|
Guiora, Amos N.
Print publication date: 2008 (this edition)
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2009 Print ISBN-13: 978-0-19-534031-0 doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195340310.003.0005 |
|
|
Why should constitutional protections be extended to any noncitizen in the first place? Some argue that any alien (legal or illegal) residing in the United States is entitled to full constitutional guarantees and protections. The Supreme court addressed this in the Dred Scott case, holding that the Fifth Amendment was not limited to the geographic boundaries of the states, but rather such protections were extended to all incorporated territories of the United States. In the 150 years since Dred Scott, the Court has discussed two distinct lines of demarcation relevant for determining detainee rights. These two jurisprudential lines are: distinguishing between individuals and inside and outside of the United States, and distinguishing between citizens and noncitizens.
Keywords: Dred Scott v. Sandford, insular cases, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, Fifth Amendment, Johnson v Eisentrager, Fourteenth Amendment, self incrimination, due process,
doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195340310.003.0005
|
|