Due process isn’t optional — even for “illegals”

[Anpu23]

Don’t you hate it when someone accuses you of something you didn’t do?

Think about the #MeToo movement. All those fingers pointed. Careers destroyed overnight. Reputations ruined. And yeah, some of it was valid. But let’s be honest we all know someone who got falsely accused, or we’ve seen it happen in the news. It’s not rare, and it’s not harmless.

That’s the danger when accusation equals guilt.
That’s why we have due process.
Because it’s not up to a victim, or a cop, or a crowd to decide if a crime happened that’s the court’s job.

Due process means we don’t punish someone based on a feeling, a hunch, or a headline. It means guilt has to be proven, not assumed.

So why am I seeing so many people saying “'illegals' don’t deserve due process”?

And yeah, I’m putting “illegals” in quotes not because I don’t think there are people in the country in the US illegally, but because until a judge says so, it’s just an accusation. Nothing more.

Calling someone “illegal” without a hearing is the same thing as calling someone a rapist without a trial. ICE isn’t a court. They’re law enforcement. And law enforcement gets it wrong, all the time.

Remember: due process doesn’t exist to protect the guilty. It exists to protect the innocent from being wrongly treated as guilty.

We can’t have it both ways. If we believe in fair trials, in innocent until proven guilty, then we have to apply that standard to everyone even when it’s uncomfortable. Even when it's someone we don't know. Even when it’s someone from another country.

Because the moment we decide that some people don’t deserve due process, we all lose it.

[contentious]

Being deported has nothing to with being accused of a crime. If illegal aliens were accused of a crime and being put on trial they would be going to jail in America, not going to their home country. They would face due process because their liberty would be threatened with imprisonment. In reality, they are just being told they do not have permission to be in the USA. Congress makes the laws on who can and can't enter the United States. The fact that I have to continue to explain this to you left-wing but jobs is sad.

Article I Section 1

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18

"[The Congress shall have Power. . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

What comes before Clause 18, clearly Clause 4

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4

[The Congress shall have Power. . . ] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; . . .

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Along with a slew of other clauses that support that position like national sovereignty, the migration and importation clause, commerce clause, etc. Thus Congress has created such laws concerning immigration/naturalization such as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 which states in section 302

"if the officer determines that an alien does not have a credible fear of persecution, the officer shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or review..."

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/104th-congress/house-report/828/1

Which the Supreme Court has clearly confirmed in case law when the Congress has been challenged in law suits previously. The complete and total authority over law making concerning foreign powers, as in immigration laws is in the hands of Congress. No other branch of government has any say on that... "Congress may make rules as to aliens that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens" and there is a "longstanding view that the Government may constitutionally detain deportable aliens during the limited period necessary for their removal proceedings" which is confirmed by Demore v. Kim, 538 U. S. 510 (2003).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/510/

[contentious]

There is no due process for illegals if they are being deported. They just get scooped up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and detained until they can be deported if they are legitimately being persecuted in some foreign country. No judge, no jury, no trial. As a formal courtesy they can be given an interview to argue why they should be legally allowed to stay before being kicked out, but that is just a formality. In reality they have to reapply to enter the country by submitting a form, and then wait in line like everyone else for a new interview to argue their case. They do not have any legal right to stay in the USA while they wait for an interview.

[contentious]

*aren't

[contentious]

Since you left-wingers love to try to exploit slave laws for anchor babies even though the parent doesn’t have legal residency and is not a subject of any state, lets use slave laws in an uno reverse.



Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1

“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

Thus after 1808 Congress can make migration and importation laws that refuse to admit any person in any State. If congress says you shall not pass then tough luck buddy you’re out of here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJZZNHekEQw

[Anpu23]

I am not at my desk today but I'll give you crux of my argument and get back to you on a point by point basis.

The term illegal itself implies a crime, yes deportation is considered a civil penalty but as its ties to criminal justice it requires an interpretation of facts. As only the judicial branch has the ability to establish fact of law this bypassing of due process creates a dangerous degradation of the right of innocence until proven guilty.

[contentious]

You can't be proven innocent or guilty of a crime you are not being charged with. As you've already admitted, deportation is a civil penalty. You are free to reapply for entry into the country at a later date. You can allege that you have been unlawful detained, and then you can shortly after be released in your home country after a short flight. Thus you are no longer detained by the US government. I don't even get the reason Democrats are pressing the issue of habeas corpus... There is cause to detain illegal aliens. It's pretty pointless considering aliens are being deported and released. They will lose every challenge. What are Democrats hopping that aliens will be stuck in detention indefinitely in caged concentration camps waiting on a hearing? Just because you legally challenge your detention, doesn't mean you get released. In the end you guy are just pushing for the suspension of habeas corpus and military tribunals.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Due proccess through the courts is the only way to prove that they are in the country illegally, staying in the country illegally is considered a crime, but even if it wasn't, you can't just deport people based on heresay, you need to prove in court that they weren't born here and didn't immigrate legally.

Saying otherwise results in US citizens being deported.

[contentious]

@TheSpaceGnome Incorrect. If a U. S. agency believes that you pose a risk to national security, your visa may be instantly revoked as a precaution even without specific charges being filed. Thus, if you have no visa and are not a citizen of the United States, then you are a deportable alien. If you are being detained based on the alien enemies act, then there is a valid belief that you pose a risk to national security. If you are a US citizen, then you should be able to provide valid identification at the time of detention. If your identity can not be confirmed and your form of identification comes into question, then you can still be detained for the customary 72 hours before seeing a judge to confirm the validity of your identity (i. e. birth certificate, real id/drivers licence, etc.). Everyone and their mother could claim they are a US citizen falsely and lie to a judge, but then they would be discovered and still lose their case which would lead to criminal charges and jail time which would still be followed with deportation once they are released. Only US citizens would have a valid case for release. Illegals would just be detained until their identify hearing. They would have no valid reason to claim they are legally in the USA if they are considered an alien enemy. It's just a stalling maneuver with the intent to jam the court system and leave illegals in detention indefinitely in concentration camps, rather than release them in their home country.

[TheSpaceGnome]

@contentious You just said due proccess being needed is not correct, then went on to talk about needing a judge to confirm citizenship or lack thereof, which IS due proccess.

You're an idiot.

Also its not 72 hours, most court cases take weeks just to be seen by the judge

Also, as far national security goes, the biggest threat we have right now is Donald Trump. Supreme court judges know this and have consistantly been ruling against his actions.

I'm pro global immigration. People should be able to live wherever they want paperwork free, and where you were born has no relevance to whether or not you are a threat. The "papers please" system is nazi idealist bullshit.

[contentious]

@TheSpaceGnome You just showed you don't know how to read, nor do you understand the law, nor can you actually make an argument against the fact. You're mentally retarded. Go play with your feces in the corner.

[contentious]

Quite frankly what Democrats are trying to do to illegal aliens is cruel and unusual punishment. The human thing to do would be to deport them to their home country and let them get on with their life. Rather you retards want to send them to concentration camps where they might be anally raped, extorted, or even murdered while they wait for an opportunity to lie to a judge only to be convicted of a crime afterward and sent to a jail to be anally raped, extorted, or murdered before they are deported anyway. You guys are fucked in the head. Obviously that will not be allowed to happen. States will utilize judge advocates from the National Guard to expedite the process of deportation for those illegal aliens that lie about US citizenship or habeas corpus will be suspended and then you are actually in real danger as a US citizen in a Democrat city filled with illegal aliens.

[contentious]

However you play it, it just gets worse for you.

[msc545]

Another non-lawyer quoting laws he cherry-picked on the internet and that he doesn't understand. Waste of space and bandwidth.

[contentious]

@msc545 Ah the retard that worships Satan, french homosexuals, and communism. How you manage to tie your shoes is the morning is beyond me. You don't have two brain cells to rub together.

[contentious]

For some reason homosexual communists think by attempting to badmouth people on the internet that they will somehow stop action from happening nationally. None the less, action moves forward...

www.newsweek.com/florida-national-guard-immigration-judges-ron-desantis-2067143

apnews.com/.../national-guard-troops-immigration-dhs-raids-8cbec5b0872a57b594fd75dce57f4dd0

[MisterWack]

I believe the message of this asker’s question is strong, solid, and to the point.

Whether you believe someone is or isn’t worthy of something in the eyes of the law, it isn’t up to your headlines, media sides, political identity feelings, and what not, it is in the law.

The law doesn’t care if you’re black, white, hispanic, a woman, trans, undocumented, because you are under The Jurisdiction of The United States of America which plays by the rules of Constitutional Law, Amendments, Local Laws, etc. that are based on the principle of the sacred document known as The United States Constitution.

I’ve said it before in examples, majority opinion from Supreme Court of The United States whose role is to interpret the laws and deem Constitutionality. Their majority opinion sided with this “illegal” The current Administration had no right to violate that man’s right to Due Process. SCOTUS said that before you are deported, you can try to appeal the judge’s decision which means there needs to be a court process to do it which he didn’t so, the Administration literally violated The Constitution.

When Trump was asked whether The President of The United States of America has an obligation to uphold The Constitution, he simply said “I don’t know” and that he has to check in which his ‘brilliant’ legal team even though it is in his Oath of Office.

No matter if you are Right, Left, Independent, Progressive, Conservative, we should at least speak up for our rights as an American and a civilian under jurisdiction of US because if someone tried to deport you and you couldn’t appeal the decision from a judge, it allows them to kick you out and keep you out even if you are a citizen or it was done by mistake. The President still doesn’t follow judge rules & orders to comply, are we out of our f-ing minds?

[MisterWack]

*SCOTUS in a sweeping ruling yesterday made it clear that President Donald J Trump cannot deport Venezuelans without ‘litigation’ utilizing Alien & Enemies Act. This is precedent that will be around under all future Administrations so, I’m pleased with this.

[Caroline91]

@MisterWack. Annnnd... He strikes again!

[MisterWack]

@Caroline91 Thank you! Always happy to strike again lmao.
Will strike some more don’t you worry bout that!

[sage2021]

I look at this in a completely different way than you do.
People who know it is illegal to enter a country without going through the due process FIRST know that they are breaking the laws, but they do it anyway.
Now if I am driving my car, I know it's illegal to run the red lights. So does that mean that I can run all the red lights that I want to and think nothing of it?
What if every driver didn't follow the rules of the road? What would happen? Bad things right?
So does that mean that we can break the laws we feel we are entitled to, such as entering a country without first becoming legal?
Is that any better or worse than not following the rules and laws of the road when driving a lethal weapon such as a car or truck?
Who can decide for themselves which laws are okay to break? What if we choose not to follow any laws at all and just do whatever the heck we want to?
Would there be any order to our country at all if each of us decided to break any law at all - even murdering another person. Is that against the law? It is, but people do it anyway just like people enter America without becoming legal first.
We have to have laws or the world wouldn't be livable.
My mother came to America from the Netherlands during the depression. She was a young girl.
However, she followed all of the things required of her to be in America legally.
She also studied hard and passed the test to become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Not very many people go that far but my mother did, so anyone can - but they don't!
There's the right way and there's the wrong way to do just about anything - so why do some people believe they are entitled to live in America without running the red lights?

[Anpu23]

The issue is this if a cop pulled you over for running that red light and you didn't do it. You would want your day in court. Im not saying that people who break the law shouldn't be punished Im saying only a court can determine if you broke the law. In other words yes if you knowingly break a law there should be consequences, but only a court can decide if that law was broken.

[Anpu23]

This is based on a presumption of innocence. That until found guilty of a crime you didn't do it. To punish someone before we know if they actually did it is putting the cart before the horse.

[Anpu23]

To be even more clear, a cop watched you run the light, its captured on their dash cam and you asmit it on a recording you're still innocent until a judge finds you guilty. It's not the job of law enforcement to determine guilt.

[sage2021]

Open your eyes man? Coming into a country that has laws in the books already saying that it's illegal to enter their country without proper authorization is breaking the frickin law!! Period.
Quit trying to bend the rules to make it sound innocent. They are breaking the law when they put their foot on American soil without prior authorization.
What is so hard for you to understand about this? If it wasn't illegal to just walk into America anytime for anyone, we wouldn't need a fricken border to begin with.
Those damn illegals have cost American tax payers enough of THEIR money already.
Are these illegals going to pay for their own frickin court costs? The answer is a big fat NO!!
They've been trouble for America ever since they invaded America and now you want to drag it on and on for years and spend Americans money paying for them breaking our laws.
Come on!! Give your own damn money to pay for their court costs.

[Anpu23]

Listen, how do you know they came into the country illegally? How do we know that? Its simple no one can determine that except a judge. If not then there's nothing stopping a cop from grabbing you and shipping you off. And if you are grabbed if you don't see a judge how do you stop yourself from being shipped off? The problem is that a cop can't decide that and you don't want them to. As an American you have the right to due process right? But if you can't establish that your American how do you stop them from shipping you?

[Anpu23]

I'm going to ask you, lets say you were walking down the street, some van pulled up three armed people jumped out and grabbed you, dragged you off to an ICE detention center, obviously they made an error correct? So how do you correct it? Unless you have a moment in front of a judge to say, "no I am an American citizen, born in _____, here's my birth certificate and my US passport" there's no mechanism to correct the error. That's my argument that we NEED that check, that moment for someone to be able to present evidence in case law enforcement made a mistake. And if we say that non-citizens do not have that right, we assume that those arrested are non-citizens with no way for them to prove otherwise. That assumption of guilt with no way to clear your name is extremely problematic.

[sage2021]

@Anpu23
I'm done here!

[Caroline91]

@Anpu23. Thank you. Why. is it so many people don't seem to get this? And there are people in prison in El Salvador who are there bc they didn't get their moment in court and for no other reason.

[exitseven]

@sage2021 Exactly.. However, during the Biden administration it was Joe Biden and his handlers and minions that decided what laws that they would obey. They encouraged illegal aliens to come to America. Joe Biden went to South America and said if they cam to America they would not be sent back like that big meanie Donald Trump did. Millions streamed in from over 130 countries. I did not even know that there were over 130 countries
They ignored the current immigration laws and Biden sent his butt monkey Myorkis to get in from of the American people and lie to them by saying the border was secure. .
This cost taxpayers over a trillion dollars over the 4 years Biden was in office and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Americans and the assaults on many more. Not to mention the social costs with towns having to take in children who cannot speak English and place them in local school districts that already have tight budgets, not to mention the horror show tht hospitals emergency rooms have become.

[sage2021]

@exitseven
It begs the question that if Biden was in his right mind during his presidency would he still have let the border wide open or was he so out of it and pumped up on medications that he didn't know if he was coming or going?

[exitseven]

@sage2021 Joe Biden had no clue what was going on.

[sage2021]

Thank you for the MHO 🙂🧁🌷

[Anonymous]

If 50 people break into your home and you call the cops, do you want the cops to remove these people from your home now or do you want them to let them stay in your house while they’re waiting for trial a few years from now? Because who knows, maybe they’re innocent. Innocent until proven guilty right and then they should have the right to be in your home until convicted?

Then we scale this up to be many millions of people, many which are dangerous criminals, they should all be left alone until they had their day in court which will take decades? And then after they’re finally deported tgey just reenter illegally and start the process over, living in the country for another 15 years until it’s their turn in court again?

Some things don’t need due process. If some teens enter an area they’re not allowed to be in, let’s say an abandoned school, the guard catching them can just kick them out and tell them they can’t be there and don’t come back. They don’t have to drag it to court to see if they’re actually innocent and do have the right to be there.

[Anpu23]

If 50 people break into my house, and I am arrested with the 50 people because the police are overwhelmed and just mass arrest everyone I want a chance to see the judge and explain that it was MY HOUSE before everyone is shipped off to prison.

[MrOracle]

Due Process means following the established process. It does not necessarily mean a court hearing or trial. That's never been the process for every illegal migrant.

Let's completely set aside that our asylum process is being grossly abused, and talk about it. Just because you show up in the US somehow doesn't mean you can claim asylum. In order to have an asylum claim, you must enter though an official port of entry and claim asylum upon entry. You are then given a date for your asylum hearing, where you have to show up in court and provide convincing evidence that you qualify for asylum.

People waiting for their asylum hearing go through a background check, and if they don't have a criminal history, they are released into the US to await trial, with a number of stipulations, one of which is that you commit no additional crimes as you wait, as doing such invalidates your asylum claim.

Illegals who snuck into the country or overstayed their visa or otherwise didn't go to a port of entry and make an asylum claim are subject to immediate deportation, and that process is completely administrative, and always has been.

The media largely doesn't understand these distinctions and have no desire to clarify them for the audience, because they want everyone to be confused and to assume that all illegal aliens are entitled to a court hearing. They aren't and never have been. Obama, for example, deported millions of illegals 100% administratively, no hearings. And the media made barely a peep about it. But when Trump does it, it's suddenly a human rights crisis.

The truth is that the deportees ARE being given Due Process - it's just that the media and certain politicians have either implied or outright lied about what Due Process actually IS for different categories of illegals. If you understood the system, then they would have no story to use against Trump on a daily basis.

[Anpu23]

Have you seen the findings of the Cato institute on the El Salvador prisoners?

[IHaveRespawned]

This isn't a criminal trial. This is a deportation operation.

There is no sentence for a pre-determined amount of time. It is either you are a legal resident and remain or you are an illegal immigrant and kicked out.

Look at it this way, if someone is experiencing a mental health crisis and must be involuntarily hospitalized, you don't wait for a court hearing when they are an imminent danger to themselves or others. You have to take action and detain them. Usually this is for a period of 72 hours, and there are legal avenues to pursue if the detention is longer.

Having criminal illegal aliens reside in the US is an imminent threat, and we have to protect the lives of our own. Whether or not they are here or deported, they can appeal where they are at.

[Anpu23]

"This isn't a criminal trial." Correct it is not "This is a deportation operation." of whom? Someone illegally in the us? Who determines that? The fact that someone is in the country illegally? How is that a known fact? You are saying we are deporting people in the country illegally the problem is that only a court can make that determination, without a judgement you don't know if someone should be deported or not. Yes there is no criminal trial and that is the problem because you are assuming a criminal act (entering into the US or over staying a visa without authorization). This assumption is the problem -the crime is assumed not determined. This is assumption of guilt with no way to prove innocence. No way to say "wait, you've made an error" at least to no one with the authority and willingness to hear you out.

Okay lets compare this to the 72 hour involuntary hold, one key difference is that there is no crime in a hold, the person being held isn't being punished for a crime, further if the hospital or mental health facility wishes to extend that hold they must get a judge involved because there is a right for facts to be determined.

In your last statement that there is an eminent threat, okay detain someone who is that threat until their actual status can be reviewed by a judge. Again the assumption of guilt is the problem, remove the threat but allow due process.

[Anpu23]

I'm going to ask you, lets say you were walking down the street, some van pulled up three armed people jumped out and grabbed you, dragged you off to an ICE detention center, obviously they made an error correct? So how do you correct it? Unless you have a moment in front of a judge to say, "no I am an American citizen, born in _____, here's my birth certificate and my US passport" there's no mechanism to correct the error. That's my argument that we NEED that check, that moment for someone to be able to present evidence in case law enforcement made a mistake. And if we say that non-citizens do not have that right, we assume that those arrested are non-citizens with no way for them to prove otherwise. That assumption of guilt with no way to clear your name is extremely problematic.

[blackeagle007]

Sorry but what do you know? Attention everyone! This guy doesn’t know shit

[IHaveRespawned]

There should be administrative remedies in place. You should still be able to consult with attorneys. The issue is, what country will accept me if I am a white dude and the receiving country cannot confirm I am a national of their country? If I am deported for some bizarre unlikely reason, I should be able to appear at a consulate in the country they deported me to. In addition, family members will likely reach out on my behalf if they know I have been detained.

What will the judicial system do anyways? Are you expecting judges to take on administrative tasks of looking over documents?

[Anpu23]

I missed this statement " they can appeal where they are at." okay seems reasonable enough, lets say they are shipped off to a country that they are not a citizen of without knowledge of the language, no contacts or resources, no way to call into the US. If I ended up in some third world country I wouldn't even know how to find the embassy assuming they'd even listen to me without proof of citizenship. Also some are in the country legally under refugee status and if they are returned to their country they will be killed. So that also falls on it's face. It's simple just allow someone their day in court, let the courts decide if they are in the country illegally and let the courts decide what do do with them.

[IHaveRespawned]

... you also have to use common sense. If you are a Hispanic-looking dude that can barely speak a single word in English and appear out of nowhere or packed in a house full of many other non-English speaking Hispanic dudes, there are red flags that at a minimum should be investigated.

Not long ago, I saw vans full of foreign people stuffed with pillows and luggage. It was a typical occurrence. It is called using common sense.

[Anpu23]

Are you expecting judges to take on administrative tasks of looking over documents? Yes, as it's the courts duty to determine if a person committed a crime. That's what they do, day in and day out. Look at evidence including documents and testimony, and make a ruling in law. That's how the judicial system works. The prosecutor presents their case, the defendant presents any evidence including documents, and the judge or in some cases jury determine if the evidence the prosecutor presented warrants a finding of guilt. This is how we determine if someone has committed a crime, any crime. Except for now, in cases of being in the US illegally, which somehow has bypassed the right to a fair and speedy trial.

[IHaveRespawned]

You either have documents, some sort of proof, or not. You are thinking of edge cases and the worst case scenarios, like you don't have any faith in our law enforcement whatsoever. Word gets around. This is also a process that involves multiple people, investigators, and other officials. Are you going to expect judges and juries to evaluate paperwork on every single person being deported? That is nuts.

[IHaveRespawned]

Again, this is NOT a criminal trial. This is a deportation operation of foreign nationals. If criminal charges were to be produced, then yes, it shall undergo the same processes as any other criminal case. But deportation is not considered a sentence. A sentence would be a judicial consequence as a result of a criminal conviction.

[Anpu23]

The crime is being in the US illegally, that is a crime and is punishable but you are saying that this is a known fact, how? Again who determines that? How do we KNOW that someone is a foreign national? Without a finding of fact, this is conjecture. "But deportation is not considered a sentence." No it is a civil penalty.
Padilla v. Kentucky "deportation is a particularly severe ‘penalty’” and that “deportation is. . . intimately related to the criminal process.” Its a civil penalty. My argument here is that is a false narrative, that we, as a society have essentially created a two tier system and an inherently unfair one. The term "illegal" itself assumes an illegal act. That everyone should have the right to see a judge to determine if the facts are as reported. I want someone to be able to defend themselves if they get grabbed, to be able to say "hay wait, this was a mistake, I haven't done anything wrong" that's simply fair and American.

[IHaveRespawned]

There is criteria that either classifies you as a US citizen or not. You either meet that criteria or you don't. If you are not a US citizen, being here is a privilege not a right. The only mistakes that can be made are administrative, where the person is mistakenly classified as a non-citizen when the proof exists, such as a birth certificate. Although, that would be the fault of the person processing it and an administrative error.

Again, this isn't always a criminal matter. Removing foreign persons out is not a sanction in effect within the US. If the person were to face incarceration, fines, or sanctions within the US, it is a criminal matter at that point. Returning someone to their country of national origin is not a sentence or a criminal-related matter.

[Anpu23]

"There is criteria that either classifies you as a US citizen or not. You either meet that criteria or you don't." Correct and you should have the opportunity to present that to an impartial judge. Simple as that. If you are a citizen then good, if not then procede with why you are here, is it legal perhaps a tourist or student visa... if not THEN go to deportation. But that stop check, the opportunity to present your case is the sticking point.

[IHaveRespawned]

The only mistakes are clerical/administrative. You are either a citizen or you are not. If you are not, then your stay here is conditional and a privilege, eligible to be revoked. It is not necessarily a criminal matter. You either leave willingly or be forcefully removed.

Non-citizens are not afforded all the same rights as citizens. The only due process is in a criminal trial and a right to defend criminal charges/sanctions. Otherwise, it is a customs matter. It shouldn't be this difficult to understand.

[IHaveRespawned]

What you don't understand is when you and other leftists play games like this, you are setting the stage for martial law and the invocation of the Insurrection Act. So if you want to risk all this to defend illegal aliens, you are an idiot.

[Anpu23]

You obviously do not know me very well, I am a champion of Due process see some of my other posts: Anpu on False Rape Accusations. ↗ and The Ketchup People Analogy (Concerning British PM Philip Davies) ↗ I'm a proud anti-feminist and also a gun rights supporter. I spoke out against Title IX abuses by the left: Title IX and the Dear Colleague Letter has been rolled back by Betsy DeVos, why this is a good step. ↗ this is about not allowing the government to steamroll people, if they can do it one they can do it to all. This idea that someone doesn't count is wrong, doesn't matter who it is, and yes I'll speak up when the left does it as well! I spoke against it when the #MeeToo movement started steamrolling guys and I'll speak out against it when the right starts steamrolling people as well. This is about justice and fairness. I can't believe that you think it's okay to just do something to someone without proof. If they're wrong so be it, but give them a chance to prove it man!

[Anpu23]

How does defending the right to a fair trial lead to martial law and insurrection? By demanding that people get a fair shake in court, it leads to the breakdown of our society? Seriously? Come on, you know better then that. I'm not saying let them go, I'm saying prove that they are in the wrong! It's the basis of our entire legal system, innocent until proven guilty. It isn't semantics it's fairness and the check against abuse.

[IHaveRespawned]

When you commit a crime, it is usually a behavioral act. The court and jury must decide if you committed the act and if that particular action falls under the violation.

When it comes to citizenship, it is a concrete yes or no. The only errors are clerical/administrative or if the arresting authority ignores your proof or commits misconduct in hiding your citizenship. But that is not a determining factor of whether or not you are a citizen. It is just a mishandling of the process.

Someone may be able to take legal recourse if a citizen is wrongfully classified as an illegal alien, but that is the ONLY issue to challenge.

Otherwise, if you are not a citizen, you can have your residency here revoked and deported, PERIOD. Being under the Fed's radar for troublesome reasons is only the icing on the cake.

[Anpu23]

You're missing my point. It's a matter of fact if one is a citizen or not, that fact must somehow be established. And only courts can establish facts.

[blackeagle007]

Why bother arguing with this fool? Trump supporters are dumbasses.

[IHaveRespawned]

@blackeagle007
My step-dad was trying to teach me karate shit. Let me formulate a response.

[blackeagle007]

You wouldn’t know what green belt means

[IHaveRespawned]

Once again, the only matter to challenge is if one was mistakenly identified as a noncitizen. Citizenship status is not a criminal matter in and of itself. Neither is returning one to their country of origin. Returning one to their country of origin is also not a "sentence".

When you are not a citizen, your rights are rather limited. In addition, when it does not pertaining to criminal charges or accusations, there is a different process.

I find it odd people are so caught up in this immigration issue when our own citizens are facing struggles. I don't see anyone crying foul when the Supreme Court allows the limiting of free speech in public schools. There are many constitutional issues affecting everyday citizens that don't nearly garner as much attention.

[IHaveRespawned]

... also to mention, I didn't get due process when my EMT license was stripped away from me by the state. I was allowed to have my own legal representation, but one was not provided for me and I didn't have the funds to fight it. In addition, it was brought in front of a licensing board and not a judge. There was no appeal process. Essentially, any person can file a complaint and I have to defend myself in front of a board at my own expense. Where are the people crying foul for that?

[Anpu23]

" In addition, it was brought in front of a licensing board and not a judge" that sucks and is wrong. If someone faces a complaint they should have the right to their day in court. Shouldn't have happened to you, shouldn't happen to anyone we should be better then that.

[IHaveRespawned]

The only problem is, my license was essentially revoked due to a misdemeanor conviction in another state. That is another one of those cut and dry issues that is nearly possible to defend. It is a yes or no fact. Do you have a conviction or do you not?

I plead no-contest for a stalking charge not knowing the consequences. Was it considered a conviction? Yes. But that was more of misunderstandings of the criminal matter, not the professional licensure action.

[IHaveRespawned]

Let me ask you this then? What if an illegal exercises their right to remain silent and you can neither prove or disprove their citizenship status, are you supposed to let them free into the US to do as they please? Let's say a traffic stop reveals a van full of non-English speaking people loaded in the back, are you supposed to let everyone go on their way? This happened in Tennessee (my home state)

[Anpu23]

Yes, it is better for 100 guilty to go free then an innocent to be punished. But the fact that citizenship is fairly easy to establish its a rather moot point.

[IHaveRespawned]

Common sense if you have literally millions of undocumented illegal aliens that have crossed our southern border, it is a security risk and they need to go

[Caroline91]

@IHaveRespawned. "It shouldn't be this difficult to understand." I agree, it shouldn't. And here are the facts: Undocumented immigrants cannot vote or hold office. They are not eligible for certain federal benefits, such as SNAP (food stamps). They are not legally authorized to work in the U. S. And they can be deported if found to be in violation of immigration laws.
However, Undocumented immigrants in the U. S. do have certain constitutional rights, including due process, equal protection under the law, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to legal representation. They also have rights in the workplace, such as the right to minimum wage and overtime, and protection from discrimination. They do not have the same rights as citizens, such as the right to vote or hold office, but that's about it.

[exitseven]

The first thing that must be done is to define what "Due process" is. Legally the act of crossing the border and entering the United States without authorization is a felony. According to U. S. C. 1325 entering the country illegally is a crime and that makes them subject to deportation. Due Process in this case would simply be proving that they entered the country illegally.

The democrsts want each illegal alien gets an individual trial and an appeal. Doing this for 20 million people will rake centuries. Massive prisons must be built to house all these illegal aliens while they await trial.

To streamline the process the government only has to prove that they are here illegally and thousands could be processed and deported every day.

[Anpu23]

Until you have a finding, how do you know someone crossed the boarder? The issue is that you are assuming the crime, or relying on law enforcement to determine if a crime has been committed. That's a system that has huge potential for abuse. No one should be punished for something they didn't do. To me its about someone just deciding arbitrarily that this or that person has violated a statute or law. Without a court finding how is it determined?

[exitseven]

There were thousands that were processed and released when they entered the country, That data base could be used, also there are video evidence and facial recognition that could be used. If they could not supply Identification, a hearing would be scheduled. There needs to be a failsafe so the wrong people do not get deported.

[Anpu23]

" a hearing would be scheduled. There needs to be a failsafe so the wrong people do not get deported." Exactly! A check against an error, or in other words "due process." We need a finding of fact, that is my point.

[exitseven]

nothing wrong with that but an individual trial with a government appointed lawyer and an appeal after they are found guilty is ridiculous. The democrats are pinning their whole future on getting illegal aliens to vote for them otherwise as a political party they are all done.

[Anpu23]

I just don't trust law enforcement there needs to be a check.

[exitseven]

I would not trust democrats getting in the way.

[msc545]

@exitseven Fine, since you know all the facts, take them to court and convince a Judge and Jury that you are right. For every single fucking person you want to deport, one at a time. It will take too long and it is inconvenient? Too bad, you signed up for this.

FAFO friend...

[Caroline91]

@exitseven I don't know why so many people think "due process" means a trial. Due process in immigration cases doesn't require a full court trial, but it typically involves a hearing. While some individuals can be deported without a hearing through expedited removal, most cases involve an immigration court hearing where the individual can present their case. Fairness is Key, The core of due process is ensuring a fair and impartial process, regardless of the specific procedure used. As far as an appeal, I think it does make sense bc sometimes mistakes are made and it is kind of like getting a "second opinion." And there are already strict time limits for filing appeals and motions to reopen in deportation cases. But shipping people off to a prison in El Salvador is a whole other story. Deportation is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one, meaning the foreign national appears before an immigration judge and is removed from the country if the judge determines they should be deported.. So why are people being imprisoned and in another country? Now that becomes a Human Rights issue.

[exitseven]

@Caroline91 democrats want an individual trial and an appeal for each and every one. This is a huge undertaking for the millions of illegal aliens that need to be deported. This is by design. The democrats are betting their entire future on the votes that illegal aliens will give them since they have lost support from most of their base already.
Just the amount of prison space needed to house them all will be enormous and will cost the taxpayers billions. Still it will be less expensive than letting them roam free.

[Caroline91]

@exitseven. That doesn't make sense bc non citizens can't vote. And I don't know that Democrats want an individual trial for everyone. I do know that they want due process to be given, which is the law of this land. I'm curious what you are basing your assertion that they want trials for everyone on? If I missed something, I'd like to know. Thanks.

[msc545]

Everyone is entitled to notice a hearing and due process in this country whether the Republicans or Trump likes it or not. If they want to deport people then they need to follow the law and stop breaking it. So far all they are doing is breaking it over and over and that has to stop.

[msc545]

Everyone is also entitled to appeal from a a finding that they don't like or that they think is unjust. That means that for every hearing regarding immigration that the recipient feels is unfair or unjust an appeal is available and a few people keep this up. It will be taken. Good luck deporting people. If this keeps happening. We are going to make sure that it happens as much as possible because you people are insane when it comes to this issue. This country is made up of immigrants you idiots.

[exitseven]

@Caroline91 During Bidens administration there was a bill that the democrats were working on that would have provided a "pathway to citizenship" which was basically a way to rubber stamp these illegal aliens , granting them citizenship. Fortunately the Republicans gained control of the House so the bill ended there. We came very close to losing the whole country.
Besides, illegal aliens are counted in the census and the number of House members depends on population. It is estimated that if illegals were not longer counted , democrats would lose 25 seats in the House.

[msc545]

No you do not get to redefine due process to meet your political needs. You have to live with what we have had for centuries. We aren't changing things to suit you or Trump.

[Caroline91]

@exitseven I see your point about the census. But in regard to the "pathway to citizenship," that was intended for certain, very specific undocumented aliens, such as spouses of American citizens, Dreamers, and people with TPS and DED status. Those are all people who I think really may need special consideration. But the majority of undocumented aliens don't meet any of these criteria. Since it is difficult to get accurate information regarding undocumented aliens, it isn't possible to know how many people would fit these categories, but the best I can come up with is that, of the approximately 11 million undocumented people in the country, about half would fit the criteria. And, ofc, anyone convicted of a serious crime can have their status revoked. Thanks for the info.

[exitseven]

@Caroline91 It may have started that way but it was worded to include every illegal alien

[FreyaRed]

Deportation isn't a sentence that's why no process is necessary. It would be different if illegals would be imprisoned for illegal border crossing but they are just pushed back where they come from.
Of course I think illegals should be imprisoned or their money confiscated because they committed a crime with illegal entry. In this case a court would be necessary to estimate severity of the sentence.

[Fireguy17]

If you are here illegally, you are not entitled to due process, so go home.
Do it right, come on in and have a good life and you also entitled to everything that this country has to offer.
So how many illegals do you currently have living in your house, apartment, tent or wherever you live?

[Anpu23]

How do you know someone is illegal without a finding of fact? It takes a court to decide that. That's my whole point.

[Fireguy17]

they would be able to provide the proper paperwork if they were here legally, easy peasy, if not they have not done things correctly.

[msc545]

A person can also NOT be a citizen and have entered the country by "stealth means", and ALSO have an asylum claim which legally entitles them to stay here while that claim is adjudicated. It is not as black & white as "either a citizen or not".

[msc545]

A claim of asylum also legally needs to be determined in a court with attendant due process. People with pending asylum claims cannot be deported no matter how they entered.

[ProbablyClueless]

Everyone has the right to Due Process, but that doesn't mean the same thing in every situation. In the case of establishing someone's status as an illegal; administrative procedural courts are sufficient process.

They don't need a formal trial to establish someone's status as an illegal. Same deal as when a cop gives you a speeding ticket.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Without due proccess, there is no way to determine if they are illegal immigrants or not, and no way to determine of they commited crimes or not.

Skipping due proccess results in deporting people who were born here and commited no crimes.

As such, anyone who says that illegal immigrants do not need due process, is an idiot.

Everyone gets due proccess, no exceptions.

[OneViewpoint]

Due process isn’t about “Them”. It’s about “US”. Who we are as a nation.

[AngryCarl2]

I'm not an American so I don't have the best grasp of your law and constitutions, but I believe you are correct, and that this was recently confirmed by your Court of SCOTUS. However I also notice that your "Executive Branch" doesn't feel bound by the law.

[Twalli]

False rape allegations are actually rare. There's evidence to support the opposite. It is far less likely to not report a rape than it is to falsely report a rape. About 98% of rapes are never reported. You could argue that one false report is one too many, and I'd shoot back that one rape is one too many.

[Anpu23]

There is no evidence to support yhat claim, that "false rape accusation are rare." I wrote a mytake on that as well. Truth is we simply do not know how common they are.

[Anpu23]

Anpu on False Rape Accusations. ↗

Here's that article

[Filthy_Immigrant]

dude wtf, are you listening to yourself?

do you expect the government to waste their time and money applying a due process to all the cockroaches who pour into our country illegally under the Biden administration?

there are millions of them so initiating a due process for all of them can take decades

[msc545]

Absolutely correct. Our Constitution guarantees due process to every person in the country. Now enjoy watching the ignorant right-wingers on here start in the the "yes, but they are gang members and terroriasts and.. and.. and...
as if they had the right to decide anything at all...

[beefcakebradybatson]

Gang members/terrorists=POC. Jan.6,2021 white trailer trash criminals=heroes.

[Godihateyou]

Due process is the spine and heart of America. I'm a Liberterian first and MAGA second. This is the Tyranny they warned us about and the reason Lincoln was (Justifiably) killed for. "That guy's a gang member (source

[bddddd]

Habeus corpus underpins all Western legal systems. I agree. Bring me the body!!!

[DrPepper12]

Correct. Due process for everyone or we must acknowledge that no one has this right. Good luck convincing MAGA

[demonics]

SPARE ME.

[goaded]

I see you saying Obama was better at deporting people than Trump is.

[Anpu23]

It was wrong for Obama as well. Sorry but I don't do "what about ism" I don't care if it's wrong it's wrong and I don't care who did it. The issue is that until it was brought to the peoples attention we didn't know it was happening, certainly it wasn't brought up in say "Infowars" or Fox and the left certainly didn't point it out. So yes it's wrong and when the left does something wrong I write about that as well. I even sent a letter thanking the trump administration for rolling back Title IX protection. This isn't a left or right issue, its about not getting grabbed up by some over enthusiastic cop and rotting in jail and never having a chance to see a judge.

[goaded]

The right loved it, that's why they didn't complain (while avoiding giving credit). I doubt the numbers tell the whole story.

If (and this is speculation), people detained were asked "are you in the country legally" (or something similar, in a language they understand) and they answered "no", that doesn't require a judge, does it? The crux of the matter is what happens to the people who say "yes!".

AFAICS, they're not even asked today.

[demonics]

@goaded Yes. No one cared then. Not even you apparently.

[goaded]

They had a chance to state their case. That's their legal right that has been ignored by the Trump administration. They could have added more judges, like the bipartisan plan Biden wanted and Trump got killed, and moved more people out more quickly AND LEGALLY.

[FunkyMonkee]

You mean, like the people that got tossed into jail, no questions asked, because they just HAPPENED to be at the White House on Jan. 6th 2021?

[Staximus]

If you're not a citizen of the United States you do not have the constitutional right to due process

[DrPepper12]

Scalia says otherwise...

[Anpu23]

This idea that we can arbitrarily determine that someone is a citizen is the issue. There must be a finding of that fact.

[Caroline91]

@staximus. Whether some of us like it or not... YES, you do. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution ensures due process for all persons, including non-citizens, within the United States. The Due Process Clause, found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This protection applies regardless of citizenship status. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted these amendments to mean that "persons" within the United States, regardless of their legal status, are entitled to due process. If you don't like it, there needs to be an amendment to the Constitution to change it.

[biraileeşkadını]

As a Turk, I have no idea what you’ve been through.

[jjj101010]

I’m not American, so I am not sure of the process, but I guess it comes down to who’s job is it to decide if someone has enter3d illegally, if it’s a judge fine, if it’s an ICE age then that’s the rules.