Zone1 Let's actually DISCUSS the origins and intent of the "Due Process Clause" of the Constitution.

[martybegan]

What reasonable suspicion would they have to legally detain them?

maybe "confirm the ID of those detained" is a better way of putting it.

 

[airplanemechanic]

What reasonable suspicion would they have to legally detain them?

No paperwork showing they are here legally.

 

[progressive hunter]

The same due process as anyone else. You don't seem to get this, or just don't want to. If anyone is deprived of this right, everyone is. Can you answer the question you avoided?

so once theyve been confirmed to be here illegally they are deported,,

thats whats been happening,,

thats their due process,,

 

[TNHarley]

maybe "confirm the ID of those detained" is a better way of putting it.

What reasonable suspicion would one have to legally detain them?

 

[TNHarley]

No paperwork showing they are here legally.

What reasonable suspicion would you have to legally demand their papers?

 

[airplanemechanic]

What reasonable suspicion would you have to legally demand their papers?

When coming into the country, EVERYONE has to show they are a legal resident. It's called getting through customs. No reasonable suspicion needed.

I used to work at an airplane hangar. We had several international flights of private jets. One guy FORGOT HIS PASSPORT in Cabul San Lucas before taking off. When he landed, customs met him on the tarmac and quickly about 5 black trucks showed up and surrounded that airplane. He was an American citizen and simply didn't have the proper paperwork to reenter the country.

 

[progressive hunter]

What reasonable suspicion would one have to legally detain them?

thhht would be case by case basis yyou would have to ask the law enforcement conducting the arrest,,

 

[martybegan]

What reasonable suspicion would one have to legally detain them?

Reports of illegals congregating or working at a given location?

Previous records of said illegals being brought before a court and then released by a previous administration?

active detainers for said individuals?

They aren't going out and shutting down 5 square blocks and checking ID's of everyone in the area.

 

[MarathonMike]

Here is some additional information on how people in 1800 became official US citizens. That process was replaced by our current LEGAL IMMIGRATION process nearly 100 years later:

In 1800, naturalization was a two-step process* that took a minimum of five years. After residing in the United States for two years, an alien could file a "declaration of intention" ("first papers") to become a citizen. After three additional years, the alien could "petition for naturalization" (”second papers”).Feb 28, 2025

 

[dblack]

If some is clearly NOT a US citizen then by the establishment of our Federal immigration policies established in 1891, they do not CONSTITUTIONALLY have due process rights.

And how do you determine that?

You don't "claim" someone is an illegal immigrant or not. That person is only a US citizen based on official birth records.

I can accuse you of being an illegal immigrant. What should happen to you if I do? Should you get due process, or should we deport you immediately, merely because I made the accusation?

"due process" begins with showing legal identification of who you are, what nation you are from, and if not a citizen of the USA (per your ID) than showing your passport and visa.

So if you've lost your ID, you're just screwed?

Those apprehended at the border and shortly after entering this country illegally, don't need due process have been caught committing a crime and are expelled immediately.

How do you know they were caught committing a crime? Is your say-so enough? Is the say-so of a ICE agent?

 

[airplanemechanic]

And how do you determine that?

I can accuse you of being an illegal immigrant. What should happen to you if I do? Should you get due process, or should we deport you immediately, merely because I made the accusation?

So if you've lost your ID, you're just screwed?

How do you know they were caught committing a crime? Is your say-so enough? Is the say-so of a ICE agent?

Trump is not going around rounding up all the wetbacks. He's systematically getting the ones out who have committed crimes. As part of the criminal procedure, they can use that to ensure he's a legal resident. If not, he can be deported. If you don't like the law, fight to change it.

 

[dblack]

Trump is not going around rounding up all the wetbacks. He's systematically getting the ones out who have committed crimes.

How do we know he's right? How do we know these people have committed crimes?

 

[Meister]

Just to keep things simple, due process does not automatically give the alleged illegal
the right to a trial with a jury. Simple enough to deport with just verifying the name to
the person.

 

[alang1216]

1. Identify the person who you have detained.
2. Confirm said person is here illegally.
3. Deport said person back to their country of origin.

Due process.

If there is no judicial confirmation "said person is here illegally" there are no checks and balances on Executive action. And, as they have admitted, they do make mistakes.

 

[MarathonMike]

so once theyve been confirmed to be here illegally they are deported,,

thats whats been happening,,

thats their due process,,

For a specific example, Kilmar Garcia had TWO court appearances and an arrest in 2019. He received plenty of DUE PROCESS even though he was not Constitutionally entitled to it. For some bizarre reason ( I think we know ) he was released on all three occasions.

 

[alang1216]

Trump didn't put anyone in prison. Trump can't order anyone imprisoned in a foreign country.

Disingenuous

Trump deported a known gang banger wife beater with a deportation order (no, 2 deportation orders) against him back to his home country. THEY put in him prison. If you don't like that, talk to El Salvador. Not Trump.

If that all is true why did they first say the deportation was done in error?

 

[progressive hunter]

For a specific example, Kilmar Garcia had TWO court appearances and an arrest in 2019. He received plenty of DUE PROCESS even though he was not Constitutionally entitled to it. For some bizarre reason ( I think we know ) he was released on all three occasions.

e received 19 court appearances and the final outcome was deport him including in appeal,

that was put on hold for safety reasons,, that safety reason is no longer an issue,,

 

[dblack]

For a specific example, Kilmar Garcia had TWO court appearances and an arrest in 2019. He received plenty of DUE PROCESS even though he was not Constitutionally entitled to it. For some bizarre reason ( I think we know ) ...

Do we?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Because rights aren't reserved for citizens.

You keep steering around an important question: If you are accused of being an illegal immigrant, should you be allowed to prove your innocence (due process)? Or should you be deported immediately?

We're not even supposed to have to prove our innocence, it's incumbent upon the government to make the case that we are guilty - "innocent until "proven" guilty by a court of law"

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Both the 5th and 14th Amendments contain the same 11 word phrase to define the term "Due Process'. Here it is:

No one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Now here are some very important dates relevant to Due Process.:

The 5th amendment was ratified in 1791
The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.
The first Office of Immigration was established in 1891.

So let those dates sink in. The "Due Process" clause was written 100 YEARS BEFORE THE POSSIBILITY OF A PERSON BEING AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. It was repeated again in the 14th Amendment to specifically defend the rights of freed slaves who were GRANTED US Citizenship.

I contend that these facts SUMMARILY INVALIDATE the claim that an illegal immigrant TODAY has the same due process rights as a US CITIZEN.

If you disagree, present a cogent argument as to why an illegal immigrant today has the same due process rights as a US citizen.

Because things change. What society accepts and what our laws dictate change over time.

"We the people of the United States" back when the U.S. Constitution was written only included "land owning white adult males" and they were the only ones who could participate in the running of our government by holding office or voting.

This was what they intended, yet today in 2025, "we the people" includes all of us - including everyone who is not a landowning white adult male.