What reforms are needed?
- How do we enforce laws while respecting constitutional limits?
Those are real questions.
“Due process doesn’t apply to them” is not.
It’s not a legal argument.
It’s not a constitutional argument.
It’s not even a creative argument.
It’s just incorrect — with a dash of wishful thinking.
