Exactly how show illlegal aliens should be treated legally in the US
A SW friend provided by with an excellent link to a Duke 2012 research article on this topic.
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3856/
Excellent research. The habeas procedure fills in many gaps including illegal aliens. It prevents illegal aliens from having no rights but not the same exact rights US citizens. All rights be they due process or habeas require notice. That is the issue in these illegals alien situations. Whether they received notice of habeas rights. That’s why the SCOTUS put a pause of the illegal alien evictions, to find out whether a procedure exists for notice of habeas rights and also for courts to have procedures where an illegal alien might contend receiving no habeas notice. The USSR now Russia and China and others provide zero rights hence the Brittany Greiner and other hostage situations such as Hamas as well. We are more human like so we provide the habeas procedure to illegal aliens. They certainly do not merit the exact same due process rights as US citizens
HATS OFF TO @trollslayer for clearing this up
Publication Date
2012
Abstract
The writ of habeas corpus and the right to due process have long been linked together, but their relationship has never been more unsettled or important. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States detained hundreds of suspected terrorists who later brought legal challenges using the writ. In the first of the landmark Supreme Court cases addressing those detentions, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the plurality chiefly relied on the Due Process Clause to explain what procedures a court must follow. Scholars assumed due process would govern the area. Yet in Boumediene v. Bush, the Court did not take the due process path and instead held that the Suspension Clause extended habeas corpus process to noncitizen detainees at Guant ´ anamo Bay. Boumediene correctly grounded the analysis in the Suspension Clause, not the Due Process Clause. The Court held that the Suspension Clause demands a traditional habeas process, simply asking whether the detention is legally and factually authorized. This view challenges the set of standards that judges currently use in executive detention cases and also has implications for domestic habeas; it could ground innocence claims in the Suspension Clause. More broadly, this Suspension Clause theory reflects commonalities in the structure of statutes and case law regulating habeas corpus across its array of applications to executive detention and postconviction review. Habeas review now plays a far more central role in the complex regulation of detention than scholars predicted, because habeas review does not depend on underlying due process rights. A judge instead focuses on whether a detention is authorized. As a result, habeas review can inversely play its most crucial role when prior process is inadequate. Put simply, the Suspension Clause can ensure that habeas corpus begins where due process ends.
Citation
Brandon L. Garrett, Habeas Corpus and Due Process, 98 Cornell Law Review 47-126 (2012)
2012
Abstract
The writ of habeas corpus and the right to due process have long been linked together, but their relationship has never been more unsettled or important. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States detained hundreds of suspected terrorists who later brought legal challenges using the writ. In the first of the landmark Supreme Court cases addressing those detentions, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the plurality chiefly relied on the Due Process Clause to explain what procedures a court must follow. Scholars assumed due process would govern the area. Yet in Boumediene v. Bush, the Court did not take the due process path and instead held that the Suspension Clause extended habeas corpus process to noncitizen detainees at Guant ´ anamo Bay. Boumediene correctly grounded the analysis in the Suspension Clause, not the Due Process Clause. The Court held that the Suspension Clause demands a traditional habeas process, simply asking whether the detention is legally and factually authorized. This view challenges the set of standards that judges currently use in executive detention cases and also has implications for domestic habeas; it could ground innocence claims in the Suspension Clause. More broadly, this Suspension Clause theory reflects commonalities in the structure of statutes and case law regulating habeas corpus across its array of applications to executive detention and postconviction review. Habeas review now plays a far more central role in the complex regulation of detention than scholars predicted, because habeas review does not depend on underlying due process rights. A judge instead focuses on whether a detention is authorized. As a result, habeas review can inversely play its most crucial role when prior process is inadequate. Put simply, the Suspension Clause can ensure that habeas corpus begins where due process ends.
Citation
Brandon L. Garrett, Habeas Corpus and Due Process, 98 Cornell Law Review 47-126 (2012)
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3856/
Excellent research. The habeas procedure fills in many gaps including illegal aliens. It prevents illegal aliens from having no rights but not the same exact rights US citizens. All rights be they due process or habeas require notice. That is the issue in these illegals alien situations. Whether they received notice of habeas rights. That’s why the SCOTUS put a pause of the illegal alien evictions, to find out whether a procedure exists for notice of habeas rights and also for courts to have procedures where an illegal alien might contend receiving no habeas notice. The USSR now Russia and China and others provide zero rights hence the Brittany Greiner and other hostage situations such as Hamas as well. We are more human like so we provide the habeas procedure to illegal aliens. They certainly do not merit the exact same due process rights as US citizens
HATS OFF TO @trollslayer for clearing this up
