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

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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

Why is Trump paying El Salvador 6 million dollars a year to hold them then?
Trump Fails to Answer Easy Question on Payments to El Salvador

 

[MarathonMike]

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 - everyone who is not a landowning white adult male.

Yes, things change which is why the Dept of Immigration and Naturalization was established in 1891. What has not changed is anyone who enters the country bypassing our LEGAL immigration process is NOT a US citizen and therefore NOT entitled to due process. Because we are a compassionate nation, the illegals typically do get due process, but if they cannot prove their citizenship by birth record or documentation of LEGAL immigration, they are vulnerable to deportation.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

As my timeline clearly states, there was no possibility of being an illegal immigrant WHEN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WAS WRITTEN. It was CLEARLY WRITTEN to protect the rights of US CITIZENS. I can't spell it out any simpler than that.

Black people were not U.S. citizens at the time the 5th Amendment was ratified.

As for the 14th, in spite of the language and its equal protection clause, our courts and society allowed 97 years of Jim Crow to terrorize & diminish the lives of Black "Americans" until the passage of the Civil Rights Act effectively rendered all of the Black Codes & discriminatory & segregation laws null & void.

If that doesn't showcase how & why our laws change (but in some cases are not enforced) then maybe someone else can think of another example that will resonate better with you.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Yes, things change which is why the Dept of Immigration and Naturalization was established in 1891. What has not changed is anyone who enters the country bypassing our LEGAL immigration process is NOT a US citizen and therefore NOT entitled to due process. Because we are a compassionate nation, the illegals typically do get due process, but if they cannot prove their citizenship by birth record or documentation of LEGAL immigration, they are vulnerable to deportation.

Yeah I used to think the same way you do and while most of what you wrote is correct, this part is not:

"...NOT a US citizen and therefore NOT entitled to due process"

According to our laws and them having been interpreted by SCOTUS

NOT a citizen DOES NOT equal NOT entitled to due process

I know this seems counterintuitive and while I haven't studied immigration law, this aligns with my understanding of it

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

No paperwork showing they are here legally.

You mean no identification at all?

 

[martybegan]

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.

So the chance of a mistake means you can't do anything.

Oh well, throw out the entire judicial system then.

If the person has a detainer on them, they have had their due process.

 

[MarathonMike]

Yeah I used to think the same way you do and while most of what you wrote is correct, this part is not:

"...NOT a US citizen and therefore NOT entitled to due process"

According to our laws and them having been interpreted by SCOTUS

NOT a citizen DOES NOT equal NOT entitled to due process

I know this seems counterintuitive and while I haven't studied immigration law, this aligns with my understanding of it

Amendments 5 and 14 and the subsequent establishment of our formal legal immigration process supports my argument. A lot of "NOTS" does not definitely say anything. Yet another part of the problem.

Now I think it would be interesting to EXPLORE the possibility of re-establishing the original naturalization process that I listed above and apply it to illegals who are have jobs, pay taxes and are law abiding. Unfortunately, no one in Congress appears interested in immigration reform.

 

[dblack]

So the chance of a mistake means you can't do anything.

No. I means we should have checks and balances, due process, to prevent "mistakes".

 

[progressive hunter]

No. I means we should have checks and balances, due process, to prevent "mistakes".

I still dont understand your complaint,,

as for garcia he got full due process and was found to be deportable,,

and unless you have a specific case that didnt receive it youre just wind blowing through a fence,,

 

[alang1216]

So the chance of a mistake means you can't do anything.

No, it means you follow the correct legal procedure, so the chance of a mistake is minimized.

If the person has a detainer on them, they have had their due process.

How was the 'detainer' created? By which branch of gov't?

 

[MarathonMike]

No. I means we should have checks and balances, due process, to prevent "mistakes".

We have "checks and balances" out the wazoo. That's called The Media and an army of Democrat judges. Kilmar was released from the max security prison within a week and would have been immediately returned to the US had the El Salvadoran President agreed.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So the chance of a mistake means you can't do anything.

Oh well, throw out the entire judicial system then.

If the person has a detainer on them, they have had their due process.

It's said “It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”

This maxim is most famously attributed to Sir William Blackstone, an English jurist, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769). This gave rise to what's often called Blackstone's Ratio or Blackstone's Formulation.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Amendments 5 and 14 and the subsequent establishment of our formal legal immigration process supports my argument. A lot of "NOTS" does not definitely say anything. Yet another part of the problem.

Now I think it would be interesting to EXPLORE the possibility of re-establishing the original naturalization process that I listed above and apply it to illegals who are have jobs, pay taxes and are law abiding. Unfortunately, no one in Congress appears interested in immigration reform.

You're mistaken simply because the statement you're relying on is not a valid statement grounded in U.S. Constitutional or immigration law.

The 5th & 14th Amendments --​

Both refer to “persons”, not just citizens:​

5th Amendment: “No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
14th Amendment: “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the Court ruled:​

“The guarantees of due process and equal protection apply to all persons within the territory of the United States, including aliens.”

In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Court clarified that:

Even undocumented immigrants within the U.S. have due process protections regarding detention and deportation.

---

NOT a citizen ≠ NOT entitled to due process.
That is a constitutional fact — not an opinion.

As for 1891:​

The Immigration Act of 1891 did establish federal immigration enforcement, but it did not remove due process protections. It created the Office of the Superintendent of Immigration and codified exclusion grounds, but all subsequent case law has maintained that presence on U.S. soil (even unlawfully) still entitles a person to constitutional protections, including due process.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I still dont understand your complaint,,

as for garcia he got full due process and was found to be deportable,,

and unless you have a specific case that didnt receive it youre just wind blowing through a fence,,

When was the removal order issued, do you know?

 

[dblack]

We have "checks and balances" out the wazoo. That's called The Media and an army of Democrat judges.

Those fools are weak tea. What we need is a Court willing to enforce the Constitution.

 

[MarathonMike]

Both refer to “persons”, not just citizens:

So American Indians were granted "due process" under the 5th and 14th Amendments? They were persons, not just citizens. What say you to that?

 

[buttercup]

That's what they're after, yes.

That's what these folks still haven't figured out.

 

[buttercup]

what due process do illegals get??

Below are a few links on this topic. Due process applies to "all persons" within the US, which would include non-citizens. That does not mean that non-citizens have all the same rights that citizens have. I don't think anyone is claiming that. But at the very least, from a legal and constitutional standpoint, they have due process.

"It is well-established that everyone within the United States, even those who may have entered illegally or over-stayed a visa, are entitled to Due Process." source​

"Thus, despite the President’s tweet, a robust system exists to protect the due process rights of people, even non-citizens, in the United States, and federal courts, under a long line of Supreme Court cases, are tasked with the job of making sure it will always be so." source​

The Trump administration and its supporters have long labored under the false notion that non-citizens do not have full legal rights under the US constitution. In this, they reflect the views of Dick Cheney and other politicians of the era of the “Global War on Terror” when the executive state was forever searching for new ways to justify spying on American citizens and expanding the police state.​

​

This idea, however, has no grounding in text of the Bill of Rights or in the thinking of American “founders”... source​

​

"The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as persons guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." source​

 

[progressive hunter]

Below are a few links on this topic. Due process applies to "all persons" within the US, which would include non-citizens. That does not mean that non-citizens have all the same rights that citizens have. I don't think anyone is claiming that. But at the very least, from a legal and constitutional standpoint, they have due process.

"It is well-established that everyone within the United States, even those who may have entered illegally or over-stayed a visa, are entitled to Due Process." source​

"Thus, despite the President’s tweet, a robust system exists to protect the due process rights of people, even non-citizens, in the United States, and federal courts, under a long line of Supreme Court cases, are tasked with the job of making sure it will always be so." source​

The Trump administration and its supporters have long labored under the false notion that non-citizens do not have full legal rights under the US constitution. In this, they reflect the views of Dick Cheney and other politicians of the era of the “Global War on Terror” when the executive state was forever searching for new ways to justify spying on American citizens and expanding the police state.​

​

This idea, however, has no grounding in text of the Bill of Rights or in the thinking of American “founders”... source​

​

"The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as persons guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." source​

none of that explains what due process an illegal gets,,

what they get is once its determined that they are here illegally they get deported,,

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So American Indians were granted "due process" under the 5th and 14th Amendments? They were persons, not just citizens. What say you to that?

I honestly know a whole lot less about how the United States interacts with Native Americans via treaties but as far as I can remember, there have always been an exception carved out for them.

But you have to remember, it wasn't just the Native Americans who were not included or covered by "current law" back in the 1700 & 1800, it was everyone who was not a landowning adult white male. Women were not included, Black people were not included nor were the Native Americans as you've rightfully pointed out.

None of the however changes the circumstances or correct answer to your initial question

“Just because someone was denied due process doesn't mean they weren't entitled to it. It means the law was ignored — not that it didn’t exist.”

I hope this helps, you brought up a good secondary point.