Blind states and invisible people: the sovereign denial to protect immigrant population.

In recent times, many states have chosen to remain blind to immigrant’s rights, denying them constitutional protection, with the excuse of exercising their sovereign rights.
This paper analyses the issue of immigrant’s constitutional protection from a compared perspective between Chile and the US. It delves into the differences between both Constitutions, the recourses granted by them, and the jurisprudence of both countries’ Supreme Courts (including Chile’s Constitutional Tribunal). It argues that, even though there are substantial differences between them, there are common grounds that make some immigrants invisible to constitutional protection. In both countries, excessive deference is given to the Government in immigration issues.
Finally, we argue that the exercise of sovereignty, under the rule of law, is only legitimate if it respects fundamental and human rights of all persons. Immigration law and policies should be subject to strict scrutiny from Courts.