@
BizSuitStacy You're wrong period.
Due Process Clauses protect “persons,” not just citizens, and they apply in civil as well as criminal contexts, including immigration proceedings
Key legal pointsThe Fifth Amendment says “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and the Fourteenth Amendment similarly protects all “persons,” not just citizens.
Courts and major legal organizations are explicit that this includes non‑citizens, even undocumented immigrants, so they are entitled to fair treatment and a chance to defend themselves.
Due process is not limited to criminal law; it’s about any government action that can deprive someone of liberty or property, including civil actions like terminating benefits, child custody, and deportation.
Immigration removal and most deportation matters are formally “civil,” but that does not erase due process protections; noncitizens generally must be given notice, a hearing before an immigration judge, and a chance to present evidence and challenge the government’s case.
Legal sources explain that due process in civil immigration proceedings may be more limited than in criminal prosecutions, but it still exists and cannot be eliminated simply by labeling a proceeding “civil.”
The Supreme Court and constitutional commentary note that noncitizens physically present in the U.S. “come under the protective scope of the Due Process Clause” and are recognized as persons guaranteed due process of law.
Concrete ways rights are being violated:Expedited removal:
The expanded fast‑track deportation system lets immigration officers deport people with little or no hearing before a judge, which legal experts describe as creating “tension” with and undermining due process protections.
Courts have already found specific uses of expedited removal against certain parolees unlawful, noting that people who “played by the rules” are being summarily removed contrary to statutory protections.
Courthouse arrests and case dismissals:
DHS and ICE have been dismissing immigrants’ active court cases and then arresting them at or outside courthouses, shunting them into fast‑track removal in a way advocates say violates statutory rights to a full removal hearing and basic fairness.
Lawsuits describe this as “weaponizing” immigration courts and turning hearings into traps that chill people from exercising their legal rights.
Blocking access to lawyers:
An ACLU report documents systemic barriers in ICE detention—no scheduled attorney calls, expensive monitored phone calls, delayed legal mail, and denial of confidential visits—making it nearly impossible for many detained immigrants to communicate with counsel.
Because representation hugely affects outcomes (detained immigrants with lawyers are about 10 times more likely to win their cases), blocking access to counsel “renders” their due process rights “meaningless” in practice.
