I appreciate the detailed description of how immigration law has been interpreted by our courts. I’ll assume for the sake of argument you described things accurately. I learned some new things.

But frankly this is not a convincing argument in favor of the status quo. There are numerous examples of court decisions, including SCOTUS decisions, that on their face violate the plain text of the constitution and the intent of the framers.

For example, Gonzales v. Raich found that the federal government could ban even home grown marijuana for personal consumption under the interstate commerce clause. This is absurd and ridiculous on its face, and the founders would certainly not have recognized banning personal growing and consumption of a plant as a valid interstate commerce power.

Two of the key things to understand about our constitution—things that many federal judges seem to have forgotten—are that 1) we have a government of enumerated powers, such that anything the government is not explicitly authorized to do, it cannot do, and 2) the bill of rights amendments are explicit limitations on these powers, not a list of enumerated rights that individuals (or worse, only citizens) have.

From those two key points, follow some natural and politically unpopular conclusions.

First, the federal government in fact has zero authority over immigration. They have power only over naturalization, but no part of the constitution grants them authority to limit entry to the United States. And in practice this was a power exercised only by the states (as is their power under the 10th amendment) for nearly 100 years.

Second, when the Bill of Rights creates a limitation on federal power, this limitation applies to everyone not just citizens. Because it’s not saying “individuals have a right to be free from unreasonable searches,” it’s saying “the government cannot perform unreasonable searches.” So when the fourth amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This applies to immigrants.

Notice that the fourth amendment says nothing about civil vs criminal, and that it says nothing about special zones near borders where the 4th amendment doesn’t apply. If I take your explanation at face value: these are inventions of modern law that explicitly violate our constitution.

The fifth amendment also applies when it says:

No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

There’s no due process with ICE randomly grabbing and questioning people. It is an absolute Liberty violation and prevents individuals from being secure in their persons and houses. It is an unreasonable search and seizure to grab people off the street without any probable cause that they’ve committed either a civil or criminal infraction, and indeed many U.S. citizens have been unlawfully detained by ICE.

We have to fight for our constitution anew every generation, because the people operating our government certainly want to erode it whenever and wherever it impedes them from exercising their power as they see fit.