socioeconomic rights

vee_dubber

Can someone tell me how Sinnott v. Minister for Education [2001] undermined the prospects for progressive jurisprudence on socio-economic rights under the Irish Constitution?

smcgiff

vee_dubber wrote: »

Can someone tell me how Sinnott v. Minister for Education [2001] undermined the prospects for progressive jurisprudence on socio-economic rights under the Irish Constitution?

Essay due?

vee_dubber

yea, am i on the wrong board?

conorh91

Yes you're in the wrong place OP. The right place is your college library.

I would just add that while Sinnott was important, I would have thought TD v Minster for Education would be the official position on judicial activism regarding socio-economic constitutional rights, and that it offers a more authoritative statement of the law than Sinnott.

But if you've been asked to discuss Sinnott specifically, stick to Sinnott.

vee_dubber

I've been asked to critically access a report from the Convention of the Constitution regarding the implementation of socioeconomic rights, stating whether I agree or disagree with it. I was going to briefly speak about the Sinnott case as it concerns the only socioeconomic right cognisable with the Courts.

conorh91

Sounds like an interesting paper. In that case, Hardiman J in Sinnott has already written your paper for you. His comments on the role of the courts in vindicating socio-economic rights, even if they are obiter and political in parts, dovetail nicely with your essay.

If I were you I would argue in opposition to any such amendment to the constitution, not only because it is the stronger argument, but also because the argument has been made so clearly by the Supreme Court.

vee_dubber

conorh91 wrote: »

Sounds like an interesting paper. In that case, Hardiman J in Sinnott has already written your paper for you. His comments on the role of the courts in vindicating socio-economic rights, even if they are obiter and political in parts, dovetail nicely with your essay.

If I were you I would argue in opposition to any such amendment to the constitution, not only because it is the stronger argument, but also because the argument has been made so clearly by the Supreme Court.

Thank you for your response. I have been arguing for the implementation, could you elaborate on how it would be a stronger argument not to amend? As i personally disagree with the recommendation as it would give rights to immigrants to work and possibly increase immigration to Ireland. I only argued for the implementation as all our recommended reading is biased towards agreement.

YellowFeather

vee_dubber wrote: »

Thank you for your response. I have been arguing for the implementation, could you elaborate on how it would be a stronger argument not to amend? As i personally disagree with the recommendation as it would give rights to immigrants to work and possibly increase immigration to Ireland. I only argued for the implementation as all our recommended reading is biased towards agreement.

You can argue whatever you want as long as you can back it up with strong legal reasoning. The ability to deconstruct and analyse legal situations etc., can make a paper - rather than just repeating a judgment but with slightly different words. 'T'is the difference between a 1 and a 2.1. If you do it right.

vee_dubber

YellowFeather wrote: »

You can argue whatever you want as long as you can back it up with strong legal reasoning. The ability to deconstruct and analyse legal situations etc., can make a paper - rather than just repeating a judgment but with slightly different words. 'T'is the difference between a 1 and a 2.1. If you do it right.

At this stage I'm only looking for a pass, I've got to do 2,500 words in less than a day so I'm just looking for all the advice I can get.

YellowFeather

vee_dubber wrote: »

At this stage I'm only looking for a pass, I've got to do 2,500 words in less than a day so I'm just looking for all the advice I can get.

Then just read the relevant judgments and repeat. It's sad to say, but that's how you get a pass (don't know if you're doing LLB or what).

Get yourself a structure.

1. This is the law;
2. This is how it is broken down;
3. This is how it applies;
4. Conclusion (and make sure you don't argue against yourself here).

God knows I did it enough myself - I wrote two papers in third year in two nights. Wasn't fun, but was 2.1 standard, so it's do-able.

This is all assuming you're at degree level and not higher.

conorh91

vee_dubber wrote: »

Thank you for your response. I have been arguing for the implementation, could you elaborate on how it would be a stronger argument not to amend?

Arguably judicial activism in the socio-economic arena could be in violation of the constitutional declaration made by all judges to uphold the Constitution and the laws; secondly it violates principles of democracy (such as separation of powers and public accountability), and thirdly it risks straying beyond the judge's legal expertise into the realm of politics which, rightly or wrongly, is deemed to be the expert specialty of politicians and their political advisers.

Anyway such arguments are made far more eloquently and forcefully in Sinnott, O'Rourke, T.D. and others.

vee_dubber

YellowFeather wrote: »

Then just read the relevant judgments and repeat. It's sad to say, but that's how you get a pass (don't know if you're doing LLB or what).

Get yourself a structure.

1. This is the law;
2. This is how it is broken down;
3. This is how it applies;
4. Conclusion (and make sure you don't argue against yourself here).

God knows I did it enough myself - I wrote two papers in third year in two nights. Wasn't fun, but was 2.1 standard, so it's do-able.

This is all assuming you're at degree level and not higher.

Cheers! I'm a first year law student in UCC so I'm happy enough with a pass for first year, second year will be a different story once I get myself more organised.

vee_dubber

conorh91 wrote: »

Arguably judicial activism in the socio-economic arena could be in violation of the constitutional declaration made by all judges to uphold the Constitution and the laws; secondly it violates principles of democracy (such as separation of powers and public accountability), and thirdly it risks straying beyond the judge's legal expertise into the realm of politics which, rightly or wrongly, is deemed to be the expert specialty of politicians and their political advisers.

Anyway such arguments are made far more eloquently and forcefully in Sinnott, O'Rourke, T.D. and others.

I'll be sure to do some research on all this, at this point I'm just going to agree for the first half and disagree on second half! I'll make sure to throw you into my bibliography for helping me!

Mr. Incognito

vee_dubber wrote: »

Thank you for your response. I have been arguing for the implementation, could you elaborate on how it would be a stronger argument not to amend? As i personally disagree with the recommendation as it would give rights to immigrants to work and possibly increase immigration to Ireland. I only argued for the implementation as all our recommended reading is biased towards agreement.

How would immigrants avail of these constitutional rights if they are not citizens which the constitution applies to?

Seems a bit sensationalist to me.

Dandelion6

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

How would immigrants avail of these constitutional rights if they are not citizens which the constitution applies to?

The Constitution doesn't only apply to citizens.

Mr. Incognito

Dandelion6 wrote: »

The Constitution doesn't only apply to citizens.

Only citizens can invoke constitutional rights. Non citizens can apply in certain situations but its fundamentally a contract between the state and its citizens.

http://www.ireland-information.com/reference/congov.htm

http://www.refcom.ie/en/past-referendums/irish-citizenship/background-information-on-the-rights-of-citizens-and-people-who-are-not-citizens/

http://www.ihrec.ie/download/doc/obs_on_proposed_referendum_citizenship.doc

Article 40, which provides for rights to equal treatment, to freedom of association, to freedom of expression and other rights, including unenumerated rights, does refer specifically to citizens.

However, a number of decisions of the Irish courts relating to Articles 41 and 42 have held that non-citizens are not automatically entitled to invoke such protection.

Op read this link
http://www.jsijournal.ie/html/Volume%202%20No.%202/2%5B2%5D_Quinlivan&Keys_An%20Analysis%20of%20Sinnott.pdf

234

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Only citizens can invoke constitutional rights. Non citizens can apply in certain situations but its fundamentally a contract between the state and its citizens.

That's not quite accurate. In the case of some rights they are limited to citizens only, or may be limited to being co-extensive with the nature of the citizenship. However, with many right non-citizens have the same right to invoke them as citizens e.g. right to a fair trial, family rights, education rights, private property. There may also be scope for unenumerated rights to be adopted depending on how far a particular court wishes to take the natural law origins of those rights.

Additionally, even though the ECHR operates at a sub-constitutional level it is naturally going to be influential in any rights analysis and would militate against any crude distinction between citizens and non-citizens in most cases (obvious exceptions being the right to deport non-citizens).

Mr. Incognito

234 wrote: »

That's not quite accurate. In the case of some rights they are limited to citizens only, or may be limited to being co-extensive with the nature of the citizenship. However, with many right non-citizens have the same right to invoke them as citizens e.g. right to a fair trial, family rights, education rights, private property. There may also be scope for unenumerated rights to be adopted depending on how far a particular court wishes to take the natural law origins of those rights.

Additionally, even though the ECHR operates at a sub-constitutional level it is naturally going to be influential in any rights analysis and would militate against any crude distinction between citizens and non-citizens in most cases (obvious exceptions being the right to deport non-citizens).

I think youll find if you read the links and the constitution its entirely the reverse. Certain articles express that the rights are to be enjoyed by citizens only.

1.2​The rights that flow from citizenship

A curious feature of the Irish Constitution is that some of the rights protected under the Constitution refer explicitly to citizens while others do not. For instance, the provisions under Article 41 relating to the right to family life and under Article 42 relating to the right to education contain no reference to being restricted to citizens; whereas Article 40, which provides for rights to equal treatment, to freedom of association, to freedom of expression and other rights, including unenumerated rights, does refer specifically to citizens. A notable example of this difference can be seen in Article 40.4.1 which provides that “no citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law”, while the following provisions relating to habeas corpus explicitly apply to “any person”.

The law as it stands is neatly summarised here

1.2.3​Non-citizens and family rights under Article 41 and 42

Even where the relevant constitutional provisions are not expressly limited to citizens, it can be argued that a degree of uncertainty prevails. Article 41 of the Constitution sets out a number of rights in relation to family life and Article 42 provides for rights in the sphere of education, including the right to free primary education. Both Articles are not explicitly limited to citizens and are therefore implicictly applicable to all human persons. In the case of Northants Co. Council v. ABF, a case involving an adoption order, Hamilton J based his judgment on natural law theory, stating,

​“The natural law is of universal application and applies to all human persons, ​be they citizens of the State or not, and it would be inconceivable that the ​father of the infant child would not be entitled to rely on the recognition of the ​family contained in Article 41.”


However, a number of decisions of the Irish courts relating to Articles 41 and 42 have held that non-citizens are not automatically entitled to invoke such protection. This view finds expression in the decisions of Finlay CJ in Kent County Council v. CS and Saunders v. Mid-Western Health Board, where aliens were denied the right to invoke Articles 41 and 42 with a view to avoiding the jurisdiction of foreign court orders against them, and also in the decision of the Supreme Court in Fajujonu v Minister for Justicewhere aliens were prohibited from relying on any constitutional right to reside in the State. The more recent decision of the Supreme Court in Osayande v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform endorses the view of Walsh J in Fajojonu that enjoyment of fundamental rights is contingent on the extent of the person’s relationship with the State.

Kelly concludes thus,

​“At the end of the day, there would appear to be no fewer than three positions ​articulated in the case law on the position of aliens under Articles 41 and 42. ​At one end of the spectrum is the argument that, given that the rights protected ​by these Articles are grounded in the natural law, they apply to citizen and ​alien alike. An intermediate position appears to make the application of those ​Articles to aliens contingent on the latter having established roots in the ​country while, finally, support can be found for the view that aliens have no ​rights whatsoever under Articles 41 and 42.”

234

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I think youll find if you read the links and the constitution its entirely the reverse. Certain articles express that the rights are to be enjoyed by citizens only.

I have read the links, and they certainly do not state the reverse. In fact it is specifically noted that there have been judicial statements to the effect that just because the term "citizen" is used does not automatically exclude non-citizens from enjoying the rights which the article confers.

Mr. Incognito

234 wrote: »

I have read the links, and they certainly do not state the reverse. In fact it is specifically noted that there have been judicial statements to the effect that just because the term "citizen" is used does not automatically exclude non-citizens from enjoying the rights which the article confers.

It depends on the rights. Some are confined to citizens. Some are not.

In my view the majority of what i see as constitutional rights are confined to citizens and non constitutional rights would be grounded elsewhere and affirmed as non expressed constitutional rights.

The right to vote for example. Constitutional right. Citizens only.

The right to fair procedures. Human rights affirmed in multiple international treaties and hundreds of years of jurisprudence, and the constitution makes no distinction between citizens and non citizens here

Constitutional rights to property, well all land de facto belongs to the state anyway so you are not going to ground a constitutional right against the state as a non citizen based on property.

Unenumerated rights and equal treatment. Citizens only. Thats the big one for me.

vee_dubber

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

How would immigrants avail of these constitutional rights if they are not citizens which the constitution applies to?

Seems a bit sensationalist to me.

I misread part of the recommendation, its here if you're intrested
constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=5333bbe7-a9b8-e311-a7ce-005056a32ee4

Dandelion6

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Unenumerated rights and equal treatment. Citizens only. Thats the big one for me.

But it's wrong. Read the Article 26 reference on the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill 1999. It found that a law that applies only to non-citizens doesn't breach the Article 40.1 right to equal treatment - not because non-citizens have no such right, but because it doesn't treat them in a matter that is unfair, arbitrary or invidious so as to constitute "unequal treatment".

http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/%28WebFiles%29/D5707031F1F3B3B1802575F300334AE1/$FILE/Illegal%20Immigrants_%5B2000%5D%202%20IR%20360.htm

Mr. Incognito

Dandelion6 wrote: »

But it's wrong. Read the Article 26 reference on the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill 1999. It found that a law that applies only to non-citizens doesn't breach the Article 40.1 right to equal treatment - not because non-citizens have no such right, but because it doesn't treat them in a matter that is unfair, arbitrary or invidious so as to constitute "unequal treatment".

http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/%28WebFiles%29/D5707031F1F3B3B1802575F300334AE1/$FILE/Illegal%20Immigrants_%5B2000%5D%202%20IR%20360.htm

With respect just because A=B and B=C does not meant that A = C

You are saying that an Article 26 Reference that allows legislation to treat non citizens different to citizens being upheld as constitutional is the same as non citizens not being able to rely on constitutional protections pursuant to Article 40 because that was not the reason that they upheld the reference.

They are not the same thing. Not at all.

In the case you are referring to the court held it was constitutional to treat non nationals differently from citizens.

I am saying that citizens have rights under the constitution that non citizens cannot access by virtue of the fact they are non citizens.

Dandelion6

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

In the case you are referring to the court held it was constitutional to treat non nationals differently from citizens.

Yes, and the court has elsewhere held that in some circumstances it is constitutional to treat certain citizens differently from other citizens. The underlying principle here is that the constitutional right to equal treatment applies to all - it's just that certain forms of differential treatment do not constitute "unequal treatment" for the purposes of Article 40.

Significantly, even the Attorney General in this case accepted that non-citizens have a constitutional right to equal treatment. This was common cause. You are the only person who seems to dispute it.

And if you think an Article 26 reference isn't sufficient evidence that non-citizens have the constitutional right to equal treatment, please feel free to cite the Supreme Court case that says they don't.

I am saying that citizens have rights under the constitution that non citizens cannot access by virtue of the fact they are non citizens.

Which is quite different from what you originally said, that the Constitution only applies to citizens.

Mr. Incognito

Dandelion6 wrote: »

1. Yes, and the court has elsewhere held that in some circumstances it is constitutional to treat certain citizens differently from other citizens.

2. The underlying principle here is that the constitutional right to equal treatment applies to all

These two sentences are direct contradictions.

And equal rights here means equal treatment by the courts, not equal constitutional rights. Its quite a jump to expand equal rights to ALL constitutional rights. The AG did not advance this position.

I am not going to repeat myself ad nauseum. I do not believe that non citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the constitution. There is ample case law on this which i have posted, including Article 40 itself.

An Article 26 reference relates to the constitutionality of a bill. It is not jurisprudence. It is a an examination of the constitutionality of a Bill and ultimately in the reference you posted they found it could treat non citizens differently because they were non nationals which is entirely my position.

I was surprised to find that where articles do not expressly refer to citizens that they can be invoked by non citizens and that there is case law on this which i have also posted but Article 40 which was is the basis for this thread and relates to unenumerated rights and this thread does refer to citizens.

Peregrinus

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

These two sentences are direct contradictions.

And equal rights here means equal treatment by the courts, not equal constitutional rights. Its quite a jump to expand equal rights to ALL constitutional rights. The AG did not advance this position.

I am not going to repeat myself ad nauseum. I do not believe that non citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the constitution. There is ample case law on this which i have posted, including Article 40 itself.

An Article 26 reference relates to the constitutionality of a bill. It is not jurisprudence. It is a an examination of the constitutionality of a Bill and ultimately in the reference you posted they found it could treat non citizens differently because they were non nationals which is entirely my position.

I was surprised to find that where articles do not expressly refer to citizens that they can be invoked by non citizens and that there is case law on this which i have also posted but Article 40 which was is the basis for this thread and relates to unenumerated rights and this thread does refer to citizens.

A few thoughts:

1. Equal treatment doesn't mean identical treatment. The fact that it is permissible to treat people differently doesn't mean that they can be treated unequally, or that they cannot invoke the protection of the constitutional right to equal treatment. (Art 40 explicitly permits laws to have "due regard" to "differences of social function", which opens the door to treating citizens and non-citizens differently where citizenship or the lack of it is of material relevance to the matter in hand - e.g. voting rights.)

2. In fact Art 40 explicitly provides that "all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law". This pretty clearly grounds the right to equal treatment in primarily in our humanity and only secondarily in our citizenship, and creates a strong basis for arguing that non-citizens, who are also human persons, must similarly be held equal before the law.

3. The Art 40 equal treatment guarantee is not limited to equal treatment by the courts. In fact, it's not even primarily focussed on that; the rider specifically talks about what the state may do in its "enactments", so it applies to legislation as well as to the judicial function. And of course the constitution is an "enactment"; it's enacted by the people, as opposed to the Oireachtas, but I don't think that makes any difference.

4. The judgment in an Art. 25 reference most certainly is "jurisprudence". On the central issue - the constitutionality of the referred law - the decision of the Supreme Court is a precedent which binds even the Supreme Court (Art 34). And in all other respects Art 26 judgments are cited with the same authority as any other Supreme Court judgment.

5. As to whether non-citizens can rely on the equal treatment clause to claim the benefit of other provisions of the Constitution, the answer must be "yes", because the Constitution is an enactment and Art 40 applies to enactments. But depending on the context in which the question is asked their non-citizen status may be a difference of "social function" to which regard is "due".

Mr. Incognito

Peregrinus wrote: »

A few thoughts:

1. Equal treatment doesn't mean identical treatment. The fact that it is permissible to treat people differently doesn't mean that they can be treated unequally, or that they cannot invoke the protection of the constitutional right to equal treatment. (Art 40 explicitly permits laws to have "due regard" to "differences of social function", which opens the door to treating citizens and non-citizens differently where citizenship or the lack of it is of material relevance to the matter in hand - e.g. voting rights.)

2. In fact Art 40 explicitly provides that "all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law". This pretty clearly grounds the right to equal treatment in primarily in our humanity and only secondarily in our citizenship, and creates a strong basis for arguing that non-citizens, who are also human persons, must similarly be held equal before the law.

3. The Art 40 equal treatment guarantee is not limited to equal treatment by the courts. In fact, it's not even primarily focussed on that; the rider specifically talks about what the state may do in its "enactments", so it applies to legislation as well as to the judicial function. And of course the constitution is an "enactment"; it's enacted by the people, as opposed to the Oireachtas, but I don't think that makes any difference.

4. The judgment in an Art. 25 reference most certainly is "jurisprudence". On the central issue - the constitutionality of the referred law - the decision of the Supreme Court is a precedent which binds even the Supreme Court (Art 34). And in all other respects Art 26 judgments are cited with the same authority as any other Supreme Court judgment.

5. As to whether non-citizens can rely on the equal treatment clause to claim the benefit of other provisions of the Constitution, the answer must be "yes", because the Constitution is an enactment and Art 40 applies to enactments. But depending on the context in which the question is asked their non-citizen status may be a difference of "social function" to which regard is "due".

An excellent contribution and I welcome your views.

However I might just adjust the bolded part of your reference.

The Irish Constitution was based in part on provisions of the US Constitution and it is reflective of the passage all men are created equal etc.

There is no real such thing as the reflection of the law. There is the law.

You can argue that our humanity is the basis for equal treatment but you cannot get away from the caveat "all citizens shall".

A citizen has automatic entitlement to equal treatment.

Non citizens do not. They have to raise the argument. I take your point with regard to Article 26 references being examined for constitutional interpretation but the referenced Article 26 provided here is not relevant to the argument as I have already set out above.

Additionally, we are taking about socio economic rights here. To me that is the right to healthcare, food, housing, social security, and education.

Are non citizens automatically entitled to roll into Ireland and demand these things grounded on a constitutional entitlement.

The answer is no. You can argue the morality of whether they should have a hypothetical entitlement based on their status as human beings but they do not have one as non citizens under the constitution.

As Kelly J stated aliens have no rights at all under Articles 41 and 42.

I disagree with almost each of your points above and would briefly say without cutting and pasting.

1. Equal treatment does exactly mean identical treatment. It is a nonsense to suggest otherwise.

2. Citizens first for constitutional protection. Humans second. Otherwise persons would have a right to reside and vote in Ireland as human persons regardless of citizenship.

3. I am not sure of your point here. Article 40 is confined to citizens expressly.

4. I would accept your interpretation here but it is only persuasive where relevant, and in this case, it is not.

5.

As to whether non-citizens can rely on the equal treatment clause to claim the benefit of other provisions of the Constitution, the answer must be "yes",

You have lost me here. The Supreme Court and even the Article 26 Reference clearly say no. There is an entitlement to equal treatment before the courts in certain circumstances but to expand that to ALL socioeconomic rights as a constitutional entitlement. No.

234

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

As Kelly J stated aliens have no rights at all under Articles 41 and 42.

Article 41 as been relied upon by non-citizens in any number of cases.

Mr. Incognito

234 wrote: »

Article 41 as been relied upon by non-citizens in any number of cases.

Thank you. Could you kindly cite them.

conorh91

Surely the major one is Northampton, which you yourself quoted in post #18.

The only unequivocal truth is that the extent of the application of Article 41 and other constitutional rights is equivocal. We simply do not know enough to go around claiming one way or the other.

Have non-citizen litigants relied on constitutional articles in previous litigation? Yes.
Have they succeeded? Sometimes.
Has the Supreme Court held any clear and enduring distinctions between citizens and non-citizens' rights to litigate constitutional rights? No. The judgments of both courts have been unclear and subject to change.

Mr. Incognito

I hate to prove myself wrong but I had a look on westlaw and dug this gem out.

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/9816bd5e4d1003f780257db00040ba1d?OpenDocument

They lost, but the judge was willing to accept non citizens could rely on the constitution.

This may prove to be a watershed case or be struck out by a higher court but a great read nonetheless.

Peregrinus

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I hate to prove myself wrong but I had a look on westlaw and dug this gem out.

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/9816bd5e4d1003f780257db00040ba1d?OpenDocument

They lost, but the judge was willing to accept non citizens could rely on the constitution.

This may prove to be a watershed case or be struck out by a higher court but a great read nonetheless.

I don't know that it's that much of a watershed. No offence, but was anyone other than yourself suprised by it?

We have a line of cases from the 1960s onwards, starting with Ryan v AG, which roots the personal rights in natural law theory and in "the Christian and democratic nature of the State", and once you accept that it provides a foundation for extending them to citizens and non-citizens alike. That's made explicit in Northants v ABF in the 1970s, but we could also cite DPP v Shaw; Shaw was not a citizen but had his complaints about breach of his constitutional rights dealth with exactly as if he had been. And in fact I think we look in vain for any case at all in which a plaintiff's invocation of Constitutional rights is rejected on account of his or her not being a citizen. If I'm right in that, I think that's very telling.

I appreciate that Art 40 begins with "all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law", but just as the enumeration of personal rights in Art 40 is not exhaustive of the personal rights that are constitutionally protected, it can be argued (on much the same reasonsing) that enumeration of the people whose rights are protected is equally not exhaustive. "All citizens shall . . . be held equal before the law" . . . (and so must others, in circumstances where they come within the jurisdiction of the State established by this Constitution) -or something like that.

I appreciate that we are talking specifically about socioeconomic rights in this thread. But "socioeconomic rights" is not a category explicitly recognised in the Constitution, still less one that is limited or given any special treatment. I don't see any explicit constitutional grounds for arguing that there is a category of socioeconomic rights that are recognised for citizens only. And if the "socio-" part of "socioeconomic" includes family and parental rights, then Northants is authority for the proposition that at least some socioeconomic rights are as available to non-citizens as they are to citizens.