> Do illegals (and that is an honest question) benefit from constitutional rights?
Generally, yes. There are rights that are protected only for citizens (e.g., voting rights), but most Constitutional rights restrain what the government can do to people, an are not keyed to citizenship, or to residency status. It is particularly important that due process rights are not keyed to status, because otherwise simply by presuming a status that is not entitled to due process, the government could absolve themselves of the requirement to prove that you actually had the status in question, and proceed directly to the sanctions associated with the status.
> And, lastly, where was the outrage here on HN when, in 2015, Obama awarded a Presidential Rank Award to Tom Homan (the same Tom Homan) for how he handled the millions (!) of deportations under Obama?
The deportations under Obama were manifestly handled differently than under Trump, so one could very consistently object to the latter and not object, or not object as strenuously, to the former.
> By now under Trump only 20% of the number of illegals that Obama deported have been deported.
The main objections have never been to the number of people lawfully subject to deportation who have been deported.
It is very strange to not know something so basic (whether or not illegal immigrants have any constitutional rights) and also be pointing out such a specific thing (awards granted to Tom Homan).
> By now under Trump only 20% of the number of illegals that Obama deported have been deported. I'm not saying Trump won't surpass Obama's score but... Obama was the posterchild of the dems: so where's the outrage? Apparently Tom Homan learned under Obama.
I don’t remember any evidence of unconstitutional raids, or illegal detainment of citizens, or outright murder of Americans in the streets under Obama. It’s not about the numbers. It’s the purposeful violation of our laws and the addiction to violence we are seeing among ICE agents.
Also. I do recall people complaining a lot about Guantanamo. Now with El Salvador it's a million times worse.
Also the overt Nazism. I think that’s an important detail.
Do you agree with the contents of the 4th amendment?
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Simple question. Yes/No. Choose one.
The fact that people like you are arguing it is fine to blatantly violate the Fourth Amendment (and more) on mere suspicion of "illegals" is horrifying.
Hopefully you will receive an education someday, and, for your sake, hopefully not in the form of a petard hoist.