A nit, IMO, but Clayton is correct on the "illegal alien" question. See below.
> Spitzer: > In the syllabus to the Verdugo case, it says this: "Held: The Fourth > Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by United States > agents of property owned by a NONRESIDENT ALIEN [emphasis added] > and located in a foreign country." A nonresident alien is not an illegal alien. Every foreigner in the world residing in his/her home country is a nonresident alien. To be an illegal alien, you must reside here in the U.S., and you must have broken immigration law to do so. > In his majority opinion, CJ Rehnquist writes this: > "Relying on our decision in INS v Lopez-Mendoza. . .where a majority > of Justices assumed that ILLEGAL ALIENS [emphasis added] in the > United States have Fourth Amendment rights. . . ." > > Illegal alien? Yes. No. They relied on a precedent from a case about illegal aliens (INS v Lopez-Mendoza), but that doesn't make Verdugo-Urquidez, a Mexican living in Mexico, into an illegal alien. Therefore, Spitzer's paper is factually incorrect, where it says: "In fact, the [Verdugo-Urquidez] case deals with the Fourth Amendment issue of whether an illegal alien from Mexico was entitled to constitutional protection regarding searches."
