@Ferise1 There is this new thing called "google" one can use to get an idea. But in case you do not know what google is, I went ahead and did some research, it took 10 seconds, and came up with this -
The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and includes several other rights in criminal and civil proceedings, including the right to a grand jury indictment, protection from double jeopardy, the right against self-incrimination (the right to remain silent, often called "pleading the Fifth"), and the requirement for the government to provide "just compensation" when taking private property for public use (the Takings Clause).
If someone is in the country illegally, they are subject to deportation. That is the process. That is due process. The alternative would be to have a trial for every illegal alien, bottle necking the already bottlenecked court system for years. There is a process for immigration, are you talking about immigrants, those who have legally immigrated and became citizens? Or are you talking about those who have immigrated illegally into the country?
During his presidency, Bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), a sweeping law that focused on increasing border enforcement and imposing harsher penalties for immigration violations. The act, which remains influential, made it easier to detain and deport immigrants, including legal residents, for a wide range of crimes
I do believe the current administration is following this act which prior administrating also followed
@pdockal you are obviously so smart, why don't you become a judge, or run for president. All you know how to do is attack others. he democrats have been trying to change the immigration laws. That almost happened last year with a bipartisan bill. Why did it fail after having huge bipartisan support?
AI Overview Yes, there was and continues to be significant controversy over the immigration laws signed by President Bill Clinton, particularly the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996. Critics contend these laws were overly punitive and led to the expansion of mass detention and deportation, with devastating consequences for immigrant families and due process. Key controversial provisions of the 1996 laws Expansion of deportable offenses: The laws dramatically expanded the types of crimes that could lead to deportation, applying retroactively to permanent residents, including green-card holders. The definition of "aggravated felony" was broadened to include a wide range of low-level offenses, making immigrants with such convictions subject to mandatory deportation. Mandatory detention: The acts established mandatory and prolonged detention for immigrants accused of certain crimes, removing discretion from immigration judges and officials. This led to an explosion in the number of people held in detention, often in privately run, for-profit facilities. Limited due process: For many cases, the laws eliminated key defenses against deportation and created fast-track procedures that allowed the government to deport people without a hearing before an immigration judge. For example, undocumented immigrants apprehended within 100 miles of the border could be subject to expedited removal. Bars to legal re-entry: IIRIRA created the "3- and 10-year bars" for those who had been unlawfully present in the U.S.. Immigrants who had lived in the country without authorization for more than 180 days were barred from returning for several years, a rule that often separated families. This made it far more difficult for unauthorized immigrants to gain legal status, even if they married a U.S. citizen. Increased border militarization: The legislation, along with the 1994 Crime Bill, funded a massive expansion of immigration enforcement, including thousands of new Border Patrol agents, new barriers, and surveillance technology. Critics point out this militarized approach did not stop irregular migration but made border crossings more deadly and forced immigrants into more dangerous routes. Driving forces and legacy The 1996 laws were a product of the "tough on crime" and anti-immigrant sentiment that prevailed at the time. Political motivation: With immigration becoming a hot-button issue in an election year, President Clinton signed the laws to project a "tough" stance on the issue. Long-term impact: Today, immigration advocates and even some former officials who supported the bills have acknowledged the devastating consequences. Critics from organizations like the ACLU and the Immigrant Defense Project argue that the laws laid the foundation for the current harsh immigration enforcement system and have called for them to be repealed or reformed.
Sentimentcan change, that is why governments change rules, but after consideration of the effects.
@pdockal I am not clueless. You are stuck in blind loyalty. Trump could nuke Portland and you would be making excuses.
The administration is breaking the law including the constitution, violating court orders and the list goes on.
And quit trying to blame Democrats for Trump's fascism. He is objectively not following any laws.
Again, the previous administration was not a lawless fascist regime that violated all laws including the constitution and invading American cities.
I am tired of lying Trump cultists pretending that a fascist, lawless band of thugs are following the law and just doing what everyone else did.
What laws are they violating?
The constitution for starters.
Posse Comitatus second.
illegal detention and cross border transport. Which is kidnapping and human trafficking.
arresting people without warrants and in violation of court orders.
Arresting and deporting legal immigrants.
arresting and detaining legal citizens without warrants.
shooting citizens for no reason.
Illegally shipping people to foreign concentration camps.
Opening domestic concentration camps.
Deporting people to random countries, some of them active warzones.
Also immigration is a civil matter, not criminal. And the punishment has to match the crime.
By your logic any crime justifies any punishment. If any punishment can be decided on the spot for a civil case by that logic it is okay to lock you up in ADX Florence for 50 years for parking ticket.
The law is not my opinion. The law is not whatever your feelings are about Trump either.
And you insist on lying about Clinton. No laws are being followed.
@samueltyler2 He will blindly follow anything MAGA does. If Trump nuked DC he would be making excuses justifying it and claiming it was a perfectly legal response to protest.
... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...
Any person dude, that means every human being in the US gets due process including criminals, "illegal aliens" etc etc.
Need to see what SCOTUS has ruled??
Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); see also Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976) ("There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 215 (1982) (holding that unlawfully present aliens were entitled to both due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment).
Here's a bit more from Mathews v. Diaz 1976 including citations of prior rulings.
There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 339 U. S. 48-51; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 163 U. S. 238; see Russian Fleet v. United States, 282 U. S. 481, 282 U. S. 489. Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection. Wong Yang Sung, supra; Wong Wing, supra.
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.
@Platinum touche, how did I change the subject? I was responding to the question and replies in that anyone on US territory is entities to the rights granted by the US constitution. If that was unclear then I apologize, i thought the readers would be sharp enough to understand that.
Looks good to me. Only liberals / socialists do not like it and especially the those that are politicians.Trump is doing what is the best for all the true American people and the country.
Doesn't seem to bother the democrats when they ignore the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments when it comes to US citizens that they don't agree with... 🤔
@wildbill83 Life may begin at conception, but a mass of cells is not a baby or a human being. Talk to a pediatrician or read a science book. You're the same type that scream to high heavens about a birth control pill or early termination, but once a child is born, doesn't care if they get food to eat, clothes to wear, or get an education.
Do you support Israel? Israel provides free abortions. Jewish law does not recognize the fetus as a person until it is born. The concept of "life begins at conception" is not a part of Jewish tradition.
The US has more guns than people. Then why is the US not the safest place in the planet?
"censorship/slander of conservatives is ongoing"
Are you joking here? Show some examples. Censorship? Where, in your head ? Slander? LOL. You folks, especially your Orange Felon Messiah, are the biggest snowflakes ever....always the victim.
"prosecution of Trump was far beyond statute of limitations."
Again, your Orange Felon Messiah continues to lie each and every day and is ignoring the Constitution and rule of law.
You also support a convicted sexual predator. What does that say about your moral character?
Release the entire Epstein files and stop protecting pedophiles.
All the rights delivered in the US constitution where and are provided for the citizens of the USA.. Illegal immigrants within the borders of the USA are NOT citizens of the USA.. Therefore the rights provided by the US constitution do not apply to them..
@Adstar ah, my bad about being proud of it then. But you're mistaken about national constitutions only applying to citizens. Some parts do indeed, but other parts apply to everyone residing in the country. And in the American constitution, the fifth amendment explicitly applies to any person, not just citizens.
@NerdyPotato I agree that "person" refers to citizens and non-citizens. All are equal under the law. When someone comes into the country, they receive a Notice to Appear, this notice is for a hearing to fix an immigration status, very few ever appear, they passed on their chance for due process. When they didn't appear, any status they had was revoked and deportation ordered. Sometimes it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission, but in the case of illegal immigration, they passed a chance for due process when they snuck into the country, and they passed up the chance for due process when they blew off their court date. They have made it a game of "catch me if you can".
@Roadsterrider that doesn't explain why people who are showing up for their court date are arrested for deportation at the court house before their hearing though. And it's essential for a judge to confirm they waved their right, otherwise the same issue I pointed out earlier arises: everyone can just be accused of that and suffer the consequences wether the accusation is true or not.
"The Fifth Amendment creates a number of rights relevant to both criminal and civil legal proceedings. In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids “double jeopardy,” and protects against self-incrimination. It also requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use."
No one needs legal permission to enter, only legal permission to stay. The only thing immigrants fail to do at the Southern Boarder is obtain a Visa, and that can be easily resolved without involving the US Military
Leftists and their pretzel logic...it's not illegal to enter, but it is illegal to stay...if they enter with the intention of avoiding detection and NOT following US immigration policy, then they have already signalled their intent to commit a crime. It becomes a crime when they decide to stay without permission.
@OriginalNedKelly There are some differences for travelers from Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries. They must apply for an Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) and have an e-Passport before arrival, while also being prepared for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the port of entry. Visitors will complete a CBP Declaration Form 6059B at the port of entry, and some may be enrolled in the US-VISIT program for digital photographs and fingerprints. Visitors must also declare any cash over $10,000 and be prepared to be questioned by CBP officers about their visit.
@Iwillwait how does work during the hearing to determine whether or not someone is a citizen? I think the constitution explicitly says person rather than citizen because you can't make the differentiation before the end of such cases.
@Iwillwait the Constitution explicitly says it applies to "any person". So unless you're not sure whether someone who is allegedly illegal is a person, there's no doubt whether it applies.
It's a violation of Constitutional Law, and this entire administration will be held accountable. It's not that "We the People," can't get convictions, it's just that democracy is a slow process and we will have justice.
@OriginalNedKelly Here's a bit from SCOTUS' ruling on Mathews v. Diaz 1976 including citations of prior rulings.
There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 339 U. S. 48-51; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 163 U. S. 238; see Russian Fleet v. United States, 282 U. S. 481, 282 U. S. 489. Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection. Wong Yang Sung, supra; Wong Wing, supra.
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.
@BrandNewMan Sure - if I traveled to the US the big thing is my stay is subject to visa restrictions. I can't freely enter and leave like a citizen, and I can't take employment or be a student or a few other things due to visa restrictions.
But if you look at the bill of rights, those rights apply to foreigners regardless of visa status - in theory. Obviously the reality is different that's the entire point of this post.
@BorealPedant Clinton and Obama both restricted due process in order to expedite deportations during their presidencies. Including elimination of hearings.
How exactly is what Trump is doing different then .. other than now you dont like it because its him?
@BrandNewMan Yeah you proved my point. If the constitution didn't apply then the laws wouldn't be necessary. Those laws restrict due process in specific circumstances, not all of them.
Where the laws do not restrict those rights, the constitution rules. That's how laws work.
But like... be honest, it's fine. This game of "oh but the law says this" is in bad faith. What the law says is irrelevant - the law enforcement officers are doing what they want because the point is eliminating people from society, not respecting the law.
More Bradley, it just sucks in general that this administration doesn't seem to even attempt to follow the law at time but attempts to make up their own law.
What Amendments? There are no so-called "Amendments" under an Authoritarian Dictatorship. The US Constitution no longer exists in principle and Americans have to learn to get their heads around that fact.
Hitler did the same thing back in 1933 involving Mussolini and so what America is experiencing is simply history repeating itself, but Americans learned absolutely nothing from the original story which only ended 80 years ago, ffs's!
@kodiac No, they are not criminals. Being in the USA illegally is not a criminal act according to the US Constitution, which is a document you should take the time to read some day.
@swirlie Illegal Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1325 makes it a crime to unlawfully enter the United States. It applies to people who do not enter with proper inspection at a port of entry, such as those who enter between ports of entry, avoid examination or inspection, or who make false statements while entering or attempting to enter. A first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, up to six months in prison, or both.
A more relevant question would have been to ask, "What do you think about Americans not pushing back against the Trump Administration for hijacking the US Constitution and for turning the US military onto US citizens?".
How did all that become totally okay with Americans?
Most people do not even know what that one is. I looked that up some time ago and thought, "Was that ever actually a problem?" Maybe it happened in Britain.
For everyone else -
The Third Amendment prohibits the forced quartering of soldiers in private homes, stating that no soldier shall be housed in a house without the owner's consent in peacetime, nor in wartime except as prescribed by law.
