Whose Rights Come First? Rethinking Due Process in Modern America: Illegal Immigrant

By Jessica Scipio

October 25, 2026

6:35 PM

Equal Protection or Unequal Priority

A frequent grievance in modern political debates is the perception that the American legal system increasingly burdens citizens while affording extensive protections to undocumented immigrants. Critics argue that taxpaying citizens face aggressive domestic regulation, civil asset forfeitures, and strict procedural enforcement, while foreign nationals residing in the country unlawfully receive court hearings, legal representation access, and prolonged deportation appeals. This dynamic leads many to feel that the rights of sovereignty and citizenship are being eroded in favor of noncitizens.

Under constitutional jurisprudence, however, due process is not a finite privilege transferred between groups, but a baseline restraint on government authority. Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments explicitly state that no "person", not merely "citizen" shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this distinction, ruling in landmark cases such as Yick Wo v. Hopkins Wo Lee v. Same, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886); and ZADVYDAS v. DAVIS ET AL., 533 U.S. 678 (2001); that all individuals within the territorial borders of the United States are shielded from arbitrary state action.

The practical friction arises where administrative burdens meet national border enforcement. Overburdened immigration courts and backlogged dockets mean that removal proceedings can take years to resolve, leaving the impression that undocumented individuals are granted endless procedural reprieves while citizens face swift consequences in local jurisdictions. For critics, allocating public funding and judicial resources to process and house individuals who entered the country outside lawful channels feels like a misappropriation of constitutional priorities that disadvantages native-born and naturalized Americans.

Ultimately, the friction highlights competing visions of the rule of law. Proponents of robust immigration due process argue that denying fair hearings to noncitizens sets a dangerous precedent, enabling unchecked executive power that could eventually be turned against citizens themselves. Conversely, skeptics emphasize that citizenship carries a unique social contract, arguing that without enforceable borders and clear legal distinctions between citizens and noncitizens, the very foundation of civic rights and national sovereignty is undermined.