Do Syrian Refugees Have Constitutional Rights?

Do Syrian Refugees Have Constitutional Rights?

By

James Scott Trimm

There has been a lot of talk lately about Syrian Refugees, and refugees from Islamic nations in general.  Donald Trump recently suggested putting a ban on all immigration to the US by Muslims,  Some have suggested that this would violate the first amendment, but is that truly the case?

It is necessary first to understand the nature of the Constitution.  The Constitution is a compact between a given state, and the other states in the Union. Just as when two foreign powers, for example France and Great Britain enter into a compact.  As Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"That the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party;…”
(Thomas Jefferson; Kentucky Resolution 1798)

And James Madison wrote:

"…the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties, appertaining to them."
(James Madison; Virginia Resolution of 1798)

The Constitution therefore, is an agreement between the states.  Only the states and their citizens are parties to the agreement, and others are not a party to the agreement.

Our rights do not originate from the Constitution, they originate from the Creator.  The Constitution does not give us our rights, however the Bill of Rights is a guarantee within the compact between the states, that the newly created federal government must respect the rights of the member states and their citizens as outlined in that agreement.  

But one might say, that if our rights originate from the Creator, are not all men created equal and endowed by the same Creator with the same inalienable rights?

The statements that all men are created equal, and are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights are not found in the Constitution, they are found in the Declaration of Independence, which does not actually have the power of law.

However let us look at what the Declaration of Independence actually says in context:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence is telling us that while all men are created equal (with equal rights) and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, these rights must be secured from tyrannical governments by the people when they abolish those governments and replace them with new governments. 

This does not mean that the Syrian refugees have Constitutional rights, but rather that they have inalienable rights endowed upon them by their Creator, it is their right not to come to the US, but to stay in Syria to abolish their own tyrannical government and institute new Government so as to secure those rights for themselves as our founding fathers did.

One final thought.  Clearly slavery was an evil that the early United States had inherited, and which needed to be abolished.  It is also clear that framers were unable to come to a resolution on this issue, and kicked the can down the road.  It was not until the fourteenth amendment was passed many years later that the slaves were freed and their rights respected as well.  It is obvious that the framers did not intend the Bill of Rights to be a guarantee that the Federal Government would respect the rights of all people everywhere in the world, or the Bill of Rights would have been understood to have applied to the slaves and Native Americans before the 14^th amendment was even passed. 

So the evidence is clear.  Constitutional Rights are not the same thing and Inalienable Rights.  Inalienable Rights are a gift from the Creator, and while Constitutional Rights are not granted by the Constitution, the Constitution is a compact between the member states that contains a guarantee that the Federal Government would respect the rights of the parties of the agreement (the member states and their people) outlined therein.  

Since Syrian refugees and foreigners wishing to immigrate in general are not parties to the compact, they do not have the protection of “Constitutional Rights”.  They do have inalienable rights endowed upon them by their Creator, and they do therefore have the right to stay in Syria so as to abolish and replace the governments there so as to secure their rights, as our founding fathers did here.