Immigration Law and the Human (Non-) Person

Chuck Roth of the Midwest Immigration and Human Rights Center offers the following response to my question on the compatibility of immigration law with Church teaching:

One troubled by Roe v. Wade's finding that unborn children are non-persons can hardly fail to be similarly troubled by cases like United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292 (1904) (Excludable alien not entitled to First Amendment rights, because "he does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law"), Kwong Hai Chew, supra, at 596, n. 5 ("The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission"), and even, in modern times, Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) (questioning "whether the protections of the Fourth Amendment extend to illegal aliens in this country," suggesting that they are not "people" within meaning of the Fourth Amendment). It does seem that when we as a species wish to deprive someone of rights to which they are otherwise entitled, we tend to label them as non-persons. To borrow a phrase from the first Pres. Bush, when someone argues that a member of our species is a non-person - reach for your wallet.