No due process for illegals???

[dblack]

Ah. You're trolling.
Buhbye.

No. I'm making cogent arguments. But I can see how you might not be able to tell the difference.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No we need due process to determine if they are illegal

But what is due process, it can be as simple as a immigrant officer reviewing their file

USA

 

[BackAgain]

For all our liberal pals who claim that we are in any way denying legal aliens due process, I ask the general question: yet again:

1. For an illegal alien in our nation, upon being caught and subject to any removal proceeding, exactly what “process” is due?

2. When you attempt to define what process you claim is due for any illegal alien facing a removal proceeding, what is your source for the contention about the process they are due? The Constituion? (Hint. The Constitution is silent on an illegal alien’s due process rights in any removal proceeding.). Or do they get only the “process” provided for by an Act of Congress?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So you think we should trash the Constitution because you don’t like what it says?

How very Trumpian

Wags Wearing Wigs

It's a manifesto for elitist tyranny, promoting all the horrible and ignorant politics of the 18th Century. Supporters treat it like Christofascists treat the Bible. Constitution-bangers are advocating either superstition or sacrilege.

 

[Delldude]

 

[BackAgain]

Wags Wearing Wigs

It's a manifesto for elitist tyranny, promoting all the horrible and ignorant politics of the 18th Century. Supporters treat it like Christofascists treat the Bible. Constitution-bangers are advocating either superstition or sacrilege.

You lose all your arguments when you insist on employing asshole terms like “Christofascists.”

Not at all “sage” of you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

For all our liberal pals who claim that we are in any way denying legal aliens due process, I ask the general question: yet again:
1. For an illegal alien in our nation, upon being caught and subject to any removal proceeding, exactly what “process” is due?

A DHS/ICE official reviews your situation and issues a removal order.
No judge, no lawyer, no appeal.
Been that way since 1996.

2. When you attempt to define what process you claim is due for any illegal alien facing a removal proceeding, what is your source for the contention about the process they are due?

"ORANGEMANBAD!!! ORANGEMANBAD!!!"

 

[the watcher]

I got yer doo process. Video/Pic: Illegal immigrant released after killing victim while drunk driving

 

[skye]

I remember!

 

[Captain Caveman]

Nothing has been conflated. Trump defense syndrome is a real problem.

Through IM2's glasses -

Obama did it

Clinton did it

Trump did it

 

[dblack]

Through IM2's glasses -

Obama did it

Clinton did it

Trump did it

And for Rs:

Obama did it

Clinton did it

Trump did it


You guys flip back and forth so fast I can't keep up.

 

[Captain Caveman]

And for Rs:

Obama did it

Clinton did it

Trump did it


You guys flip back and forth so fast I can't keep up.

You need to stop hijacking posts and try to think for yourself.

 

[dblack]

You need to stop hijacking posts and try to think for yourself.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Think for yourself, stop sponging off others. You will realise that when you leave school and enter the big world.

 

[Hollie]

You’re not deporting people. You’re trafficking them.

Nonsense. Trafficking was a function of the democrats who enabled their cartels.

 

[Marener]

Nonsense. Trafficking was a function of the democrats who enabled their cartels.

Nonsense. Trafficking was a function of Republican governors.

 

[Flopper]

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.

How much "Due Process" is Actually Due

Everyone is talking "Due Process" with these removals--but how much is actually "Due"?

dannycevallos.substack.com

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

ballotpedia.org

I don't see how there can be any debate about due process applying to undocumented immigrants. The exact sentence in constitutions says, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Last time I checked an undocumented immigrant was a person.

The Supreme Court agreed and the US Court of appeal in 4 different cases agreed.

 

[Flopper]

As I learned from Rawley, your contention is accurate except for the time limit of two years.

Post in thread 'Due Process??'

May 1, 2025

Immigration “court” is a misnomer. It isn’t really a court.

Yes it is a court.

Immigration Court Information

www.justice.gov

But, if an illegal alien )here less than two years) challenges an immigration officer’s conclusion, then the illegal alien can go to “Court.”.

Of course, if the procedure is actually different, I’d like to see the cite.

(ii) No entitlement to hearings and appeals. Except as otherwise provided in this section, such alien is not entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge in proceedings conducted pursuant to section...

• Rawley

• 

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

Funny, the constitution doesn't say anything about being legal. It just says a person is entitle to due process.

It's actually very important that the court determines what is legal, not a law enforcement officer. ICE is under constant pressure to deport as many people as possible as soon as possible. Quotas are important.

Immigration court was the safety factor that insures we deport the right people. However that has all changed. The purpose an immigration judge today is to sign deportation orders.

 

[Flopper]

Funny, the constitution doesn't say anything about being legal. It just says a person is entitle to due process.

It's actually very important that the court determines what is legal, not a law enforcement officer. ICE is under constant pressure to deport as many people as possible as soon as possible. Quotas are important.

Immigration court was the safety factor that insures we deport the right people. However that has all changed. The purpose an immigration judge today is to sign deportation orders.

Under Trump the expedited removal has no limitation on time period or distance. Anyone in US can be detained anytime, anywhere. Upon detention, the person is allowed to speak with an immigration agent which has become just another ICE agent. If the detainee claims he has proof of citizenship or documentation and the agent believes him, the agent may delay his deportation a few days so a family member or friend can produce the document. There is no right to make phone calls, or contact an attorney. Everything depends on pressure to deport, number available agents, and number detainees.

I believe it is very likely people who were legally in the US got deported and that includes US citizens. Without some form of due process there is just not enough safeguards against deporting the wrong people.

 

[BackAgain]

Funny, the constitution doesn't say anything about being legal. It just says a person is entitle to due process.

It's actually very important that the court determines what is legal, not a law enforcement officer. ICE is under constant pressure to deport as many people as possible as soon as possible. Quotas are important.

Immigration court was the safety factor that insures we deport the right people. However that has all changed. The purpose an immigration judge today is to sign deportation orders.

Again, for you and other confused individuals, the question is always, under the circumstances, “what process is due?”