Could You Protest People Please Stop Getting Hurt?

@ElwoodBlues 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, heck if you can read that far 6th and 8th amendments too. I support the peaceful exercise of all of them.

Which amendments cover preventing law enforcement from making a felony arrest? You didn't cover that one... Do you have a clever emoji fot that one?

@ElwoodBlues Those who claim that non-citizens referred to in our nation’s immigration laws as aliens are entitled to the full panoply of constitutional rights enjoyed by American citizens are flatly wrong and failed to differentiate between criminal prosecutions and immigration proceedings, the latter of which are civil proceedings. As provided by Congress and by some court decisions interpreting the Constitution. Aliens have only limited due process rights in immigration proceedings. Quite limited. Those rates differ depending on the alien status and whether he or she is outside the United States and trying to enter this country already in the country legally or illegally. In fact, several federal immigration statutes, specifically bar aliens from even asserting certain claims in federal courts. Federal courts, assuming jurisdiction over such claims by aliens, are violating federal law, and any orders they issue ought to be declared void or invalid by an appellate court. Now, regardless of their legal status, aliens, a.k.a. foreigners, are entitled to the same constitutional due process rights provided to criminal defense criminal who are citizens when they are being criminally prosecuted for assault, rape, burglary, kidnapping, murder or other crimes. However, immigration proceedings to barring aliens entry are to remove or deport. That is, deport and remove are synonymous in federal immigration law. An alien present inside the United States are not criminal proceedings. As the Supreme Court first outlined in 1893 in Fung you ting versus us a decision in which it rejected habeas corpus petitions filed by Chinese citizens who claimed they were being unlawfully detained by U.S. Marshals, quote, without due process of law, unquote. The immigration proceeding is in no proper sense a trial and sentence for a crime or offense. It is simply the ascertainment by appropriate and lawful means of the fact, whether the conditions exist upon which Congress has enacted, that an alien of this particular class may remain within the country. The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which the government of the nation, acting within its constitutional authority and through the proper departments, has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend. On what? On what? It shall depend, I should say. That’s the court’s decision in 1893. And the court added an alien being removed by the government is not being deprived of life, liberty or property. I’m quoting from the decision and that the provisions of the Constitution securing the right to trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments, therefore have no application of any kind. Now, that is also why federal immigration officers do not need a warrant issued by a judge before arresting and detaining aliens. And why aliens are not entitled to be advised of their Miranda rights or to the assistance of a government appointed lawyer during their deportation proceedings. That’s a 1966 Supreme Court decision, Miranda versus Arizona. You may have heard of it. The Supreme Court held that under the Fifth Amendment due process, criminal defendants must be warned that they have a right to be silent, that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law, that they are entitled to an attorney, and that if they cannot afford an attorney, one has to be appointed by the government to represent them before they can be questioned. The fact that the removal process is a civil proceeding was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2010 and Padilla versus Kentucky. Miranda has nothing to do with it. Civil proceeding. The court held on that case that a criminal defense attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel when he misinformed his client, a permanent resident alien charged with transporting drugs of the possible immigration consequences of pleading guilty. Now, while that guilty plea in his criminal prosecution made his deportation virtually mandatory under federal immigration law, the court noted it had long recognized that deportation is particularly severe penalty, but it is not, in a strict sense, a criminal sanction. The court emphasized that removal proceedings are civil in nature.

@sunsporter1649
(1) I bet you didn't even read that Heritage Foundation quote you posted.
(2) Miranda vs Arizona does NOT deny due process to non-citizens; it simply distinguishes between civil and criminal cases.
(3) Numerous SCOTUS cases prove the claim false. See below. Yeah, I know you can't read this, sunstroke, and I don't have the patience to spoon-feed it to you.

The US Constitution says Notice the language. The "deprivation" doesn't distinguish between criminal and civil deprivation. Due process still applies.

Any person dude, that means every human being in the US gets due process including criminals, "illegal aliens" etc etc. In fact, if you remove the scare words from sunstroke's post, that's exactly what the judge is saying.

Need to see what SCOTUS has ruled??

Here's a bit more from Mathews v. Diaz 1976 including citations of prior rulings.

Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.

Thank you, SCOTUS for being clear, unambiguous, and leaving zero wiggle room.

@ElwoodBlues The court has emphasized that removal proceedings are civil in nature. US versus Lopez Mendoza in 1984. Stick with me. And these Democrat judges said, aliens are not even entitled to the protection of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. Article one, Section nine, Clause three provides that no ex post facto law shall be passed by Congress. That is after the fact Law XPO Factor laws impose criminal punishments on conduct that was lawful when it was done in 1954 in a case involving the deportation of an alien who’d been a member of the Communist Party before, such membership had been a deportable offense. The Supreme Court held that, It has been the unbroken rule of this court that the ex post facto clause has no application for deportation. Why raise your hand? Because it’s a civil proceeding against an alien. Galvin versus Press, 1954. The Alien was a member of the Communist Party from 1944 to 46, and membership in the Communist Party was not made a deportable offense until Congress passed the Internal Security Act in 1950. Aliens also cannot claim selective prosecution when they are contesting removal. 1999 Reno versus American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. The court ruled that an alien unlawfully in this country has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation. So the due process rights in civil immigration proceedings are very limited as outlined and defined by Congress and federal immigration laws and the procedural rules promulgated by an attorney general for the conduct of federal immigration proceedings. In addition, federal immigration courts are not Article three courts in which judges must be confirmed by the Senate, their bureaucrats. They are administrative courts within the Department of Justice. We call them immigration judges. They’re not federal judges at all. In fact, I would argue they’re not judges at all. They are employees of the Department of Justice or selected by the attorney general and who act as the attorney general’s delegates in the cases that come before them. So when you hear about an immigration judge, these are bureaucrats appointed by an attorney general who work in and for the Department of Justice.

@sunsporter1649
(1) I bet you didn't read that one either😂🤣
(2) Due process applies to both civil and criminal proceedings.

Google quickly turns up a laundry list of cases where SCOTUS said due process applies to civil cases.

Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950): the bank violated due process in it's weak notification of settlement beneficiaries.

Goldberg v. Kelly (1970): Required an evidentiary hearing (due process) before terminating welfare benefits, highlighting the need for fairness when significant property interests are at stake.

Mathews v. Eldridge (1976): Introduced the balancing test to assess procedural fairness, balancing private interests, error risk, and government interests.

Daniels v. Williams (1986): Clarified that simple negligence isn't enough for a constitutional due process violation; a higher mental state (like intent or recklessness) is usually needed for deprivation of liberty/property.

In short, SCOTUS has ruled that due process is required in civil cases, focusing on preventing unfair government action by ensuring individuals get notice and a chance to contest deprivations of their rights or property.

@ElwoodBlues Not to a Federal judge, to an immigration judge, you forgot to mention. Aliens have only limited due process rights in immigration proceedings. Quite limited. Those rates differ depending on the alien status and whether he or she is outside the United States and trying to enter this country already in the country legally or illegally. In fact, several federal immigration statutes, specifically bar aliens from even asserting certain claims in federal courts. Now, regardless of their legal status, aliens, a.k.a. foreigners, are entitled to the same constitutional due process rights provided to criminal defense criminal who are citizens when they are being criminally prosecuted for assault, rape, burglary, kidnapping, murder or other crimes. However, immigration proceedings to barring aliens entry are to remove or deport. That is, deport and remove are synonymous in federal immigration law. An alien present inside the United States are not criminal proceedings. As the Supreme Court first outlined in 1893 in Fung you ting versus us a decision in which it rejected habeas corpus petitions filed by Chinese citizens who claimed they were being unlawfully detained by U.S. Marshals, quote, without due process of law, unquote. The immigration proceeding is in no proper sense a trial and sentence for a crime or offense. It is simply the ascertainment by appropriate and lawful means of the fact, whether the conditions exist upon which Congress has enacted, that an alien of this particular class may remain within the country. The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which the government of the nation, acting within its constitutional authority and through the proper departments, has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend.

@sunsporter1649 I have cited SCOTUS every time. Didn't you know that SCOTUS overrules every other judge???

And I have cited far more recent cases than 1893 Fung You Ting. Old racist cases like that can get overturned in six generations!!

@sunsporter1649 I get it, your reading comprehension is minimal. I'll try one more time.

Your argument rests on the ancient 1893 Fung You Ting case. I've cited FOUR more recent SCOTUS cases (1950, 1970, 1976, 1986), ALL of which grant due process in civil cases.

I don't need any attorneys because your 1893 case has been THOROUGHLY overruled.

@ElwoodBlues The fact that the removal process is a civil proceeding was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2010 in the Padilla versus Kentucky case. Civil proceeding.

The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which the government of the nation, acting within its constitutional authority and through the proper departments, has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend.

@sunsporter1649 Due process applies in CIVIL immigration cases.

Source: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/immigration/immig_west/E.%20Due%20Process%20in%20Immigration%20Proceedings.htm

The only exclusions from the above are for those who have never technically “entered” the United States. Shaughnessy v. United States 1953

@ElwoodBlues Yup, due process from an immigration judge, who is an employee of the government, not a Federal judge. Immigration proceedings to barring aliens entry are to remove or deport. That is, deport and remove are synonymous in federal immigration law.

@sunsporter1649 Sorry, I can't parse that word salad. Regardless, due process applies in CIVIL immigration cases. Here's some MORE case law!!

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/immigration/immig_west/E.%20Due%20Process%20in%20Immigration%20Proceedings.htm

@ElwoodBlues Really simple reading, reguardless of your confusion.

Yup, due process from an immigration judge, who is an employee of the government, not a Federal judge.

Immigration proceedings to barring aliens entry are to remove or deport. That is, deport and remove are synonymous in federal immigration law.

@sunsporter1649 Individuals involved in deportation or removal proceedings have due process rights. Your 1893 case, on which your argument rests, has been THOROUGHLY overruled.

Here's STILL MORE case law for ya!!
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/immigration/immig_west/E.%20Due%20Process%20in%20Immigration%20Proceedings.htm

@ElwoodBlues Yup, due process from an immigration judge, who is an employee of the government, not a Federal judge.

Immigration proceedings to barring aliens entry are to remove or deport. That is, deport and remove are synonymous in federal immigration law.

@sunsporter1649 And mountains of case law say aliens within our borders are entitled to the Fifth Amendment’s requirement of due process.


Like when ICE rushes a detainee out of state and then says they don't know where the person is. That denies a full and fair hearing.

@ElwoodBlues Yup, due process from an immigration judge, who is an employee of the government, not a Federal judge.

Immigration proceedings to barring aliens entry are to remove or deport. That is, deport and remove are synonymous in federal immigration law.



Ask the right person and you will find out where the illegal aliens are located

@sunsporter1649 Among other things, finding a detainee requires that ICE correctly enter names and other personal information. It doesn't always work.

@ElwoodBlues Ask the right person and you will find out where the illegal aliens are located

@sunsporter1649 You've never heard of Habeas Corpus?? See Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution.

It's the job of the government to keep track of where they're putting prisoners, and to inform representatives of the prisoner when asked. If the government can't answer the question, it's a Habeas Corpus violation.

And if the government is using “expedited removal” to prevent any judicial hearing, it's a due process violation.

BTW, I notice you're no longer denying that deportation cases have the protections of due process. That's a step in the right direction.

@ElwoodBlues Great, wonderful, you are also advocating increasing the number of CBP personnel to do more data entry at the detention centers so the prossessing and recording and deportating of illegal alien criminals can proceed faster. Great news.

Yup, the removal of criminal illegal aliens should be overseen by a immigration judge, who is aware of the law, not some Federal judge anaware of immigration law and the limitations of the illegal aliens. And of course you are aware of those limitations, yet insist on clogging up the federal court system with civil cases, thereby delaying the deportation of criminal illegal aliens and the release of criminal illegal aliens into to the community by some States, thereby increasing the risk of American citizens to crime, which is totally illogical

@sunsporter1649 says I'm advocating upholding our U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights; nothing more and nothing less.

I'm sorry that you believe upholding our U.S. Constitution is too onerous for the tRump admin.

BTW, I notice you're no longer denying that deportation cases have the protections of due process. That's a step in the right direction.

@ElwoodBlues I believe there is something about protecting citizens from all enimies foreign and domestic somewhere in The Constutation, correct me if I am wrong.

Yup, due process by immigration judges, criminal illegal aliens fall into a different catagory, which you acknowledge. Which begs the question why you are so adament about releasing criminal illegal aliens into the community to creat crime against American citizens

@sunsporter1649 says NOPE!! WRONG!!! Guess again!!!!
The closest it comes is "provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, ..." Oh, right, you guys HATE that part about the general welfare🤣😂

As I said at the start, aliens still get due process. See Mathews v. Diaz 1976 including citations of prior rulings.