3 ms·

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

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.

somenameforme 2y ago
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. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal
- mcphage 2y ago
  Expedited Removal to where, exactly?
- ty6853 2y ago
  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?
  - CharlieDigital 2y ago
    It's the weirdest discussion, right? > "You gotta follow the law!" Well, how do you know the law isn't being followed if there's no due process?!?
- CharlieDigital 2y ago
  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.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    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.
- int_19h 2y ago
  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.

somenameforme 2y ago

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. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal

mcphage 2y ago
Expedited Removal to where, exactly?
ty6853 2y ago
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?
- CharlieDigital 2y ago
  It's the weirdest discussion, right? > "You gotta follow the law!" Well, how do you know the law isn't being followed if there's no due process?!?
CharlieDigital 2y ago
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.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  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.
int_19h 2y ago
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.