By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a House committee hearing, Rep. Kiley questioned whether undocumented migrants are entitled to the same due process as citizens, a claim Rep. Crockett refuted citing the Constitution’s guarantee of due process to all on US soil. Kiley countered citing Supreme Court rulings on context-dependent due process, but Crockett maintained that the Supreme Court consistently upholds due process rights for everyone regardless of immigration status. The debate, punctuated by laughter from the House floor, ultimately concluded without resolution. Rep. Jayapal’s attempt to submit the US Constitution for the record highlighted the central disagreement.
Read the original article here
The exchange began with a seemingly simple question regarding the due process rights of migrants. A GOP lawmaker’s inquiry sparked a moment of levity when Representative Jasmine Crockett responded with laughter, then a succinct, yet powerful statement: “I would like to submit the Constitution.” This seemingly simple action highlights a fundamental disagreement regarding the very foundation of American law and justice.
The laughter itself isn’t merely a dismissal of the question; it’s a reaction to the absurdity of the underlying premise. The implication is that the question, regarding whether migrants are entitled to due process, is so fundamentally at odds with the established legal framework of the United States that it’s almost comical. It underscores the deeply troubling notion that basic legal protections are somehow conditional upon citizenship or immigration status.
The suggestion to “submit the Constitution” serves as a powerful rhetorical device. It isn’t just a casual offer of a document; it’s a sharp reminder of the foundational principles upon which the American legal system is built. The Constitution guarantees due process to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, regardless of their immigration status. This is a core tenet of American legal tradition, a principle that has been repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The inherent tension in the exchange lies in the conflicting interpretations of the Constitution and the rule of law. The questioning implies that migrants should somehow be excluded from the fundamental protections afforded by the Constitution, a position that directly contradicts established legal precedent and basic human rights principles. This position appears to stem from a selective and potentially distorted understanding of the legal system, one where traditional norms are prioritized over constitutional guarantees.
The episode highlights a larger issue of political polarization and the erosion of shared understanding of fundamental legal principles. The question itself demonstrates a stark difference in values and worldview. Those who question the due process rights of migrants often seem to prioritize a narrative of national security and border control over the principles of justice and equality under the law. In contrast, Representative Crockett’s response signifies a firm commitment to the core principles of the American legal system, and a rejection of the idea that basic human rights are subject to negotiation or political expediency.
Representative Crockett’s response is both effective and concise; it reframes the entire debate. The seemingly simple act of referencing the Constitution immediately shifts the terms of the discussion. The lawmaker’s question is now seen not just as a factual inquiry, but as a potential challenge to the very foundations of American jurisprudence. The unspoken implication is that the Constitution cannot and should not be subject to renegotiation or selective application.
The response also carries a symbolic weight. It represents a refusal to engage in a debate based on inaccurate or misleading assumptions, and serves as a powerful counterpoint to those who would seek to undermine the rule of law through selective enforcement and biased interpretations. It underlines the importance of adherence to constitutional principles and the dangers of prioritizing political narratives over fundamental legal rights. By referencing the Constitution in this manner, Representative Crockett transforms the exchange from a clash of opinions to a direct confrontation between differing worldviews, a clash between a selective and arguably distorted interpretation of the legal framework and the established precepts of the American legal system.
The episode’s lasting impact lies in its sharp contrast between two fundamentally different approaches to governance and the rule of law. It highlights a growing chasm in how Americans understand the Constitution and the principles of justice, raising concerns about the future of the country’s legal and political system. The brief exchange offers a powerful microcosm of broader societal tensions regarding immigration policy, human rights, and the very foundation of American jurisprudence. The laughter, while seemingly brief, underscores the gravity of the question and the potential dangers of neglecting the constitutional guarantees upon which American society is built.