Harvard Kennedy School professors have stated plainly that noncitizens in the United States also hold constitutional rights, a position they advanced in a public discussion of current immigration policy.

The statement, reported by Harvard Kennedy School, cuts against a common public assumption that constitutional protections attach only to citizens. The professors framed the issue as central to how the United States writes and enforces its immigration rules.

What did the professors say?

The Harvard faculty members argued that the US Constitution protects persons within US jurisdiction, not only US citizens. "Noncitizens also have constitutional rights," the Harvard Kennedy School report quoted the professors as saying.

That framing carries practical weight. It places immigration enforcement, detention and removal procedures inside the same constitutional conversation that governs criminal justice and civil liberties.

The professors addressed immigration policy as an academic and legal question rather than a partisan one. Harvard Kennedy School convened the discussion as part of its work on public policy and governance.

Who does this affect?

The argument covers noncitizens present in the United States, a population that includes lawful permanent residents, visa holders, asylum seekers and undocumented persons. Under the professors' reading, constitutional protections follow the person, not the immigration status.

For immigration practitioners, the position matters at points where enforcement meets due process:

• Detention and removal proceedings
• Access to courts and legal challenge
• Protections against unlawful search and seizure
• Treatment during immigration enforcement operations

Each of these steps can determine whether a noncitizen remains in the country.

Why does the professors' position matter now?

Immigration policy remains among the most contested files in US domestic politics. Enforcement priorities, court backlogs and executive actions have shifted repeatedly across administrations.

Against that backdrop, Harvard faculty entered the debate with a legal baseline: the Constitution does not switch off at the border or at the point a visa expires. The professors presented this as settled ground for policy analysis, not an open question.

Harvard Kennedy School published the discussion as part of its coverage of faculty work on immigration. Readers should consult the school's report for the full remarks and context.

What is the takeaway?

The Constitution, in the professors' account, protects people in the United States regardless of citizenship.