Laws For All: Citizens And Noncitizens

The rights of non-citizens have been a long-running issue throughout US history. While some may mistakenly believe otherwise, non-citizens do have a number of legal rights in the United States. These may include the right to due process and a jury trial in certain court proceedings, the right to payment for their work, the right to defend against deportation, and many more.

The US Constitution uses the terms resident, person, and people in addition to citizen, and it is often written as the right of the people. This means that the Bill of Rights protects everyone, including undocumented immigrants, to exercise free speech, religion, assembly, and to be free from unlawful government interference.

However, the Constitution does not specify whether the First Amendment applies only to citizens, and there is legal uncertainty about who is included and excluded from this protection. While the First Amendment grants the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition, these rights may depend on a person's legal status in the country.

The Supreme Court has interpreted Constitutional rights as applying to all people residing in the US, regardless of immigration status, but some Constitutional rights apply solely to US citizens.

The right to due process

The US Supreme Court has affirmed the right to due process for noncitizens in several landmark cases. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the Court struck down a discriminatory San Francisco ordinance, stating that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies to "all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, color, or nationality." Similarly, in Wong Wing v. United States (1896), the Court ruled that the government could not impose punishment on a noncitizen without a judicial trial, upholding the procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

Despite these protections, the reality of due process for immigrants can fall short. Immigration courts have been described as having "very few rights," with lax evidentiary standards that often lead to guaranteed convictions. Additionally, expedited removal processes allow for the immediate deportation of certain immigrants without a court hearing, raising concerns about the practical realisation of due process rights.

In conclusion, while the right to due process is meant to apply equally to citizens and noncitizens, the complexities of immigration law and varying interpretations of due process can lead to disparities in how this right is exercised in practice.

The right to legal counsel

The Supreme Court has ruled that if a person cannot afford an attorney, the government must appoint one or pay their legal expenses. However, this right to counsel is not absolute and depends on the nature of the charges. Most charges against undocumented immigrants are related to removal, which are non-criminal charges. For non-criminal charges, the right to legal counsel does not apply.

The Supreme Court does not consider deportation charges a criminal offense, and therefore, undocumented immigrants may not have the rights that come with criminal proceedings, such as the right to an attorney. This distinction has significant implications for immigrants facing removal proceedings. They often do not have the right to government-appointed counsel in immigration court, and the lack of legal representation can profoundly impact the outcome of their cases.

However, it is important to note that if an undocumented immigrant is facing criminal charges, they have the same right to legal counsel as US citizens. This includes the right to a court-appointed attorney if they cannot afford one. Additionally, anyone facing criminal charges, regardless of citizenship, has the right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves, as well as the right to be informed of these rights through a Miranda warning.

In conclusion, while noncitizens do have a right to legal counsel in criminal proceedings, they may face challenges in accessing this right in civil cases, particularly those related to immigration and deportation.

The right to freedom of religion and speech

In the US, the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting the freedoms of religion and speech. This amendment applies to all people in the country, including citizens, foreign tourists, and non-citizen residents. For example, a tourist from Canada can attend their preferred religious service and cannot be forced by the government to attend a particular service or adhere to a specific religion. Similarly, a musician from India can perform songs that criticise US foreign policy without fear of punishment.

However, the application of these rights to non-citizens is complex and can depend on their legal status. For instance, unauthorised immigrants (those with no legal status) may not have the same protections as authorised non-immigrants or residents. The US Supreme Court has not provided a definitive ruling on this matter, and legal scholars disagree on whether the First Amendment applies to unauthorised immigrants.

In other countries, the right to freedom of religion and speech may be more limited for non-citizens. For example, in Iran, the constitution recognises and protects four religions: Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. However, Baháʼís are persecuted and denied basic rights, such as access to education and employment. Egypt also restricts religious freedom by only recognising three religions: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Members of other religious communities, including Baháʼís, lack essential documents and are denied citizenship rights.

While the right to freedom of religion and speech is recognised internationally, the extent to which non-citizens can exercise these rights varies across countries and legal systems.

The right to equal protection under the law

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment serves as a crucial safeguard against arbitrary discrimination by governmental bodies. It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally, without distinctions based on irrelevant factors such as race, colour, or nationality. This clause has been pivotal in dismantling discriminatory practices and promoting equality before the law.

In the context of immigration, the right to equal protection ensures that noncitizens are afforded the same legal protections as citizens. For example, undocumented immigrants facing criminal charges possess the same due process rights as citizens, including the right to a fair and public trial, the right to legal counsel, and the right against unlawful searches and seizures. Additionally, the Supreme Court has affirmed the right of undocumented immigrant children to access public education, as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause.

The right to a safe work environment

In the United States, federal law entitles everyone to a safe workplace, regardless of citizenship status. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was enacted in 1970 to address the growing number of serious injuries and deaths occurring in the workplace.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) outlines the right to a safe work environment, and it is enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). This act covers most employers and outlines the responsibilities of both employers and employees in maintaining a safe workplace.

Employers have a duty to:

• Keep the workplace free of known health and safety hazards.
• Provide workplace safety and health training in a language understood by their employees.
• Ensure employees work on safe machines and with safe equipment.
• Provide required safety equipment, such as gloves, harnesses, and lifelines for falls.
• Protect employees from toxic chemicals.
• Allow employees to request an OSHA inspection and speak to the inspector.

Employees have the right to:

• Speak up about hazards without fear of retaliation.
• Refuse to work in situations where they would be exposed to hazards.
• Report injuries or illnesses and receive copies of their medical records.
• Review records of work-related injuries and illnesses.
• See the results of tests taken to find workplace hazards.

If employees believe their working conditions are unsafe or unhealthy, they can file a confidential complaint with OSHA and request an inspection. It is illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee who complains to OSHA and exercises their legal rights.

In addition to federal regulations, some states have developed their own standards and statutes to regulate workplace safety and encourage employers to protect their employees. For example, Texas has the Texas Occupational Safety Act and the Hazard Communication Act, which impose additional obligations on employers to safeguard their employees from workplace hazards.

Therefore, the right to a safe work environment applies to both citizens and noncitizens in the United States, with federal and state laws in place to ensure that employers provide and maintain healthy and safe working conditions.

Frequently asked questions