3 ms·

Why on earth should people facing extreme legal sanction (deportation) not be entitled to a trial to dispute the claims against them? This is basic rule of law

Why on earth should people facing extreme legal sanction (deportation) not be entitled to a trial to dispute the claims against them? This is basic rule of law stuff. Currently the admin is trying to deny these people the right to plea their case in front of judges at all.

ty6853 2y ago
Because the law isn't based on justice, morality, or ethics. It is merely a system by which power is wielded. You are basing your judgement on a fictional caricature that is not reality. What 'should' happen has zero bearing there. The immigration judges are merely delegates of the AG, and only empowered to the extent the AG allows. It is an administrative action without protection criminal defendants get.
- SauciestGNU 2y ago
  Believe me I'm well aware of the distinction between Article II administrative law judges and Article III judiciary. It's just bullshit, and SCOTUS is chipping away at the legality of admin law judges wielding sanctions at corportations, but apparently you can abduct individuals and send them to a place where it's likely they'll be tortured and killed and that's no problem.
rayiner 2y ago
People facing deportation have never been entitled to a trial. What you’re describing would be a vast expansion of the procedural requirements for deportation. Deportation is not an “extreme sanction” if it’s proven that someone is not a U.S. citizen. Non-citizens have no right to remain on U.S. soil except what the government chooses to extend.
- SauciestGNU 2y ago
  They are in fact currently at least entitled to a hearing to ascertain that they are removable. Absent that, the state could just start snatching anybody and shipping them to CECOT.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    That is in fact not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal. Thanks to Bill Clinton, many aliens are removable on an expedited basis if they meet certain criteria. But this particular person we are talking about got a hearing and a BIA appeal and was found to be deportable. His asylum request claim was denied. What’s perplexing is why the immigration judge didn’t order him deported.
    - SauciestGNU 2y ago
      Thank you for the additional context. However, this individual would not have been eligible for expedited removal as he entered the US in 2011, and the arrest where he was alleged to be a gang member was in 2019. To be eligible for expedited removal a person must have not been present continuously for the previous 2 years. No indication that's the case here. I suspect the judge would allow a deportation to a country other than El Salvador as soon as the government presented an option of a country willing to accept him. I also suspect few governments in the world would assent to such a transfer.
xyzzyz 2y ago
Let’s say I apply for a tourist visa to US, and I get denied. Am I entitled to a jury trial in US to decide whether I get the visa or not? Let’s say I do get a tourist visa, get admitted at the border, and the second I cross it, I begin openly violating the terms of the tourist visa. Can the government deport me right there and then, or am I entitled to a full jury trial that decides my deportation? Finally, let’s say that I violate my tourist visa covertly instead of overtly, so that the government finds out only 3 years later. You seem to be claiming in your comment that at that point, I am certainly entitled to a jury trial. If you answered “no, you’re not entitled to trial” in the previous scenarios, what exactly do you think has changed that makes me entitled to it now?
- SauciestGNU 2y ago
  As I learned earlier today, time in country is legally relevant in this case. Current law is that someone who has been in the country for over 2 years is entitled to a hearing prior to removal. To specifically answer your questions, I think it's reasonable that countries can deny visa applications, but I don't think they should be able to do so for behavior that would be legally be protected in the jurisdiction a person is trying to enter. I do not think the US should be able to deny visa applications for speech critical of the US government or Israel. Once a person is in the country I would absolutely want for a judicial fact finding exercise to determine whether a person has violated the terms of their admittance. I would prefer that process to take the form of a jury trial, but practically speaking I will also accept the opportunity for people to appear before a judge as a workable but less than ideal situation. For your final situation time in country changes things legally and entitles a person to a hearing before a judge. Ideally this would be a trial. Furthermore, it is repugnant to think that visas can be revoked for nothing but constitutionally protected activities, such as writing opinion pieces for a newspaper. I believe a judiciary not captured by fascists would find that such revocations are a violation of the plain letter of the first amendment and fourteenth amendment, and that the US government should not be able to take adverse actions against anyone for purely expressive activity.
  - xyzzyz 2y ago
    > I don't think they should be able to do so for behavior that would be legally be protected in the jurisdiction a person is trying to enter This is very much not the current practice. The DS-160 form asks you a bunch of questions about things that are not illegal in US, but will almost certainly result in denial of the visa. Not only that, it asks about your family members, and your answers can and will cause visa denial, even if your family members are not applying for a visa with you. This is good and proper: foreigners have no right to enter our country, and just because something is legal for US citizens doesn’t meant it’s desirable, or that we need to extend this right to noncitizens. > I do not think the US should be able to deny visa applications for speech critical of the US government or Israel. How about for being a fan of Hitler, glorifying Holocaust, and advocating for changes in US constitution to allow wholesale genocide of Jews and Muslims? None of this is illegal. You are saying that we should we not be able to keep this freak out of our country, right? > Once a person is in the country I would absolutely want for a judicial fact finding exercise to determine whether a person has violated the terms of their admittance. When you enter US through a port of entry, a random CBP employee is fully empowered to deny you entry if he decides you violate the terms of your visa, or some other entry denial reason applies. Importantly, you have no right to judicial review of this denial. You can make an administrative appeal, but you are not entitled in any way to have a judge hear your complaint. You are saying now that the second you get admitted into the country, the same process that was due to you before the entry is now insufficient to adjudicate your rights. I don’t buy it, and neither does the law. > Furthermore, it is repugnant to think that visas can be revoked for nothing but constitutionally protected activities, such as writing opinion pieces for a newspaper. Why? You can very much be denied the visa for constitutionally protected activities. Happens all the time, in fact. It would be ridiculous if we could deny entry people who glorify Holocaust, but couldn’t kick them out if we find out they do so only after we let them in. First amendment doesn’t prevent us from denying entry to foreigners based on their speech. This is settled law. If we can refuse their entry, I don’t see why it should prevent us from removing them too.

ty6853 2y ago

Because the law isn't based on justice, morality, or ethics. It is merely a system by which power is wielded. You are basing your judgement on a fictional caricature that is not reality. What 'should' happen has zero bearing there. The immigration judges are merely delegates of the AG, and only empowered to the extent the AG allows. It is an administrative action without protection criminal defendants get.

SauciestGNU 2y ago
Believe me I'm well aware of the distinction between Article II administrative law judges and Article III judiciary. It's just bullshit, and SCOTUS is chipping away at the legality of admin law judges wielding sanctions at corportations, but apparently you can abduct individuals and send them to a place where it's likely they'll be tortured and killed and that's no problem.

rayiner 2y ago

People facing deportation have never been entitled to a trial. What you’re describing would be a vast expansion of the procedural requirements for deportation. Deportation is not an “extreme sanction” if it’s proven that someone is not a U.S. citizen. Non-citizens have no right to remain on U.S. soil except what the government chooses to extend.

SauciestGNU 2y ago
They are in fact currently at least entitled to a hearing to ascertain that they are removable. Absent that, the state could just start snatching anybody and shipping them to CECOT.
- rayiner 2y ago
  That is in fact not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal. Thanks to Bill Clinton, many aliens are removable on an expedited basis if they meet certain criteria. But this particular person we are talking about got a hearing and a BIA appeal and was found to be deportable. His asylum request claim was denied. What’s perplexing is why the immigration judge didn’t order him deported.
  - SauciestGNU 2y ago
    Thank you for the additional context. However, this individual would not have been eligible for expedited removal as he entered the US in 2011, and the arrest where he was alleged to be a gang member was in 2019. To be eligible for expedited removal a person must have not been present continuously for the previous 2 years. No indication that's the case here. I suspect the judge would allow a deportation to a country other than El Salvador as soon as the government presented an option of a country willing to accept him. I also suspect few governments in the world would assent to such a transfer.

xyzzyz 2y ago

Let’s say I apply for a tourist visa to US, and I get denied. Am I entitled to a jury trial in US to decide whether I get the visa or not? Let’s say I do get a tourist visa, get admitted at the border, and the second I cross it, I begin openly violating the terms of the tourist visa. Can the government deport me right there and then, or am I entitled to a full jury trial that decides my deportation? Finally, let’s say that I violate my tourist visa covertly instead of overtly, so that the government finds out only 3 years later. You seem to be claiming in your comment that at that point, I am certainly entitled to a jury trial. If you answered “no, you’re not entitled to trial” in the previous scenarios, what exactly do you think has changed that makes me entitled to it now?

SauciestGNU 2y ago
As I learned earlier today, time in country is legally relevant in this case. Current law is that someone who has been in the country for over 2 years is entitled to a hearing prior to removal. To specifically answer your questions, I think it's reasonable that countries can deny visa applications, but I don't think they should be able to do so for behavior that would be legally be protected in the jurisdiction a person is trying to enter. I do not think the US should be able to deny visa applications for speech critical of the US government or Israel. Once a person is in the country I would absolutely want for a judicial fact finding exercise to determine whether a person has violated the terms of their admittance. I would prefer that process to take the form of a jury trial, but practically speaking I will also accept the opportunity for people to appear before a judge as a workable but less than ideal situation. For your final situation time in country changes things legally and entitles a person to a hearing before a judge. Ideally this would be a trial. Furthermore, it is repugnant to think that visas can be revoked for nothing but constitutionally protected activities, such as writing opinion pieces for a newspaper. I believe a judiciary not captured by fascists would find that such revocations are a violation of the plain letter of the first amendment and fourteenth amendment, and that the US government should not be able to take adverse actions against anyone for purely expressive activity.
- xyzzyz 2y ago
  > I don't think they should be able to do so for behavior that would be legally be protected in the jurisdiction a person is trying to enter This is very much not the current practice. The DS-160 form asks you a bunch of questions about things that are not illegal in US, but will almost certainly result in denial of the visa. Not only that, it asks about your family members, and your answers can and will cause visa denial, even if your family members are not applying for a visa with you. This is good and proper: foreigners have no right to enter our country, and just because something is legal for US citizens doesn’t meant it’s desirable, or that we need to extend this right to noncitizens. > I do not think the US should be able to deny visa applications for speech critical of the US government or Israel. How about for being a fan of Hitler, glorifying Holocaust, and advocating for changes in US constitution to allow wholesale genocide of Jews and Muslims? None of this is illegal. You are saying that we should we not be able to keep this freak out of our country, right? > Once a person is in the country I would absolutely want for a judicial fact finding exercise to determine whether a person has violated the terms of their admittance. When you enter US through a port of entry, a random CBP employee is fully empowered to deny you entry if he decides you violate the terms of your visa, or some other entry denial reason applies. Importantly, you have no right to judicial review of this denial. You can make an administrative appeal, but you are not entitled in any way to have a judge hear your complaint. You are saying now that the second you get admitted into the country, the same process that was due to you before the entry is now insufficient to adjudicate your rights. I don’t buy it, and neither does the law. > Furthermore, it is repugnant to think that visas can be revoked for nothing but constitutionally protected activities, such as writing opinion pieces for a newspaper. Why? You can very much be denied the visa for constitutionally protected activities. Happens all the time, in fact. It would be ridiculous if we could deny entry people who glorify Holocaust, but couldn’t kick them out if we find out they do so only after we let them in. First amendment doesn’t prevent us from denying entry to foreigners based on their speech. This is settled law. If we can refuse their entry, I don’t see why it should prevent us from removing them too.