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

[progressive hunter]

Confirming the validity of that kind of evidence IS due process.

so is lack of birth certificate, passport, social security number or any other immigration papers,,

 

[airplanemechanic]

Disingenuous


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

Because they didn't mean to deport him. But now that he's gone, they can see no rules were broken.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

If you can claim someone in the US is an illegal immigrant and needs to be deported, how is anyone, citizen or not, protected if there is no 'due process'? Can a President just round people up and put them in prison or deport them to a foreign prison. Is there no check on his actions?

If you’re not a citizen you’re not under the same protections of the constitution

 

[Leo123]

As I have said before. 'Due Process' is defined by each separate branch. The judicial and legislative branches do not define due process for the Executive branch (which ICE is part of). Garcia had an immigration hearing in 2019 and was set to being deported. Then he screamed 'asylum' and, under Biden, was granted it because all of our immigration policies were destroyed under Biden.

Garcia's proponents claim he is not a gang member but, his asylum claim was based on him being in fear of a rival gang in El Salvador. Under Biden, this shit happened.

 

[alang1216]

Because they didn't mean to deport him. But now that he's gone, they can see no rules were broken.

Closing the barn door? Rules were broken regardless of the dirt they can pull up. He, and all deportees, need to have an opportunity to answer the allegations BEFORE they are deported.

 

[alang1216]

If you’re not a citizen you’re not under the same protections of the constitution

You have it backwards. Once the government proves to a judge you're not a citizen THEN you're not protected.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

You have it backwards. Once the government proves to a judge you're not a citizen THEN you're not protected.

So every single person is to be assumed a citizen until they are proven they aren’t? That’s backwards. Your citizenship should be proven to be here

 

[progressive hunter]

You have it backwards. Once the government proves to a judge you're not a citizen THEN you're not protected.

you keep forgetting to prove that,,

 

[alang1216]

So every single person is to be assumed a citizen until they are proven they aren’t? That’s backwards. Your citizenship should be proven to be here

We're all innocent until proven guilty. If you were stopped on the street how would you prove you were a citizen?

 

[alang1216]

you keep forgetting to prove that,,

It is why SCOTUS ruled as it did.

 

[Cougarbear]

And every court ruling until possibly the Roberts court, the most biased and corrupt court in history, has ruled differently from your opinion.

That's not an answer. Putting the question on someone who cannot possibly answer the question is more circular reasoning and sidestepping the issue. Would you like to try again and answer the question?

 

[progressive hunter]

It is why SCOTUS ruled as it did.

We're all innocent until proven guilty. If you were stopped on the street how would you prove you were a citizen?

give them my ID,,

and if that wasnt enough I would give them my BC or SS card,,

wht would be easier is just give them my name and date of birth since they have full access to all government records,,

 

[alang1216]

give them my ID,,

and if that wasnt enough I would give them my BC or SS card,,

wht would be easier is just give them my name and date of birth since they have full access to all government records,,

I don't carry a bc or ss card nor do I know who has access to what.

 

[progressive hunter]

I don't carry a bc or ss card nor do I know who has access to what.

you know its not like the cops picking them up take them straight to the border..

they re given time to prove legal status before they get the boot,,

 

[MarathonMike]

If you’re not a citizen you’re not under the same protections of the constitution

And in some instances, as in the interred Japanese Americans of WWII, you don't get Due Process either. So it CERTAINLY does not apply automatically to illegal aliens.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

How do you get the fingerprints of someone who snuck into the country?

Unless someone is fingerprinted by immigration authorities or arrested, their prints likely won’t be in any database — and most U.S. citizens don’t have their prints in AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System) either.

 

[MisterBeale]

Expedited removal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[toobfreak]

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.

Fact. When the 5th and 14th were ratified, they could not even imagine that some day there would be MILLIONS of invading illegals. The court system simply cannot handle it. This is what Joe Biden counted on.

The 5th and 14th were never intended to deal with what is in effect an INVASION. Invasions fall under the heading of a hostile military intrusion even if the people invading are not overt soldiers.

At least then, deporting these people to El Salvador is then merely an intermediary holding area until such time their cases can be reviewed, but if they are already known and determined to be non-citizens, case over. What would due process determine, the rights of non-citizens to invade us?

Further, the ridiculousness of the situation can be illustrated thusly:

• Border Patrol catches an invader trying to cross into our country--- can they be expelled and stopped or do they now have a right to due process?
• Someone sneaks past Border Patrol and makes it into the country. Does the act of committing a crime now endear them to privileges and benefits of our legal system so they can fight (at our expense) to stay here and be REWARDED?

Clearly, no sane country can remain sovereign and solvent if they must commit expensive and lengthy legal proceedings to every invader. So obviously, when these bills were ratified, they were at best thinking only of the occaisional individual and not masses of thousands and millions of illegals being bused and flown in by a pigshit turd like Joe Bedpan. Joe Biden needs brought up on treason charges.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Here is historical precedent for our government denying due process EVEN TO US CITIZENS. Remember the Japanese Americans rounded up and shipped to interment camps during WWII? If the US government can waive due process for US citizens it can certainly waive due process for non-citizens especially dangerous ones like the human smuggler Kilmar Garcia.

Suspending the Right of Due Process: Japanese-American Relocation during World War II

Engage students in classroom discussions about due process and the Fifth Amendment using primary sources about Japanese-American “relocation” during WWII.

education.blogs.archives.gov

What the United States did was not Constitutional but that did not happen for decades..
------------------
[the following response was generated by AI]

You're implying that because the U.S. government interned Japanese Americans during WWII, it sets a precedent for waiving due process, even for citizens. But this is legally and historically misleading. Here's why:

1. The Internment Was Not Constitutionally Authorized — It Was Later Found Unjustified​

The internment of Japanese Americans was carried out under Executive Order 9066, issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942. This order did not explicitly suspend due process, but it did grant the military broad authority to exclude people from designated areas. That power was abused.

• In Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Supreme Court upheld the internment — a decision that was heavily criticized and effectively overturned decades later.
• In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court formally repudiated Korematsu in Trump v. Hawaii, calling it "gravely wrong the day it was decided."
• The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 acknowledged that the internment was based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership" — not law — and provided a formal apology and reparations.

2. The Government Cannot "Waive" Constitutional Rights Without Legal Basis​

Due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments cannot simply be “waived” by executive will. The internment camps were later recognized as a constitutional violation. So citing them as precedent is akin to citing a wrongful conviction as justification for denying someone a fair trial.

3. Non-Citizens Still Have Due Process Rights​

In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Supreme Court held that non-citizens in the U.S. — even those here unlawfully — are entitled to some form of due process under the 5th Amendment. Immigration proceedings are civil, not criminal, but the government must still follow procedural protections.

---

So to answer your question:

The internment of Japanese Americans was not authorized by law in a constitutional sense. It was implemented under an executive order, upheld temporarily by a flawed Supreme Court decision, later admitted as a grave injustice by all branches of government.
-----
Here’s a clear, structured explanation of how Japanese American internment was carried out legally at the time, even though we now know it was a grave constitutional violation:

---

STEP 1: Presidential Executive Order 9066 (Feb. 19, 1942)​

President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which gave military commanders the authority to designate “military areas” and exclude any persons from them.

• It did not name Japanese Americans specifically.
• It gave military commanders discretion over who to exclude.
• The West Coast was declared a military area.

This was the legal foundation, though vague, that allowed further discriminatory action.

---

STEP 2: Public Law 503 (March 21, 1942)​

Congress quickly passed a law making it a federal crime to violate any military order issued under Executive Order 9066.

• This gave legal teeth to the executive order.
• Now, failing to comply with exclusion orders could land someone in prison.

This made evading internment a jailable offense — thus creating a mechanism to punish Japanese Americans who resisted.

---

STEP 3: Military Orders & Internment​

General John L. DeWitt issued military orders requiring the forced evacuation and internment of Japanese Americans on the West Coast.

• No hearings, no individual assessments.
• Over 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry — 2/3 of them U.S. citizens — were forcibly relocated and imprisoned in camps.

These were treated as military security measures, not criminal prosecutions, which allowed the government to argue that due process rights didn’t fully apply.

---

STEP 4: Supreme Court Upholds the Action​

Korematsu v. United States (1944)​

The Supreme Court upheld the exclusion order in a 6–3 decision:

• They claimed it was not about race, but “military necessity.”
• Justice Frank Murphy dissented, calling it a “legalization of racism.”

This ruling effectively legitimized the internment — at the time — by deferring heavily to the executive during wartime.

---

STEP 5: Post-War Reckoning​

• 
  
• 1980s: The U.S. government admitted wrongdoing through the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians.
• 
  
• 1988: The Civil Liberties Act was signed by President Reagan, offering:
  • A formal apology
  • $20,000 in reparations per survivor.

The government officially recognized that the internment had no military justification.

---

Summary of Legal Path​

Authority	Action
Executive	EO 9066 gave military power to exclude people
Legislative	Congress criminalized non-compliance
Judicial	SCOTUS upheld the policy under "military necessity"
Later Findings	The justification was false; the actions were unconstitutional

-----
Many people did recognize it as unconstitutional even at the time, including members of the Supreme Court, government officials, and the public. Here are a few key points that show just how clear the violations were:

---

1. Justice Frank Murphy’s Dissent in Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)​

“This exclusion of all persons of Japanese ancestry… goes over ‘the very brink of constitutional power’ and falls into the ugly abyss of racism.”

Murphy was blunt: he called it "legalized racism" — and he was a sitting justice of the Supreme Court.

---

2. The FBI and DOJ Disagreed​

Even J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, opposed the mass internment. He believed:

• 
  
• There was no credible evidence of espionage or sabotage by Japanese Americans.
• 
  
• Internment was based more on race and hysteria than any threat.

Similarly, Attorney General Francis Biddle initially resisted the plan, warning that it was legally and morally indefensible.

---

3. The Munson Report (Nov. 1941) — Before Pearl Harbor​

Commissioned by President Roosevelt himself, this confidential report concluded:

"There is no Japanese ‘problem’ on the West Coast... the overwhelming majority are loyal to the United States."

Despite this, Roosevelt signed EO 9066 just three months later.

---

4. Congressional Testimony and Public Objections​

• 
  
• Quakers and some clergy publicly objected.
• 
  
• Some editors and columnists (though few) called it a violation of due process.
• 
  
• Japanese American groups petitioned and protested.

---

5. Legal Challenges by Brave Individuals​

• 
  
• Fred Korematsu: Challenged his arrest for not complying with the exclusion order.
• 
  
• Gordon Hirabayashi and Minoru Yasui: Also refused to comply and challenged the constitutionality in court.

These cases show that Americans — including those being targeted — knew this was wrong and tried to fight it, even as the courts failed them at the time.

---

So yes, there was awareness, objection, and legal dissent, but the courts, military, and public hysteria overwhelmed the constitutional safeguards — at least for a while.

You said:​

what happened to the people who had been interned between 1944 & the 1980s?

​

ChatGPT said​

That’s a profound and often overlooked question — what became of the over 120,000 Japanese Americans who were interned during World War II between their release and the formal apology and reparations decades later?

Here’s what happened during that intervening period (1944–1988):

---

1. Gradual Release from Camps (1944–1946)​

• The camps began shutting down after the war ended (some people were released earlier for work or military service).
• Many had no homes to return to — their property had been stolen, sold, or vandalized.
• Some had to stay in temporary housing, hostels, or churches while trying to rebuild their lives.

Note: The last internment camp (Tule Lake) closed in March 1946.

---

2. Post-War Discrimination & Economic Devastation​

• Interned families lost millions in property (homes, farms, businesses).
• They faced widespread discrimination — in jobs, housing, and public life.
• The economic damage was generational; many families never recovered their prior status.

---

3. Cultural Silence and Shame​

• Many Nisei (2nd-generation Japanese Americans) rarely spoke of their internment afterward.
• There was a stigma — and fear of further retaliation.
• Children and grandchildren often only learned later in life what their families had endured.

---

4. Resettlement and Rebuilding​

• Some returned to the West Coast, others resettled in Chicago, New York, and Midwest cities.
• Community organizations (like JACL, Japanese American Citizens League) provided limited support.
• Despite the trauma, many internees rebuilt from scratch, started businesses, and contributed significantly to American society — including veterans who had volunteered from inside the camps.

---

5. Redress Movement Begins (1960s–1980s)​

• By the 1960s, younger Japanese Americans (Sansei, 3rd generation) began pressing for justice.
• The Redress Movement built momentum, leading to:
  • The formation of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (1980)
  • Emotional congressional testimonies from former internees
  • Mounting public pressure

---

6. Justice & Apology Finally Delivered​

• In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act, granting:
  • A formal apology
  • $20,000 in reparations to each surviving internee
• It took until the early 2000s to pay all claims, and many had already passed away.

---

The Emotional Toll​

The time between 1944 and the 1980s was filled with:

• Painful silence
• Economic hardship
• Resilience and rebuilding
• And eventually, vindication, though late

One internee said:

“We spent our lives trying to forget — and then spent our later years trying to make sure the country never forgets.”

---

The release of Japanese Americans from internment didn’t happen all at once — it was a gradual, politically pressured, and legally challenged process that began in 1944 and continued through 1946. Here's what caused it:

---

1. The 1944 Supreme Court Ruling – Ex parte Endo​

This is the most direct legal trigger for their release.

• In December 1944, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Ex parte Mitsuye Endo that:
  The government could not continue to detain a U.S. citizen who was “concededly loyal.”
• Unlike Korematsu, which upheld the exclusion orders, Endo addressed continued detention.
• The Court basically said: Even if the government claims national security, it cannot keep loyal citizens imprisoned.

Impact: This decision made it legally indefensible to continue holding thousands of internees.

---

2. War Department Rescinds Exclusion Orders​

• On the same day the Endo decision was announced (Dec. 18, 1944), the War Department issued Public Proclamation No. 21, lifting the West Coast exclusion orders effective in January 1945.

This allowed Japanese Americans to return — but not immediately or all at once.

---

3. End of World War II (1945)​

• After the defeat of Germany (May 1945) and Japan (August 1945), the justification for internment evaporated.
• Internment camps began closing — the last one (Tule Lake) shut down in March 1946.

---

4. Pressure from Civil Rights Advocates and the Japanese American Community​

• People like Fred Korematsu, Gordon Hirabayashi, and Mitsuye Endo bravely brought legal cases.
• Groups like the ACLU, JACL (Japanese American Citizens League), and religious organizations criticized the camps publicly.
• The public was slowly made aware of the human toll and injustice, though racism remained entrenched.

---

5. Labor Shortages & Military Service​

• Some Japanese Americans were released early under limited circumstances:
  • To work in areas away from the West Coast
  • To attend college
  • Or, notably, to serve in the U.S. military — many joined the highly decorated 442nd Regimental Combat Team

---

Summary: Why They Were Released​

Trigger	Effect
Ex parte Endo (1944)	Declared indefinite detention of loyal citizens unlawful
Military Proclamation No. 21	Lifted exclusion orders
End of WWII	Removed the (false) justification of "military necessity"
Labor & Military Needs	Pressured the government to release internees sooner
Civil Rights Pressure	Legal and public advocacy forced reconsideration

"

 

[alang1216]

you know its not like the cops picking them up take them straight to the border..

they re given time to prove legal status before they get the boot,,

I was not aware. That is all I ever wanted for them. If they are here illegally and have a criminal record, get them out of here ASAP.