Sort of. There's way too much discretion to toss people out for any random trumped-up reason, and way too much discretion about how it's done.
But there are requirements for at least some attempt at individualized due process, and those are being ignored, which is mostly new. And there are certain reasons they don't get to use, and that's also being ignored. And probably shipping people to abusive facilities in El Salvador violates some laws that weren't being violated before.
Was US immigration law always inhumane and immoral, both as written and as enforced? Yes. Was ICE always full of thugs, and did it always tend to push to the very edge of what it was allowed to do? Yes. Have things gotten worse in qualititative ways, including violating laws? Also yes.
Believe me, I'm not a fan of dystopian prison islands. However, my consistent position has been the risks of the legal machinery itself and its potential for abuse. Now I'm being vindicated and it sucks, and everyone still seems to be upset that the expansive laws they like are now being used in ways they don't like and didn't expect (cue world's tiniest violin).
What's interesting is how much of a grey area that the due process question is. Non-citizens may or may not actually legally merit due process, and to whatever degree they might, they only merit it while "within" the "jurisdiction" of the US. And as far as I can tell, that 'grey area' of how the 14th amendment is read, plus the alien enemies act, is probably legally enough to justify this - and we also have all kinds of exceptions for dealing with "terrorists" (thanks, Obama).
Lets also not forget how much legal precedent Guantanamo provides when dealing with non-citizen (or even US Citizen!) "terrorists".
I don't think you've been specific about any other laws - just a couple of guesses about 'probably violating' things.
> And as far as I can tell, that 'grey area' of how the 14th amendment is read
You seem to be radically misreading a condition on conditions at birth that applies to birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment as a modifier on conditions at the time of government action against them that applies to the due process clause of the same amendment, but also, the 14th Amendment has no bearing on whether people have due process rights against the federal government, in the first place, as the due process clause of the 14th applies to the states.
Due process against the federal government is provided by the 5th Amendment, so even if the misreading of the 14th was right and applicable to due process rights, it would limit only the due process applicable to certain people for actions by state governments.
> Lets also not forget how much legal precedent Guantanamo provides when dealing with non-citizen (or even US Citizen!) "terrorists".
Well, yeah, but most of that legal precedent was negative for unchecked executive power (and even restrictive of legislative abuses), see Rasul v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsefeld, and Boumediene v. Bush, most notably.
The question is whether an illegal immigrant has access to due process. The 14th has been thrown around in that context since it seems to make references to both due process and the people it is available to.
The question is not what due process entails. The question is who gets access to it. Pretty sure you missed my point fairly thoroughly.
> The 14th has been thrown around in that context since it seems to make references to both due process and the people it is available to.
It makes references to who birthright citizenship applies to (the part that your "jurisdiction" bit comes from): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
It separately details due process rights against the states, and who they are applicable to, which is all persons: "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Due process against the federal government comes from the 5th Amendment, which was around long before the 14th, but also applies to all persons. "No person [...] shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
> The question is not what due process entails. The question is who gets access to it.
The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with that, when the party acting is the federal government. (OTOH, where it does apply, it says exactly the same thing as the provision that does apply to the federal government, that due process applies to every person.)
> Pretty sure you missed my point fairly thoroughly.
I'm pretty sure that you are the one missing the point -- both mine and the Constitution's.
> Non-citizens may or may not actually legally merit due process, and to whatever degree they might, they only merit it while "within" the "jurisdiction" of the US. And as far as I can tell, that 'grey area' of how the 14th amendment is read,
I missed that bit about the 14th amendment.
This has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment argument is about who gets ius soli citizenship (what they call "birthright citizenship"), not about the treatment of anybody who's agreed not to be a citizen. The administration has made claims about jurisdiction limiting what they have to do for non-citizens, but not on that basis.
So far I don't think they've actually tried to deport anybody born on US soil. If they do, then the 14th Amendment comes into play.
The existing cases are about the 5th amendment, Article 1 habeas corpus, common law, immigration statutes, etc, not the 14th.
> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The question is whether an illegal immigrant even has access to due process, according to a strict legal reading of the law. This was one of the arguments being thrown around - whether or not "any person" in the above applies to illegal immigrants or just US-born noncitizens (native american indians? I forget).
I think you completely missed the point of my reference to the 14th.
Edit: btw the "within its jurisdiction" phrase above is probably why the supreme court is treading so carefully around the el salvador part of this - they can't give the administration any grounds to point out that el salvador is outside US jurisdiction. That's why all they could say was 'facilitate', and why they had to slap the lower judge's wrist.
That's about extending due process requirements to the states. That's why it says "any State". It has no effect at all on anything Federal. Federal due process comes from elsewhere. And all of this is 100 percent Federal.
All of the brouhaha around the word "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment is about citizenship. Nobody other than you has "thrown around" anything like what you're suggesting.
> Edit: btw the "within its jurisdiction" phrase above is probably why the supreme court is treading so carefully around the el salvador part of this - they can't give the administration any grounds to point out that el salvador is outside US jurisdiction.
The administration has been pointing that out. Loudly and repeatedly. It has some real effects on habeas, as well as on what actions are available to the US Government generally. They're also trying to falsely claim a bunch of effects it doesn't have. But nobody has mentioned or thought about the 14th Amendment, because it's not relevant. At all.
The Government may not rely on its own failure to circumvent its own ruling that Abrego Garcia could not be removed to El Salvador. More importantly, the Government cannot be permitted to ignore the Fifth Amendment, deny due process of law, and remove anyone it wants, simply because it claims the victims of its lawlessness are members of a gang. Nor can the Government be permitted to disclaim any ability to return those it has wrongfully removed by citing their physical presence in a foreign jurisdiction.
>That's why all they could say was 'facilitate', and why they had to slap the lower judge's wrist.
That's an incomprehensible interpretation of what the Supreme Court actually wrote:
The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority.
> Non-citizens may or may not actually legally merit due process
Even the current Trump-enabling Supreme Court just affirmed that they get due process. They restricted the judicial vehicle for that to habeas corpus, which sucks because the person being grabbed has to actively request it... but they were clear that there had to be actual, meaningful access to habeas.
At an absolute minimum, the claim that somebody's a non-citizen to begin with is something that has to be proven at a habeas hearing.
... and permanent residents, at least, are statutorily entitled to have the government show cause before removing them. It can be pretty shitty half-assed cause. And it can be shown in a shitty half-assed administrative immigration "court". But it has to be shown. And if it's not shown properly, that can be appealed to a real court.
My wife is a naturalized citizen (and a brown one with a muslim name, at that)), and to be perfectly honest I'm no longer confident this admin won't start looking into denaturalizating people like her, for no reason except their ethnicity.
It's clear they're taking a 'the Court has written their law. Now let them enforce it.' approach, and it's not clear anybody is going to stop them.
Not explicitly planning on it currently, but it is something that's in the back of my head. If denaturalizations do start happening, we would have a frank conversation about what to do. I don't know that we would stay in America. The tail risks would simply be too high.
I don't know, its frightening to think about. I don't think its LIKELY, yet. but i cant say its UNTHINKABLE anymore.
"If denaturalizations do start happening" sounds much too late to start talking about it. Best to be prepared sooner than later with how quickly everything is regressing.
You should make a plan now. If they start rounding people up, you are already on that list. I guarantee you that they will grab you faster than you can plan and execute an international move that uproots your entire life.
You don't need to act, but talk with your wife. Make a plan of where you would go, check all the requirements and start ticking the boxes, know how to apply, keep a list of what will need to come with you, etc.
> The officers grabbed him and two other boys right at the entrance to our building. One said, 'No, he's not the one,' like they were looking for someone else. But the other said, 'Take him anyway,'
Because they are cowards and taking innocent gay barbers, sheet metal workers that are family men, and teenage barely men is easier than facing a tatted up legit MS13 gang member who fires back and fights back.
I don't think it's just the quotas. My past experience with CBP and specifically things I witnessed at border crossings led me to the conclusion that the very nature of the job attracts people who basically have a sadistic streak and enjoy having that kind of power over others and exercising it.
Imposing their will isn't waste as far as the administration is concerned. All acts, right or wrong can be spun as them doing something.
And the current administration doesn't care about "waste", they only care if the given policy, department, money advances their goals / corruption and etc. They're happy to waste in that context.
Wake up, American tech people (or anybody with remains of intelligence and humanity). Solve this issue from inside before the system implodes or sets the world even more on fire than it has done already.
This would depend on your riding and what you're writing about.
I've received replies from my MPP, MP, and a handful of cabinet ministers over the years writing about a few at-the-time hot topics. Doug Ford, for all his faults, is apparently quite responsive if you just text him (that's secondhand knowledge from a friend, I can't tell you if it's actually him on the other side of the line, but it's a thing that exists. Make of that what you will. )
I regularly receive responses from my reps here in Massachusetts. They also hold town hall meetings where you can ask questions and listen first-hand. I attended one last night and spoke 1:1 with my Congresswoman for a moment afterwards.
I'm sure there are districts where this is not the case in the US - but I hope everyone with concerns reaches out to their elected officials and takes an hour once or twice a year to listen to them in person when they are present in their districts.
If your rep doesn't answer you, tell your neighbors and vote for one who will.
Well there are now many instances of enforced disappearances.[1] To what the administration likes to call jails in Ecuador, except for the fact jails and prisons are part of legitimate criminal justice systems with judicial review/due process. These can be more accurately described as concentration camps given that they lack the features that would make them legitimate jails or detention facilities.
"
[Enforced disappearance] is characterized by three cumulative elements (defined in A/HRC/16/48/Add.3):
A) Deprivation of liberty against the will of the person;
B) Involvement of government officials, at least by acquiescence;
C) Refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person.
"
If you think about the administration's unwillingness to comply with the court's ruling to return the individual, who by their own admission, they mistakenly took away due to an "administrative error" there are many open questions. How do we know that the individual is still alive? For that matter, how do we know that all the other people who they say were removed from the country are still alive?
We have no independently verified information as to fates of these people. More likely than not, in the course of these actions by the government, the number of deaths is some number greater than zero. Even if they have not performed outright executions, some deaths as a result of the conditions and or their treatment in custody is almost certain. So is that state sanctioned man slaughter/murder? Does this make ICE a death squad?
What distinguishes a concentration camp from a prison (in the modern sense) is that it functions outside of a judicial system. The prisoners are not indicted or convicted of any crime by judicial process.
... You realize this story is flagged, right? And I would bet you anything you like that it's being suppressed across Twitter, Facebook and other large sites.
The story is flagged by the users. But still visible and you can comment on it.
In a fascist society, it is a crime to post such things or discuss them the way we do, and the penalties are severe. Look at what happens in Russia today to people who post content critical of war in Ukraine on their social media.
What an odd distinction to make while US residents are being deported for writing editorials, or attending peaceful protests; years after citizens were exiled and tortured for exposing war crimes and massive domestic crimes; while US arms are used to massacre journalists at a rate unprecedented in human history; etc.
It's beyond disgusting to me that the "News Bias meter" on the bottom of the article claims this is "unfairly" biased towards the left. Just because it doesn't reflect well towards your side doesn't mean it's biased.
I think that's just a poor UI choice. That seems to be its default position until you vote. Once you've voted for how biased you think the article is, it shows you the "Most Popular Rating" which is currently "Center/Fair".
45 more months for the SANE part of America to try and come up with a populist candidate that will appeal to the red states. Although I fear it’s not possible to win the presidency without Russian help anymore.
project 2025 has a huge crowd ready to step in. the cruelty doesn't need to stop just because the orangefuhrer isn't around. the fourth Reich is developing quite successfully.
It has more to do with OP who said "45 more months of this nonsense". Even if the current guy dies or is unable to run, there are plenty of other folks willing to carry on down the same path in his stead. 45 months might be optimistic.
Given that Trump has already been heavily meme'd as the Emperor of Mankind from WH40k, who's to say he doesn't get the same ultimate treatment? ~
On a more serious note, suppose the next president is JD Vance instead; do you think things would be any better? I suspect they would rather get worse when someone with similar beliefs but more intellectual capacity to implement them is in charge.
The moment due process breaks down -- even for actual infractions of the law -- that means everyone (you and I included) has lost due process.
You should want due process for criminals because due process is how is how you can prove that you are innocent when falsely accused. There is no such thing as "due process for me, but not for thee" because one day, you might be on the "thee" end.
In the case of illegal immigration, expedited removal [1] was established in 1997, under Clinton. It qualifies a number of different groups for immediate deportation without a hearing, including anybody who has been in the country for less than 2 years - which would include the individual in this article.
And how would you know if they've been here for less than 2 years without a hearing where they can face their accuser and provide any evidence they have to refute it if untrue?
That doesn't mean you don't have due process to establish that the individual was actually undocumented. You don't skip due process. What's so hard about that? What if the individual is actually in the country with all of the correct paperwork and visas?. That's what you figure out via due process before acting.
Non-citizen residents in the US are required to carry proof of immigration status with them at all times, precisely because of this scenario. Immigration officers/enforcement, in basically every country, have a substantial degree of independent discretion.
Indeed, US has a longstanding problem with due process for non-citizens. Trump's embrace of it is qualitatively different but the seeds have been sown a long time ago.
Edit: even if he wasn’t, there’s a proper process for deportations. Sending someone without due process to a supermax prison let alone a country they’re not even from isn’t it.
"In May 2023, Wilmer Gutiérrez left Venezuela with his son Merwil and nephew Luis, traveling through Colombia and the Darién Gap into Panama. The monthlong journey eventually brought them to Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, where they applied for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) through the CBP One app. While waiting for their immigration appointment, they took temporary jobs and slept near the border to keep their place in line."
The CBP One app [1] was a means to enable mass pseudo-legal migration by automatically granting 'humanitarian parole' on a massive scale to hundreds of thousands of people. The app and any pending appointments from it were cancelled January 20th, ending said parole. The app was later updated to help people looking to self deport.
No, Trump tried to end TPS on Jan 20th but was blocked by a court order. The Venezuela TPS still stands and was valid when Wilmer was sent off to prison.
Check the dates. The order was issued March 31st. The date in this article mentions March 16th as the date of the individual's detention. he was deported "days later."
It's also unlikely TPS was granted, as the article remains ambiguous on this point which is suggestive of the fact that he was still on 'humanitarian parole' pending a hearing. If there were any other possible angle to try vilify and/or hyperbolize these actions, it's highly unlikely that the media would miss it.
reply