Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:52, 18 March 2008

U.S. Supreme Court cases Unassessed

This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Mexican-Americans

"Illegal" vs. "undocumented"

Please note that the Supreme Court's opinion in Plyler v. Doe used both "illegal" and "undocumented" when referring to the children in question. It seems pointless to me to have a revert war over the use of one term or the other. I edited the text of the article to use both terms; hopefully that will be acceptable to everyone. Richwales 07:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

TheKaplan has edited Plyler v. Doe to use the term "illegal" throughout — citing the AP Stylebook to support the assertion that this should be the preferred usage. Not sure what others may think. I would again note that the text of the Supreme Court's opinion in this case used both "illegal" and "undocumented" when referring to the children whose eligibility for public education was in dispute. Richwales 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the distinction between "illegal" and "undocumented" necessary to the meaning of the article? Or just aesthetics? --Tim4christ17 15:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No real distinction in meaning between the two terms — but, to many people, there are political connotations. As I said, there was a revert war going on over this issue a few weeks ago. Inspired in part by the Supreme Court's opinion in Plyler v. Doe using both terms more or less interchangeably, I edited the article to use both terms as well. I'm still worried that upsetting that balance may set off another revert war, but if that happens, I'll probably leave it to someone else to fight it next time. Richwales 06:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Undocumented (illegal) children" vs. "children of the undocumented (illegal)"

The children involved in Plyler v. Doe were born outside the United States and immigrated illegally to the U.S. along with their parents. I added a comment clarifying that this case had nothing to do with the "anchor baby" issue (alien parents having a child in the U.S. in hopes of themselves obtaining legal immigration or citizenship status). Richwales 07:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

This case says, and this is a direct quote,

Respondent's reliance on Reid, supra, is misplaced, since that case stands only for the proposition that United States citizens stationed abroad could invoke the protection of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Similarly, those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country. See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212 . Respondent, however, is an alien with no previous significant voluntary connection with the United States, and his legal but involuntary presence here does not indicate any substantial connection with this country. The Court of Appeals' reliance on INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, supra, is also misplaced, since that case assumed that, but did not expressly address the question whether, the Fourth Amendment applies to illegal aliens in the United States. Even assuming such aliens - who are in this country voluntarily and presumably have accepted some societal obligations - would be entitled to Fourth Amendment protections, their situation differs from that of respondent, who had no voluntary connection with this country that might place him among "the people." This Court's decisions expressly according differing protection to aliens than to citizens also undermine respondent's claim that treating aliens differently under the Fourth Amendment violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 269-273.

I have highlighted the part relevant to this article.

Are any of the following in dispute?

• It is a clarification by the Supreme Court of Plyler v Doe.
• It states, "cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country"
• the point just stated has a direct relevance (given that it is directly referencing Plyler v Doe) as to when aliens receive constitutional rights/protections
• that one does not gain citizenship before gaining constitutional protections, but rather that those constitutional protections that depend on citizenship are gained simultaneously with citizenship.

Because if none of these points are in dispute, than this reference certainly belongs in this article.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

First, I would dispute your linking citizenship with constitutional protections. The Plyler case certainly does not suggest that one must be a citizen in order to have rights under the Constitution. Neither does Verdugo-Urquidez.

Second, given the point at issue in Verdugo-Urquidez, I believe the only thing that case says about when aliens receive rights and protections under the Constitution is that these rights and protections do not apply to an alien who is outside the US. Lest you become overly worked up over the "substantial connections" wording in Verdugo-Urquidez, please read the opinion carefully and I think you'll agree with me that the point the court was making was that the fact that Verdugo-Urquidez had been extradited to the US was not enough to let him invoke the Fourth Amendment against search-and-seizure activity performed in Mexico before his extradition.

Third, I don't see any evidence at all that the Verdugo-Urquidez opinion constitutes "a clarification by the Supreme Court of Plyler v. Doe," if by that you mean that you think Verdugo-Urquidez alters, modifies, or overrules the holdings of Plyler in any way.

Fourth, even if the Supreme Court (in Verdugo-Urquidez) did in fact mean to say that aliens in the US aren't entitled to constitutional rights until/unless they "have developed substantial connections with" the US (whatever that might mean), any such comment would be at best obiter dicta and not a holding, since the Verdugo-Urquidez case had nothing at all to do with the constitutional rights of aliens outside the US.

So, no, I don't currently see any valid reason to cite Verdugo-Urquidez in this article. Richwales (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the degree of misunderstanding on this issue because Verdugo-Urquidez is available for everyone to read. Nevertheless, I'll clarify. I did not add the "see e.g., Plyer v Doe" in the court's findings, the court did. The court is the body who said that the only thing Plyer v Doe establishes is that "aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country". The court did not alter, modify, or overrule the holdings of Plyler, rather it clarified what those findings were. Some degree of the confusion which is occuring here, I think, is a basic misunderstanding on your part about Plyler. The part of Plyler which appears to contradict Verdugo-Urquidez is dicta (it is, afterall, in a footnote). Dicta has no legal weight. Once you seperate the dicta from the rest of Plyler, the statement Verdugo-Urquidez made about Plyler is self-evident.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't see the relevance. Perhaps you (or some other editor) could explain it more explicitly. Also check what I just wrote on the birthright citizenship talk page. Richwales (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't see the relevance? The relevance is obvious, so it must be a failure to communicate between you and I. I'll try again.

The court in Verdugo-Urquidez said that the only thing Plyer v Doe establishes is that "aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country". Given that the court clarified what they did, any statement that Plyler v Doe establishes that aliens receive such protections whether or not they have both come within the territory of and developed substantial connections with this country directly contradicts what the court found in Verdugo-Urquidez. Do you, at least, understand that?

I'll add that a holding by the Court does not have precedential effect unless it is backed by a majority of the membership. In Verdugo-Urquidez the main opinion was signed by only four out of nine justices: the concurrence did not mention Plyler at all. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The court in Verdugo-Urquidez did not overrule Plyler. It clarified Plyler. The precedent was set by Plyler, not Verdugo-Urquidez-75.179.153.110 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The court did not clarify Plyler: the four-member plurality did. Big difference. Grover cleveland (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as best I can tell, the main opinion in Verdugo-Urquidez was signed by five of the justices — Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy. So it is a "majority" opinion. I would still say, though, that the significance of the "substantial connections" phrase is unclear in relation to Plyler. The court in Verdugo-Urquidez invoked this concept only in order to counter Mr. Verdugo's claim that, solely by virtue of his having been brought onto US soil as an extradited prisoner, he had acquired the same degree of Fourth Amendment protection already afforded to US citizens living abroad. If (and I still think this is a big "if") the phrase is to be included in the Plyler v. Doe article, it needs to be accompanied by a note acknowledging that the impact, if any, of Verdugo-Urquidez on future cases relating to the rights of illegal aliens in the US remains unresolved. Richwales (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been pointing out that, in Verdugo-Urquidez, the court said that the only thing Plyer v Doe establishes is that "aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country". You seem to conceed that fact but make the additional argument that what the court said about Plyler in Verdugo-Urquidez is of no merit because Plyler wasn't about extradited prisoners.

You've provided no sources, however, to support your additional argument (that what the Court said about Plyler is of no merit because Plyler wasn't about extradited prisoners) and, therefore, your claim, at least for now, is original research. To maintain the dispute, reliable sources which support your additional arguement are needed.

The court in Verdugo-Urquidez invoked this concept only in order to counter Mr. Verdugo's claim that, solely by virtue of his having been brought onto US soil as an extradited prisoner Again, another irrelevant point - even if it were true. The Supreme Court does not set law on a case by case basis - that's what precedent is about. I would still say, though, that the significance of the "substantial connections" phrase is unclear in relation to Plyler. Again, the court specifically referenced Plyler. By doing so it made it as clear as humanly possible that its comments were significant about Plyler. This is what I don't understand. If I say "ball A is red" and you reply "but what significance does that have to the color of ball A?" what alternative interpretation of your statement is possible other than that you aren't listening? The court said "Plyler v Doe establishes only that X, Y, and Z" and you are replying "But what significance does that have to whether Plyler v Doe established A, B, and C?" What alternative interpretation of your statement is possible other than that you aren't listening? I'm looking for the key that will help me understand your perspective. -198.97.67.58 (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Entire section on US-born children of illegal immigrants should be removed

Unless we can find some reliable secondary sources for it. Grover cleveland (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

US Case Law is about as reliable as you can get and we've got that available already.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed U.S. Supreme Court articles
• Unknown-importance U.S. Supreme Court articles
• WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases articles