No due process for illegals???

Delldude

Sheep Dipped Boy Scout
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
29,790
Reaction score
20,569
Points
1,288
Location
Plasticville U.S.A
Looks like this debate over due process has been conflated by the left. Why am I not surprised. Several articles discuss the topic and how Illegals aren't necessarily entitled.



A series of legal challenges are mounting against the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to remove noncitizens, many of which allege violations of constitutional due process protections. Attorneys for the noncitizens in these cases argue that removals have been carried out without “due process.”

But what exactly is “due process” in this context? Everyone seems to be certain that everyone is entitled to it. Everyone seems pretty certain that it’s being denied. But does everyone clamoring for it actually know what “due process” would look like?

It turns out, not much.
_________________
If people expect that folks like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, if returned to the U.S., will be entitled to a televised jury trial and a court-appointed defense team, then they will be similarly disappointed. There is no express statutory right to counsel under the AEA. There is no statutory right to a hearing under the AEA.
_________________
The government argues that the Alien Enemies Act explicitly authorizes the removal of enemy aliens without individualized hearings or procedures, especially during wartime or national security contexts.

According to the government, the Supreme Court in Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), upheld this framework, finding that enemy aliens may be removed solely on the basis of executive determination under the AEA.
_________________
It seems that the only thing that a person removed under the AEA can challenge is his determination as an (1) Alien (2) Enemy. That’s not nothing. But it’s probably not much.







 
Last edited:
Nothing hs been conflated. Trump defense syndrome is a real problem.
Nope. And your baseless denial that the libtard media has conflated due process is unsupported, as always from you.

IQ2. You’re just a hack. You’re really bad at this message board thang.
 
Looks like this debate over due process has been conflated by the left. Why am I not surprised. Several articles discuss the topic and how Illegals aren't necessarily entitled.



A series of legal challenges are mounting against the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to remove noncitizens, many of which allege violations of constitutional due process protections. Attorneys for the noncitizens in these cases argue that removals have been carried out without “due process.”

But what exactly is “due process” in this context? Everyone seems to be certain that everyone is entitled to it. Everyone seems pretty certain that it’s being denied. But does everyone clamoring for it actually know what “due process” would look like?

It turns out, not much.
_________________
If people expect that folks like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, if returned to the U.S., will be entitled to a televised jury trial and a court-appointed defense team, then they will be similarly disappointed. There is no express statutory right to counsel under the AEA. There is no statutory right to a hearing under the AEA.
_________________
The government argues that the Alien Enemies Act explicitly authorizes the removal of enemy aliens without individualized hearings or procedures, especially during wartime or national security contexts.

According to the government, the Supreme Court in Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), upheld this framework, finding that enemy aliens may be removed solely on the basis of executive determination under the AEA.
_________________
It seems that the only thing that a person removed under the AEA can challenge is his determination as an (1) Alien (2) Enemy. That’s not nothing. But it’s probably not much.








You’re not deporting people. You’re trafficking them.
 
Looks like this debate over due process has been conflated by the left. Why am I not surprised. Several articles discuss the topic and how Illegals aren't necessarily entitled.



A series of legal challenges are mounting against the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to remove noncitizens, many of which allege violations of constitutional due process protections. Attorneys for the noncitizens in these cases argue that removals have been carried out without “due process.”

But what exactly is “due process” in this context? Everyone seems to be certain that everyone is entitled to it. Everyone seems pretty certain that it’s being denied. But does everyone clamoring for it actually know what “due process” would look like?

It turns out, not much.
_________________
If people expect that folks like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, if returned to the U.S., will be entitled to a televised jury trial and a court-appointed defense team, then they will be similarly disappointed. There is no express statutory right to counsel under the AEA. There is no statutory right to a hearing under the AEA.
_________________
The government argues that the Alien Enemies Act explicitly authorizes the removal of enemy aliens without individualized hearings or procedures, especially during wartime or national security contexts.

According to the government, the Supreme Court in Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), upheld this framework, finding that enemy aliens may be removed solely on the basis of executive determination under the AEA.
_________________
It seems that the only thing that a person removed under the AEA can challenge is his determination as an (1) Alien (2) Enemy. That’s not nothing. But it’s probably not much.








Excellent summary. And of course that is what President Trump was saying--in typical Trump speak--when he is portrayed as saying he 'doesn't know whether he has to follow the Constitution.' He of course was saying his attorneys who are no doubt researching this same kind of information are advising him that he may not have to be bound for how the left, even judges, are interpreting the Constitution/law/precedent whatever. That other precedent may indeed give him full license to remove those who break our laws by coming here illegally.
 
Excellent summary. And of course that is what President Trump was saying--in typical Trump speak--when he is portrayed as saying he 'doesn't know whether he has to follow the Constitution.' He of course was saying his attorneys who are no doubt researching this same kind of information are advising him that he may not have to be bound for how the left, even judges, are interpreting the Constitution/law/precedent whatever. That other precedent may indeed give him full license to remove those who break our laws by coming here illegally.
Heard something last night where Justice Kagan had said these justices can't thwart the presidents actions to run out the clock.
Pretty sure it was Ingraham.
 
Due process is for people legally present in the United States. People who are not here legally may be removed and returned to their own country on that basis alone.
As I learned from Rawley, your contention is accurate except for the time limit of two years.


If illegal alien is caught on our side of the border as he illegally enters, he gets all but immediately returned. Almost no questions asked. And practically zero delay.

Switch up the time frame. Make it so that the illegal alien is here for a bit longer but less than two years. Guess what? Yep! He or she still gets only that opportunity to speak to an immigration officer.

See ya!

But that’s where the line is drawn. Come here illegally and remain here illegally for over two years, that rule no longer pertains
 
Due process is for people legally present in the United States. People who are not here legally may be removed and returned to their own country on that basis alone.
That’s not what the Constitution says

It’s also not what the Supreme Court says

Not that Trumpers care about either
 
That’s not what the Constitution says

It’s also not what the Supreme Court says

Not that Trumpers care about either
What US due process rights does an alien outside of our borders get?

Inside our borders, for something like a criminal proceeding, it is true that even an illegal alien is accorded our due process rights.

But for legal or illegal aliens, the Constitutionally protected right to vote doesn’t exist at all.

Put more directly, Letch, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
 
That’s not what the Constitution says

It’s also not what the Supreme Court says
So how was it Billy Boy Clinton got away with it in 93% of his deportations?

Not at all. Trump’s actions are illegal.
That hasn't been determined yet.
 
Actually once you cross the border without the express permission of border patrol you have created a crime. You are a criminal. Thus you are not allowed a trial you can be deported. If you have been here illegally for years you can be given just a two minute interview and then deported.
That being said the democrat cult wants as many illegals as possible in the country, if for no other reason so that they can convince illegals children that Republicans are more then willing to deport their parents and they are not.
 
Back
Top Bottom