Actual PaperLink

Abstract:

Freedom of speech should be a basic human right which should be inclusive of undocumented immigrants.This paper will discuss the phrasing of the First Amendment and how this interpretation potentially affects undocumented immigrants, particularly Mexican immigrants, and their need to obtain First Amendment protection especially now during President Donald Trump’s administration. This paper will argue in favor of protection towards those who express their beliefs, and opinions towards the American society while still not being considered part of an exclusive group called citizens and residents, but taking part in today’s American economic society nonetheless. Assessments of President Trump’s recent legal immigration trajectories will be discussed as well as the methods of trajectory his presidency falls against in the American election society with his loss of popular vote, and ability to win electoral vote; therefore loosing popular vote by 3 million votes, but winning electoral vote by 74 votes.

The First Amendment and its Importance in Today’s society

The first amendment’s clause regarding freedom of speech should be held in importance due to the recent mass deportations which have already taken place in American society. With the guarantee of the first amendment undocumented immigrants would then be able to voice their opinions, or raise awareness to inequalities which have occurred to them; however, without any guarantee of freedom of speech to those who are immigrants they risk being taken advantage of by government officials, corrupted by employers, and not being guaranteed certain moral rights as those who are under the protection of the First Amendment. Because what is an argument, a protest, an opinion without the freedom to express the idea out loud. Without being guaranteed the right to voice one’s opinion than how can a person tell their side of the story, and possibly their reasonings for immigrating to the U.S. rather than staying in their home country. By blocking speech towards undocumented immigrants this would give society a prejudice to take advantage of these undocumented Mexican individuals. I exclude my paper to only include Mexican undocumented immigrants because they are the group of individuals being targeted largely by the Trump administration in regards to illegal immigration and mass deportations. I am also discussing Mexican immigrants because of their close proximity to the U.S. region, and the constant racism there is towards this group in many Republican based states such as Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma, etc. Additionally, Mexican undocumented immigrants are the group of illegal immigrants most targeted by the Trump administration due to the creation of the famous wall he advertised during his presidency which would serve the purpose of keeping undocumented immigrants from Mexico from entering U.S. land. Because of the targeting of Mexican undocumented immigrants as a group during these mass deportations there will also be a high increase of discrimination which will openly be observed, or there will be practice in law which would have previously been observed in society as unconstitutional, but without this group being allowed to be guaranteed rights under the first amendment then any discriminatory act or offense won’t be heard of because the First Amendment can be denied at any moment by a court or a Justice purely because there has not previously been an establishment of who is entitled to constitute a part of the “people” which is mentioned in the First Amendment and in our Constitution. Therefore, my stance in this case would be the idea that the legislature body of each state should create a clause protecting undocumented immigrants as being part of the “people” which is a term mentioned in the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth amendments of the Constitution with regards to this paper.

This issue with regards to establishing undocumented immigrants the guarantee of the First Amendment and having them be part of “the people” which the constitution, and the Bill of Rights address in multiple instances to declare the rights of those who encompass, and reside in the U.S., but are defined only in the terms “the people” in a political sense according to Justice Antonin Scalia in the case of United States v. Verdugo Urquidez is important today more urgently than it was ten years ago because of the new Presidency of Donald Trump. Additionally, in the U.S. 61 million immigrants reside, and of those 61 million immigrants, and an estimate of 15.7 million undocumented immigrants according to the Washington Examiner in 2016. This would then mean that roughly half of those immigrants, or one third of them are bound to be Mexican undocumented immigrants. I state this because the Mexican Border is in close proximity to the U.S. Border, and in regards to population size the U.S. contains 318.9 million people, and there was 56.6 million Hispanics reported to be living in the U.S. in 2016. Additionally, in 2015 one third  the immigrating groups coming to the U.S. were Mexican based. The issue regarding if undocumented immigrants should have rights under the first amendment has been seen, but not fully acknowledged or categorised as solid protection to guaranteeing rights of “the people” under the U.S. Constitution with the cases of Turner v. Williams(1904), United States v. Verdugo, Heller(2008), and INS vs. Lopez-Mendoza with regards to this paper.

Additionally, the Trump administration, and his choice of cabinet members, with regards to the issues urgency, mostly lack a sense of expertise in political affairs with regards to 10 members specifically: Rex W. Tillerson(State), Scott Pruitt(E.R.A.), Linda McMahon(small business), Wilbur Ross(commerce), Rick Perry(energy), Ben Carson(Housing), Stephen K.Bannon(Chief Strategist), Jared Kushner(Senior Advisor/Husband of Ivanka Trump), Kellyanne Conway(Counselor), and Carl Icann(Regulatory Czar). Two other members are qualified for the position, but carry heavily racist undertones which pose a threat to this issue if undocumented immigrants are regarded to hold no right under the First Amendment Constitution during Donald Trump’s Presidency. These members include: John F. Kelly(Homeland Security), and Jeff Sessions(Attorney General). Therefore, Trump’s Presidential chosen cabinet out of twenty eight carries twelf inexperience political individuals, biased big time money moguls, or with regards to immigration: individuals who openly express themselves with racist undertones. Because of his cabinet picking, and with regards to his plans or mass deportations and the seen increase of anti semitic incidents occurring in Trump’s first one hundred days in office it is essential to address this question of whether undocumented immigrants fit into the description of “the people” which the First Amendment, the Fourth, the Fifth, and the Ninth address.

The guarantees of the First Amendment have never exclusively stated who the First Amendment includes rather it is phrased by the words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” In this case it is important to acknowledge who the government has addressed as being part of “the people” in the stance of Justice Stalia “the people” are seen as being part of “the political party” only which was seen in the case of United States v. Verdugo Urquidez. Initially America was founded upon rights which it believed were essential as moral rights, and there was a belief that “to deny some humans the right to freedom of speech based on where they were born was not naturally right,” according to Steven J. Heyman. Many would argue that undocumented immigrants deserve no rights under the U.S. constitution, but I believe differently. I believe we should allow undocumented immigrants of the the same protection and rights from the First, the Fourth, the Fifth, and the Ninth Amendments because for many coming to the U.S. illegally is there only misdemeanor. Additionally, a great part of this immigrants have suffered from exploitation at one point in their stay while in the U.S., and many of these immigrants have helped the U.S. benefit economically by working, and consuming U.S. based products when going to the stores.

My focus on this paper is based on undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. who have built a life, and hold substantial roots in the U.S. With regards to the First Amendment, and the people who are qualified as those in a “political sense”  with regards to those who have built substantial roots within the U.S. and have developed sufficient connections within the U.S. to be considered part of the community. The Constitution’s meaning with regards to “the people” win the First Amendment and the U.S. Bill of rights by eighteenth century views was meant to represent a general right that speakers should be required to respect the fundamental rights of others as well with regards to respect for autonomy and dignity of human beings. Steven j. Heyman expresses the belief which states that 18th century Americans held that freedom of speech as an essential natural right of mankind and was essential to the Republican government. However, there is also a concern that the traditional view to the first amendment no longer prevails with regards to individual rights and social interests including dignity and equality due to a dispute between incommensurable values and individual and social interest rather than free speech as a natural right to mankind including human dignity and autonomy. In this case the incommensurable values would include values of liberty and equality while individual and social interests would include: profit, and the idea of equality held at an exclusivity.

Peer Review notes:

• Core problem is relatively clear, including some of the context (maybe use what you wrote in your HCP) would be helpful.
• The core of the issue i feel gets a bit lost at times, but overall is there.
• Argument is clear and relatively specific.
• The claims are present and clear but could use more strength, both through diction and support from scholarly sources
• Evidence is present but not always clearly analyzed
• Argument does have very interesting points when it touches on the social aspects of the issue. Other points are important too and are being well developed but I think the paper would benefit from including a social aspect of the issue