The topic of whether or not non-citizens have constitutional rights has been interesting and enlightening.  That and whether or not the judicial is supposed to determine laws or policies are constitutional, allowable, and which are not. . . as well as the role personal views on the matters should or should not sway decisions. 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/#5a50c25b4f1d

Many times, it seems like people are asking the wrong question.  As in assuming what roles each branch of government have and when they influence others.  Yeah, there are some messed up examples of how things have gone awry, and hopefully they get resolved.

There's a little thing called jurisdiction that the Constitution mentions.  US law does not have jurisdiction over non-residents while they are not legally in our country.  That's why deportation needs to be our #1 solution.  If the non-citizen has no legal requirement to live by US law, then US law should not apply to their situation beyond deportation.

It's pretty straight-forward.  There are ways to apply for protection under refugee status and other immigration statuses LEGALLY.  If they don't afford themselves of the legal status necessary to be under US jurisdiction, then the US can't force them. 

Deport the illegals so they can be under the jurisdiction of their own country.  Problem solved!

Yeah.  I hear ya and I generally agree.  To me seems like common sense, so I can't really understand how people think or argue otherwise.  It's like trying to reason with someone who is unreasonable.  So you're going to put millions of citizens at increased risk, who have rights, to provide "rights" for those who are here illegally in the first place? 

There are rules to live by.  The whole issue and argument for protection for illegal immigrants is like a home invader suing a property/home owner for being attacked by the family pet.  Well, if you weren't where you weren't supposed to be in the first place, your ass wouldn't be all chewed up. . . [facepalm]

I still think people, mostly liberals are being propo'ed into looking the wrong direction.  They are forgetting more basic questions, like WHO is the Constitution intended to protect.

Now that I look at it again, the Bill of Rights doesn't actually use the word "citizen" anywhere. It only uses the word "person" so it is apparently supposed to apply to non-citizens. In a few places it mentions jurisdiction, but actually any country has jurisdiction over anyone physically located within it, regardless of how they got there. If I swam to a foreign country and commit a crime there, I am subject to their laws and jurisdiction and can be imprisoned there.

Now that I look at it again, the Bill of Rights doesn't actually use the word "citizen" anywhere. It only uses the word "person" so it is apparently supposed to apply to non-citizens. In a few places it mentions jurisdiction, but actually any country has jurisdiction over anyone physically located within it, regardless of how they got there. If I swam to a foreign country and commit a crime there, I am subject to their laws and jurisdiction and can be imprisoned there.

There are several mechanisms in public international law whereby the courts of one country (the domestic court) can exercise jurisdiction over a citizen, corporation, or organization of another country (the foreign defendant) to try crimes or civil matters that have affected citizens or businesses within the domestic jurisdiction. Many of these jurisdictional "hooks" can even reach conduct that affected the domestic citizen when the citizen was beyond his or her domestic borders. There are five such doctrines:[2]

    The territorial principle is the most important and widely used. It is the idea that a state may claim jurisdiction over persons and events inside its own territory. So, foreign nationals committing crimes in the U.S. are subject to U.S. courts and U.S. laws.
    The nationality principle holds that the government of a citizen can obtain jurisdiction over its citizen even when that citizen is abroad. For example, U.S. citizens are still required to pay federal taxes to the U.S. government when abroad and may be prosecuted for a failure to do so.
    The passive personality principle is an interesting offshoot of the nationality principle. It looks to the nationality of the victim to determine jurisdiction, holding that a state may assert jurisdiction over persons and events outside a state's territory on the basis that its citizen has been harmed. In the case of United States v. Roberts, 1 F.Supp. 2d 601 (E.D. La. 1998), which had an unusual set of facts, the victim of a crime of sexual abuse of a minor (who was a U.S. citizen) had a case tried against her aggressor who was a citizen of the Caribbean island of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. The crime took place on international waters on board a ship registered in Liberia and owned by a company incorporated in the Republic of Panama. None of the regular methods of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, or comity would have worked. Id. The defendant was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Louisiana and the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was denied by the federal district court, which found jurisdiction under the passive personality principle.
    The protective principle is one of national security and it holds that a state may have jurisdiction over a defendant accused of acts in pursuance of overthrowing the host state's government. See United States v. Yousef, 327 F3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003).
    The universality principle (principle of universal jurisdiction) is closely aligned with the international law doctrine of peremptory norms (jus cogens). The principle holds that all states have jurisdiction over crimes that are universally recognized to be a crime against humanity. These have historically included piracy, slave-trading, torture, genocide, and perhaps terrorism.

In the United States, the federal courts have recognized an important mechanism for acquiring jurisdiction over foreign defendants known as the effects doctrine. The effects doctrine is an offshoot of the territorial principle. Briefly, the effects doctrine says that if the effects of extraterritorial behavior or crimes adversely affect commerce or harm citizens within the United States, then jurisdiction in a U.S. court is permissible. The first case to establish the effects doctrine was United States v. Aluminum Company of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945) (Learned Hand, J.).

Now that I look at it again, the Bill of Rights doesn't actually use the word "citizen" anywhere. It only uses the word "person" so it is apparently supposed to apply to non-citizens. In a few places it mentions jurisdiction, but actually any country has jurisdiction over anyone physically located within it, regardless of how they got there. If I swam to a foreign country and commit a crime there, I am subject to their laws and jurisdiction and can be imprisoned there.

So if an illegal commits a crime, is the only penalty they're facing is deportation?  No US jail time?

That's it.  We don't want to make tax payers foot the bill for putting illegals in prison for the sole crime of entering or remaining in the country illegally. 

Once deported, they will be placed on the banned list.  At that point, it's unlikely they will ever be allowed to reenter the US legally.

I'll swim over and plunder to my hearts content, and after I'm deported I'll swim over again.

America likes to believe the world revolves around us but that's not how it works. We can only request jurisdiction over crimes committed on foreign soil. If that country doesn't like us and doesn't want to give us a person, we can't do a thing to him. Other countries don't follow our laws, and no country has to follow "international law" unless they choose to, on a case by case basis.

Jurisdiction is based on where the individual is currently located. After countries agree to move an individual the jurisdiction moves with him.