Fact check: What constitutional protections apply to non-citizens

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, non-citizens in the United States are entitled to significant constitutional protections, particularly under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The core constitutional protection is due process, which applies to all people within U.S. borders regardless of immigration status ^{[1] [2]}.

Key constitutional protections for non-citizens include:

• Due process rights under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as confirmed by former Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia ^[2]
• The right to challenge their detention and the evidence against them ^[2]
• Protection against arbitrary government action, with legal expert Steve Vladeck emphasizing that due process ensures the government cannot act without proper justification ^[3]

However, the specifics of due process protection vary depending on the individual's status and circumstances ^[4]. The Supreme Court has been actively balancing aggressive immigration enforcement with constitutional guarantees, placing limits on attempts to swiftly deport migrants without adequate notice and opportunity for hearings ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements that significantly impact non-citizens' rights:

Current legal challenges and policy shifts:

• President Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents represents a fundamental challenge to traditional constitutional interpretation ^[6]
• The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed lawsuits arguing this order violates the Fourteenth Amendment and would create "a permanent subclass of people born in the US who are denied full rights as Americans" ^[7]

Global perspective on citizenship rights:

• The U.S. approach to birthright citizenship is not the global norm - only about 30 countries, mostly in the Americas, grant automatic citizenship to anyone born within their borders, while many countries follow the jus sanguinis principle (citizenship by blood) ^[8]

Ongoing Supreme Court considerations:

• The Supreme Court is currently divided on birthright citizenship issues, with justices expressing concerns about the practical implications of restrictive policies ^[9]
• Constitutional protections are contested and evolving, particularly regarding the balance between immigration enforcement and due process rights ^[4]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain explicit misinformation, as it is posed as an inquiry rather than making specific claims. However, the framing lacks important nuance about the current legal and political context surrounding non-citizens' rights.

Potential areas where bias could emerge:

• Immigration advocacy organizations like the ACLU benefit from emphasizing broad constitutional protections for non-citizens, as this supports their mission and fundraising efforts ^[7]
• The Trump administration benefits from promoting a restrictive interpretation of constitutional protections, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment "has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born in the US" ^[6]
• Legal experts and former justices quoted in sources may have institutional interests in maintaining traditional constitutional interpretations that preserve judicial authority over immigration matters

The question's neutrality masks the highly contested nature of these constitutional protections, particularly given recent executive orders and ongoing Supreme Court cases that could fundamentally alter the landscape of non-citizens' rights in America.