Merged Due process in the US

[Hercules56]

There are plenty of people who believe they should at least be punished. As for deported, that depends on who you ask, of course. As mentioned, there are people in the Republican party right now who advocate the deportation of native born American citizens for their political opinions, and the current ICE is using racial profiling that results in the harassment of native Americans. Not all of these things have been initiated by the president himself, but he has been quite silent when it comes to disavowing them.

Obviously we differ on how we regard our current administration. I believe Trump and his minions are not just wrong, stupid and incompetent, but intentionally cruel. You may well disagree, but I think he is not only a criminal but a bully who takes visible pleasure in the suffering of those he considers his enemies, that we have yet to see the full impact of his delusions, and that every time we think it can't get any worse it does.

This may surprise you but I have never voted for Trump, and I look forward to his impeachment or removal by military coup.

That said, I think this topic needs to be discussed and understood accurately and factually. Not compromised with emotion or hyperbole or exaggeration.

 

[bruto]

Oh, there you go again.

yes, there I go again. So do you think there are clear rules that do not appear to you? So, do you think permanent residents should enjoy the full protection of the laws and of constitutional rights, or not? The constitution is pretty explicit on this. Can you not be?

 

[Hercules56]

yes, there I go again. So do you think there are clear rules that do not appear to you? So, do you think permanent residents should enjoy the full protection of the laws and of constitutional rights, or not? The constitution is pretty explicit on this. Can you not be?

What does the constitution specifically say about rights with regard to permanent residents vs persons here with a Visa?

 

[Darat]

Trump revives push to denaturalize US citizens

Trump ordered his administration to devote resources to investigating naturalized US citizens

www.usatoday.com

...snip...

That's about five minutes' worth of searching. I don't like the way things are developing. Maybe you do. I don't.

I know two he could revoke straightaway - both came to the TSA* and worked illegally before seeking naturalism...



*Executive order 666 - the United States of America will be forevermore known as Trump^®© States of America.

 

[Hercules56]

I know two he could revoke straightaway - both came to the TSA* and worked illegally before seeking naturalism...



*Executive order 666 - the United States of America will be forevermore known as Trump^®© States of America.

Yeah but they never said something naughty against Israel, so they're kosher.

 

[bruto]

What does the constitution specifically say about rights with regard to permanent residents vs persons here with a Visa?

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Note that for the most part the Constitution refers to "the people" and not the citizens, and the 14th amendment, although in this case it refers to states rather than the Federal government, refers to "any person" being entitled to the equal protection of the laws. I am fairly certain that the assumption here is that the Federal government already provides those protections, rather than the likely pettifogging pecksniffian presumption that it means the opposite.

Obviously, there is precedent for the notion that persons not admitted as permanent residents are subject to the possibility of deportation, but I see none that this precludes basic rights, including due process, free speech, search and seizure, and whatnot. Current practices, such as forcibly bundling a person into an unmarked vehicle, detaining them and expelling them without specific charges or recourse do not, I think, correspond with that notion.

 

[Hercules56]

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Note that for the most part the Constitution refers to "the people" and not the citizens, and the 14th amendment, although in this case it refers to states rather than the Federal government, refers to "any person" being entitled to the equal protection of the laws. I am fairly certain that the assumption here is that the Federal government already provides those protections, rather than the likely pettifogging pecksniffian presumption that it means the opposite.

Obviously, there is precedent for the notion that persons not admitted as permanent residents are subject to the possibility of deportation, but I see none that this precludes basic rights, including due process, free speech, search and seizure, and whatnot. Current practices, such as forcibly bundling a person into an unmarked vehicle, detaining them and expelling them without specific charges or recourse do not, I think, correspond with that notion.

And there we have it.

Due Process if for anyone legally in the USA. Even on a tourist or education visa.

I fully concur with this.

I still think there should be some activities that visa holders could engage in that would mean deportation, but they should of course have Due Process to defend themselves before a judge. I never said folks on a visa should not have Due Process.

 

[bruto]

And there we have it.

Due Process if for anyone legally in the USA. Even on a tourist or education visa.

I fully concur with this.

I still think there should be some activities that visa holders could engage in that would mean deportation, but they should of course have Due Process to defend themselves before a judge. I never said folks on a visa should not have Due Process.

We're in agreement on that. I think also that equal protection under the law should apply to the other rights people legally in the country enjoy, which includes freedom of speech in both the limitation and breadth that exist there. I do not think, for example, that a foreign student should fear deportation for speech, especially when, as is now the case, the criterion for what constitutes forbidden speech cannot be known beforehand.

 

[Hercules56]

We're in agreement on that. I think also that equal protection under the law should apply to the other rights people legally in the country enjoy, which includes freedom of speech in both the limitation and breadth that exist there. I do not think, for example, that a foreign student should fear deportation for speech, especially when, as is now the case, the criterion for what constitutes forbidden speech cannot be known beforehand.

Like I said before, if we are going to deport students or tourists or workers for voicing support for a group listed as a terrorist or enemy state we have declared war with, the policy cannot be enforced retroactively and all visa recipients must be given documentation making them aware of this policy before they come here.

 

[theprestige]

My question is: who is checking the X feed and Facebook feed and Instagram feed of the 1.1 million foreign students in the USA to find a post that may be pro-Hamas or Hezbollah or ISIS?

Seems like a reasonable compromise would be to simply check the history of any foreign students detained during a protest or similar.

 

[Hercules56]

Seems like a reasonable compromise would be to simply check the history of any foreign students detained during a protest or similar.

I'd bet most of these students getting deported or arrested by ICE were never arrested or detained due to a protest. Looks like snitches are ratting them out.

 

[johnny karate]

Cute.

Of course you are completely aware that the first amendment is not absolute.

There are lots of things we cannot say or publish, without legal consequences.

Not only are those things specific and codified in black letter law, they do not create a pretense for any and all abuses of the First Amendment based on nebulous justifications.

 

[johnny karate]

It's perhaps worth noting that the US has long had rather strict immigration policy that prevents many from being allowed to come in the first place. What Hercules56 said isn't actually out of line from what already existed beforehand, at last check. Whether that's right or wrong is another matter, sure, but the ongoing state of affairs is worthy of consideration in the conversation.

Well, previous state of affairs, at least. The Trump Administration is additionally making numerous horrible things happen to the completely innocent, much less everyone else, and massively wasting taxpayer dollars overall (amounts that dwarf any potential "savings" from cutting DEI positions, on a quick check). For example -

I’m the Canadian who was detained by Ice for two weeks. It felt like I had been kidnapped
I was stuck in a freezing cell without explanation despite eventually having lawyers and media attention. Yet, compared with others, I was lucky

Fair point, but preventing people from coming into this country because they do not pass the vetting process is entirely different from secretly revoking their legal status and then renditioning them.

 

[johnny karate]

Seems like a reasonable compromise would be to simply check the history of any foreign students detained during a protest or similar.

And if there's one thing an authoritarian government is known for is reasonable compromise.

 

[bruto]

Like I said before, if we are going to deport students or tourists or workers for voicing support for a group listed as a terrorist or enemy state we have declared war with, the policy cannot be enforced retroactively and all visa recipients must be given documentation making them aware of this policy before they come here.

That seems reasonable said that way. I just must reiterate that this is not what is now happening, and not what our current administration and its supporters are recommending. Where the line might be drawn in issues, for example, between supporting Palestinians and supporting Hamas itself, has not been well drawn, I think, and it sounded earlier in this thread as if you were pretty OK with the ambiguity, and with the expulsion of students or non-permanent visitors who have guessed wrong. Perhaps I just don't fear foreigners protesting on our soil as much as some do. I think our soil grows weeds more rampant and noxious, and more deserving of our fears.

In any case, I believe that many people are too sanguine about the direction we are headed in as a nation. We keep thinking things are too stupid or too unreasonable or too illegal actually to happen, and they keep happening. We now have a president who is openly talking about finagling a third term, openly threatening to invade Greenland, openly promoting the epidemic deaths of children in preventable epidemics, etc etc. And the current trend toward throwing out, or threatening to throw out, those who disagree with the president is ominous.

As for theprestige's suggestion of checking the records of students detained during protests, that would be a step in the right direction, but the presumption that protesting should be cause for detention seems considerably less so.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And there we have it.

Due Process if for anyone legally in the USA. Even on a tourist or education visa.

I fully concur with this.

I still think there should be some activities that visa holders could engage in that would mean deportation, but they should of course have Due Process to defend themselves before a judge. I never said folks on a visa should not have Due Process.

Of course stripping anyone from due process strips everyone from due process. With out due process how can anyone ever prove they are a citizen after all.

 

[bruto]

Obviously what protections exist for those not legally in the US is still a gray area. We generally presume that, since they are not legally here, we should need no complex legal mechanism to throw them out. Unfortunately our current administration has blurred even that distinction in some cases by cancelling their legality after the fact, and denying due process even when they have followed the rules. But apart from examples of wrongdoing by either party, there remains a question of what protections should and should not exist, and what due process is appropriate. No matter how illegal you are, I think it reasonable to presume you are protected by some basic laws. At least so far it is not OK for just anyone to murder, rape, rob or enslave an illegal immigrant. At least, not yet. And if there is not at least some semblance of due process for everyone, we run the risk (according to some already past being just a risk) that people wrongly assumed to be illegal will be mistreated and exiled from their own country without recourse.

How you perceive this may depend a little on who you are, what you are, and what you fear. Some people live in an atmosphere of micro-aggression where their right to be where they are or to do what they do is always in question, and I don't think the trend is positive here. I have always been proud and happy to live in a society where I do not have to prove anything to anyone, pass checkpoints or carry papers. Of course, I'm male and white in New England, so no surprise there. Not everyone has that privilege. I think they should, and that the existential benefit is worth the price.

I think some of this comes down to a common and recurring moral dilemma. Whenever we have some rule, good or bad, someone somewhere will find a way to abuse it. Every attempt to set a law or a rule or a standard is likely to involve some unintended consequences and collateral damage. A generous rule will inevitably end up with some people taking too much, and a regressive rule will inevitably end up with some people falling by the wayside. What we choose depends in part on what you want your character to be, and in part on whether you believe the common weal can tolerate being the victim of excessive generosity better than a few individuals can tolerate being the victims of injustice.

We read accounts of billionaires seeking immortality, and setting up enclaves where they can survive when the rest of the world blows up. Survivalists and feckless procreators convinced that they and their squadron of entitled bastards will ascend and rule the ruins. I think their egotistical madness has infected our view of what is important, a blindered, us-against-the-world fortress mentality. There's plenty to fear, for sure, and some of the fears we're sold are not entirely made up, but I think we as a nation have been bamboozled into fearing the wrong things the most.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Obviously what protections exist for those not legally in the US is still a gray area. We generally presume that, since they are not legally here, we should need no complex legal mechanism to throw them out.

So shipping people out of the US shouldn't require due process. What should then, I mean clearly they can throw citizens out by just stripping them of their citizenship and deporting them. That doesn't require due process either. Not requireing due process is how citizens get deported by "Mistake"

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Let's keep in mind that it isn't Trump doing most of these things - mostly because he doesn't understand any of it.
It's Stephen Millers' Frankstein-like brainchild that very clearly wants a two-tier justices system, with no due process for anyone but Loyalists; no Judges, no Elections, a country ruled by Trump through ICE.

So even if someone thinks (for whatever reason) that Trump isn't all bad, they should consider if they think the same of Stephen Miller.

 

[malbui]

Of course stripping anyone from due process strips everyone from due process. With out due process how can anyone ever prove they are a citizen after all.

I’m reminded of the exchange in "A Man for All Seasons" where More argues with Roper in favour of the rule of law, even if prosecuting the devil himself.

Personally, as a reasonably frequent visitor to the USA from Europe, I’d like to hope that at some point between kidnapped on the street and being bundled onto a flight to Central America I’d get to speak to a judge and clear a few things up.