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?
" ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
Deporting an illegal resident doesn't deprive them of life, liberty or property. They are free to enjoy all of the above, but not within the US where they don't have legal status. If an illegal resident is prosecuted for a crime he/she would then be afforded the due process.
Correct. The OP is being cleverly disingenuous by trying to gaslight you by making no distinction between illegal immigrants and just immigrants. That way the OP can use a wedge argument like casting 💩 on the wall, and if someone falls for it - it worked!
@MistyCee But the due process happened when congress debated and passed the laws regarding immigration. If the deported wants to challenge ICE's right to deport he/she is still free to appeal from outside the US.
There or numerous examples of people being deprived of freedom without individuals having an immediate right to due process.
Approaching an intersection and the traffic light turns red. Are you entitled to due process before being compelled to step on the brake ped l? Or, if you don't have a drivers license, do the police have to first get a court order and afford you due process before they can prevent you from driving?
@Heartlander That last one, IMO, the they only one worth addressing:
Or, if you don't have a drivers license, do the police have to first get a court order and afford you due process before they can prevent you from driving?
There's a whole body of law regarding confiscation like that, as with drugs and vehicles. The question is how much process is due and when.
Post deprivation process might be all that is "due," but it doesn't mean a person isn't entitled to whatever process is due.
Honestly, the garbage legal arguments coming out of the DOJ these days really concern me. They're often taking legal positions that are downright frivolous and can't even be made in good faith based on existing law because they'll get fired by "their client" (who by the way ISNT their client).
I get that it's not as politically appealing to argue technicalities and it's confining and maybe even looks like a "show of weakness" to argue based on precedent and objective facts as opposed to alternative ones, but it's critical for the system.
@PatKirby Calling it "high school" to ask a question the answer to which might call for distinction seems pretty harsh.
Especially when the text of the Constitution doesn't make the distinction and in fact explicitly gives due process rights to all "persons" while affording privileges only to "citizens."
@MistyCee I was wondering who you were arguing with who was being that unreasonable. Then I clicked on the link in incognito mode and found my favorite racist right-whinger.
I still think we should be talking about what process is "due" with respect to individuals being deported. Maybe a court appearance in the US is or is not due.
I tend to think Congress and the Courts should have a say in that, as opposed to the Executive Branch alone, especially this executive branch.
@MistyCee Thats just it .. you want a different std applied because you dont like it specifically because you want to oppose Trump. Legal precedent exists under Obama's and Clinton's actions. Your "case" is politically motivated more than legally.
@MistyCee I feel like the fifth amendment as I understand it states that they should get their day in court, but I'm qualifying this statement by saying I'm not a lawyer.
