Dear readers, on the illegal alien matter, it is true that I treated "illegal alien"
and "non-resident alien" as synonyms, and I regret the error. But either way, the man
was not a US citizen, and that is what mattered in terms of the extent to which the
4th A. did or did not apply to him.
Thanks,
Bob Spitzer
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Boucher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 10/13/2003 3:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Restrain your amazement
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."
