News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional. Parent comment

Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by reaperducer on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @04:49PM (#21518542)
I don't think that is true in practice

It is true in practice.

One example: the children of illegal immigrants are legally entitled to public education, even though they aren't citizens.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by elil17 on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @05:08PM (#21518699)
This gets a couple things wrong:

1) People who aren’t citizens are still entitled to public education. Many green card holders go to US public schools, for instance

2) Anyone born on US soil is a US citizen regardless of their parents immigration status

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by jessaustin on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @05:19PM (#21518814)
Clearly parent is not talking about children born in USA, so your second point is not relevant. Your first point is just a restatement of parent.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by adiM on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @05:26PM (#21518877)
The grant-parent said "children of _illegal_ immigrants" and the parent is talking about "children of _Green card holders_". Green card holders are those who have immigrated legally.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by jessaustin on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @05:53PM (#21519124)
The question of the thread is to what extent non-citizens have particular rights. Parents cite two distinct yet substantially similar groups of non-citizens (one presumes that children don't have much agency with respect to the circumstances of their immigration). Both examples argue in the same direction on the question of the thread, so why does this distinction matter?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by leereeves on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @06:14PM (#21519297)
Is the first point a constitutional issue? I don't recall the constitution guaranteeing anyone a public education.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by dragonwriter on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @07:11PM (#21519692)
It doesn't require public education, but it restricts discrimination if it is provided by the state, as all states do. So, yes, it is a Constitutional issue.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by leereeves on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @07:43AM (#21523396)
Which part of rhe Constitution forbids discrimination based on citizenship status?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by dragonwriter on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @08:56AM (#21524017)
No part of the Constitution entirely forbids discrimination on any basis, but the part that is held to limit state discrimination on that basis is—as limits state discrimination on every basis—the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by torstenvl on Sunday November 17, 2019 @03:26PM (#21559876)
The equal protection clause applies to citizenship status. The key case on citizenship discrimination and public education is Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) available at https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by selimthegrim on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @10:39PM (#21520992)
Even foreign diplomats' kids?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by xyzzyz on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @05:11PM (#21518737)
Only because the Supreme Court decided in 5-to-4 decision that the states don't have a "substantial state interest" that would allow them to deny it. See Plyler v. Doe.

Which is to say, the constitutional rights of non-citizens are hardly as obvious as they are for citizens.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by arcticbull on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @05:20PM (#21518821)
This follows logically, in my opinion, from the idea that the federal government is solely responsible for matters of immigration law. You don't want to create a patchwork of different rules in different states based on presence granted and retracted at the sole discretion of the federal government. Once you're on US soil, you're largely treated the same as anyone else on US soil (or at least through the same framework), and that makes sense. If you should be removed, that's up to the Feds. To the extent you're not, you should be treated consistently.

You are of course correct that the rules do not apply evenly for immigrants and nonimmigrants, especially since nonimmigrants convicted of a crime are largely seen out as soon as their sentence is served. The same isn't true of immigrants.

Mostly.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by xyzzyz on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @05:26PM (#21518886)
This follows logically, in my opinion, from the idea that the federal government is solely responsible for matters of immigration law.

This argument makes sense, but I think it proves too much: states already have plenty of laws that restrict certain rights or privileges to citizens only. Your argument, as I understand it, is that since immigration status is a matter of federal law, states cannot deny a right (to K-12 education) on the basis of immigration status -- but it is commonly accepted that they can and do deny such a right in other circumstances, e.g. to serve as a police officer, for example, which I'm quite sure state laws deny to illegal immigrants.

are largely seen out as soon as their sentence is served

What do you mean by "seen out", exactly?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by arcticbull on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @05:38PM (#21518986)
> What do you mean by "seen out", exactly?

Committing a crime of moral turpitude as a non-immigrant (and even some green card holders) makes you eligible for deportation. [1]

[1] https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/legal-re...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by bryanrasmussen on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @07:09PM (#21519676)
Some years ago (as I remember this) it was allowed to deport any non-citizen who had committed a crime that could lead to a year or more incarceration - is that no longer the case?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by arcticbull on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @08:27PM (#21520289)
It's probably more stringent now heh.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by ta0987 on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @07:37PM (#21519910)
e.g. to serve as a police officer

You can't legally work in any job as an illegal immigrant - it's a Federal law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324a

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by logfromblammo on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @06:37PM (#21519465)
It's true in practice in a lot of places. In some places, persons without ironclad immigration status can be hassled out of enjoying public services with spitefully racist levels of bureaucratic process. It is similar to how same-sex marriages were denied after being declared legal by county clerks that refused to issue the documents that record their marriage publicly. The kids aren't denied public education, per se, but they certainly cannot get the same education experience as citizens and legal residents get. No electives. No extracurriculars. No field trips. No cafeteria payment accounts. All those things require the proper forms, and proof of residency, you see.

As a bonus (malus?), the very same malicious process can be used against kids of homeless parents.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and La... by Rebelgecko on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @05:28PM (#21518898)
I disagree that it is true in practice, because the government can get away with claiming that not treating everyone on US soil equally is OK in the interest of public safety.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-court-guns-immi...

[ Parent | on HN ]