• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Due process in the US

I can't believe it's only just occurred to me but:

If Trump is using a legal fiction that the US is literally at war with MS-13, doesn't he have to treat its members as prisoners of war?

Or, since they're not in uniform and seemingly have no formalities like rank or serial number, can he just treat them as spies and shoot them? That would save a lot of time and money. Just execute a few tens of thousands of people out of hand and the problem is permanently solved. He could probably sell tickets to his fans. Not just to watch the executions but actually to be on the firing squad.
 
Hercules56 said:
Indictment says there was enough evidence to convince a Grand Jury. That evidence PLUS being here illegally should force your immigration court date.
Click to expand...
You said "they are arrested and charged with a crime" at that point and every point until a judge or jury makes a judgement that they are guilty they are innocent of what they are accused of - it is one of the fundamental foundations of the USA justice system.

(And even with a plea bargain and a defendant willing to plead guilty a judge must still determine that they are guilty of what they are accused of.)
 
Darat said:
You said "they are arrested and charged with a crime" at that point and every point until a judge or jury makes a judgement that they are guilty they are innocent of what they are accused of - it is one of the fundamental foundations of the USA justice system.

(And even with a plea bargain and a defendant willing to plead guilty a judge must still determine that they are guilty of what they are accused of.)
Click to expand...

Courts always take into account someone's arrest record. It should also play a part in deciding if someone should or should not be deported.
 
Hercules56 said:
Courts always take into account someone's arrest record. It should also play a part in deciding if someone should or should not be deported.
Click to expand...
And we should also deport citizens so we can get rid of career criminals like Earl Sampson. Constantly being arrested for trespassing and trying to argue that he was employed there. Exactly the kind of person we need to round up in this country and send to the camps.
 
Hercules56 said:
Indictment says there was enough evidence to convince a Grand Jury. That evidence PLUS being here illegally should force your immigration court date.
Click to expand...
A grand jury indictiment is not a conviction. A grand jury does not need unanimity. Federal felonies require a grand jury, but states have their own rules, and not all felonies require them. And of course misdemeanors do not.

To suggest that a person charged with a crime, and awaiting a hearing on sanctuary should be presumed both guilty of the crime without a trial, and ineligible for the hearing, is certainly efficient, but at the cost of justice.

There's a reason why trials still occur and why people are not presumed guilty when they are arrested or indicted. As for considering a person's arrest record, I think you should look a little deeper into the issue of what is admissible in a trial. Such evidence may well be considered in sentencing, but that is a different matter. With all due respect, I might add that in a time when we are seeing our supposed leaders utterly ignorant of the most basic laws and constitutional principles and duties, using fabricated evidence and rumor and wild threats of tyrannical abuse, the need is greater, not less, remembering too that "due process" is two words, not one.
 
bruto said:
To suggest that a person charged with a crime, and awaiting a hearing on sanctuary should be presumed both guilty of the crime without a trial, and ineligible for the hearing, is certainly efficient, but at the cost of justice.
Click to expand...

It's the kind of thinking that will certainly get the trains running on time..
 
bruto said:
A grand jury indictiment is not a conviction. A grand jury does not need unanimity. Federal felonies require a grand jury, but states have their own rules, and not all felonies require them. And of course misdemeanors do not.

To suggest that a person charged with a crime, and awaiting a hearing on sanctuary should be presumed both guilty of the crime without a trial, and ineligible for the hearing, is certainly efficient, but at the cost of justice.

There's a reason why trials still occur and why people are not presumed guilty when they are arrested or indicted. As for considering a person's arrest record, I think you should look a little deeper into the issue of what is admissible in a trial. Such evidence may well be considered in sentencing, but that is a different matter. With all due respect, I might add that in a time when we are seeing our supposed leaders utterly ignorant of the most basic laws and constitutional principles and duties, using fabricated evidence and rumor and wild threats of tyrannical abuse, the need is greater, not less, remembering too that "due process" is two words, not one.
Click to expand...
You forget the fact that non-citizens have NO RIGHT to be in this country.

We let them be here cause we are kind and generous.

They can be deported for ANY reason, or no reason at all.

However, if you have an arrest and indictment record, we dont have to be nice to you and let you stay here for years pending your immigration court date. We can speed up your court date and take into consideration your arrest record when deciding whether or not to send you home.
 
JayUtah said:
Same here. I have a passport but I don't carry it when I'm in the United States. If stopped on the street, I could not prove that I am a U.S. citizen.
Click to expand...

And if birthright citizenship gets overturned, it's going to be even harder. The claim is that you are not a citizen if at least one of your parents is here legally.

Can you prove that your parents were here legally when you were born? How do you know? Oh, they were born here. But were their parents here legally?

Can you provide the paperwork to prove that? How long will that take to do that? And can you do it from a foreign prison?
 
Hercules56 said:
You forget the fact that non-citizens have NO RIGHT to be in this country.

We let them be here cause we are kind and generous.

They can be deported for ANY reason, or no reason at all.

However, if you have an arrest and indictment record, we dont have to be nice to you and let you stay here for years pending your immigration court date. We can speed up your court date and take into consideration your arrest record when deciding whether or not to send you home.
Click to expand...

Or in this case "home" to a hellhole prison for an unlimited term. Because Trump is kind and generous.
 
Hercules56 said:
Indictment says there was enough evidence to convince a Grand Jury.
Click to expand...
The standard of proof for a grand jury is absurdly low. It tests only whether the claims made by the prosecutor amount to a legally complete charge, and therefore that the matter may proceed to the stage where the evidence presented can be challenged. Grand jury presentations are one-sided events. The defendant is not present or represented. No one challenges the evidence. It is the first step in due process for a criminal matter. But it is not sufficient to support an order to deny someone of life, liberty, or property. The presumption of innocence is still in force, even following an indictment by a grand jury.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
You forget the fact that non-citizens have NO RIGHT to be in this country.
Click to expand...
Asylum seekers have a right to be here while their claim is adjudicated.

Hercules56 said:
They can be deported for ANY reason, or no reason at all.
Click to expand...
No. Once we have agreed to let them stay while any petition for asylum, permanent residency, or citizenship is pending, that may not be revoked without due process.
 
JayUtah said:
...No. Once we have agreed to let them stay while any petition for asylum, permanent residency, or citizenship is pending, that may not be revoked without due process.
Click to expand...
That is based 100% on the following:

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

From the 5th Amendment.

What exactly does that mean?

It means no person in the USA may be imprisoned, executed, have their possessions seized, detained, without having the ability to challenge such actions in a court of law.

I am not yet convinced that being deported to your home country is a violation of Life, Liberty & Property.

Please make your case.
 
Darat said:
No it isn't, it's about civil matters as well as criminal matters.
Click to expand...
Correct. For other reasons, a person can be deprived of life or liberty generally only upon conviction in a criminal matter. But civil matters—including even relatively inconsequential civil enforcement matters—are still subject to due process. As a landlord, for example, I may receive a notification that my property is out of compliance with local ordinances or regulations, and I may be fined as a result. But those citations may be contested. I am entitled to hearing. I am entitled to bring counsel to that hearing. I am entitled to compel the production of evidence on the part of those challenging my compliance. In the end, I am not liable for any penalty that deprives me of property until I have challenged the claim before a trier of fact.

Similarly, when the government licenses or affords any activity or condition—such as the granting of parole to those initially found to be in the country without legal proof of citizenship or lawful entry—that may not be revoked except by due process. A government proposing to withdraw an affordance it has previously granted must give you an order to show cause why it should not do so, and present you with the evidence according to which it proposes to render that decision. And it must provide a hearing before a competent judge to allow you to actually show cause and to contest the government's claim.

The notion that due process does not apply to certain people, or to people in certain legally recognized circumstances, or only for certain kinds of matters that preclude or overturn a previously afforded status, is pure right-wing gibberish.
 
JayUtah said:
Correct. For other reasons, a person can be deprived of life or liberty generally only upon conviction in a criminal matter. But civil matters—including even relatively inconsequential civil enforcement matters—are still subject to due process. As a landlord, for example, I may receive a notification that my property is out of compliance with local ordinances or regulations, and I may be fined as a result. But those citations may be contested. I am entitled to hearing. I am entitled to bring counsel to that hearing. I am entitled to compel the production of evidence on the part of those challenging my compliance. In the end, I am not liable for any penalty that deprives me of property until I have challenged the claim before a trier of fact.

Similarly, when the government licenses or affords any activity or condition—such as the granting of parole to those initially found to be in the country without legal proof of citizenship or lawful entry—that may not be revoked except by due process. A government proposing to withdraw an affordance it has previously granted must give you an order to show cause why it should not do so, and present you with the evidence according to which it proposes to render that decision. And it must provide a hearing before a competent judge to allow you to actually show cause and to contest the government's claim.

The notion that due process does not apply to certain people, or to people in certain legally recognized circumstances, or only for certain kinds of matters that preclude or overturn a previously afforded status, is pure right-wing gibberish.
Click to expand...
Please explain why you feel deportation to your home country is a violation of Life, Liberty and Property.
 
Hercules56 said:
Right to be here? No.

We have agreed to let them be here.
Click to expand...
Because it's the law, the Refugee Act of 1980 (8 U.S.C. § 1158).

Hercules56 said:
They have to such right. ONLY citizens have a right to be here.
Click to expand...
No. Citizens have an irrevocable right to be here. But others have a right to be here under various laws. And those laws provide for what the due process must be if the government proposes to revoke that right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom