3 ms·

I'm arguing that the Constitution guarantees due process to anyone subject to US jurisdiction, and the nationwide injunctions were necessary because ICE was swe

I'm arguing that the Constitution guarantees due process to anyone subject to US jurisdiction, and the nationwide injunctions were necessary because ICE was sweeping people off the streets and quickly shipping them to different countries intentionally and explicitly in contravention of due process. If every single case must be prosecuted individually, those who have been illegally robbed of due process will already be stuck in El Salvadorean (or South Sudanese, etc.) prisons and unable to challenge it in US courts. In other words, ICE effectively gets carte blanche to continue violating constitutional due process under the ruling. The "judicial overreach" complaint is a distraction - injunctions can always be appealed at a higher level in the court system (excepting when the SC does it themselves), so there was already a mechanism to handle problematic injunctions. The implications for the unconstitutional executive order regarding birthright citizenship is just as gross, as an individual whose citizenship gets restored via court challenge will almost certainly face repeated citizenship challenges by other red states for the rest of their lives, any of which may require additional time in court to address.

msgodel 1y ago
No that's completely insane. If that were actually what the constitution meant than the federal government needs to be dissolved because it's completely useless. Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them.
- magicalist 1y ago
  > Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them. Because what could go wrong with not determining if someone is a citizen or not before deporting them?
  - msgodel 1y ago
    Sure ask for ID. But a lot less could go wrong than just letting anyone into the country en mass with no practical way to remove them. You effectively don't have a country at all under that regime.
    - magicalist 1y ago
      > Sure ask for ID Let's just turn to our national ID system...oh wait... > But a lot less could go wrong than just letting anyone into the country en mass with no practical way to remove them. Are you suggesting the only two options are extraordinary rendition to concentration camps in El Salvador with no recourse or instant squatters rights for all foreigners? > You effectively don't have a country at all under that regime. Let me offer an existence proof: gestures all around to where we're currently standing
      - msgodel 1y ago
        The time to be careful was 10-20 years ago. Now it's just getting solved. We do have birth certificates and in most states it is actually very hard to get state ID without at least residency so yes asking for ID is usually enough.
- sterlind 1y ago
  > Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them. why not just shoot them? seems less cruel than deporting them to an active war zone in Libya or South Sudan, or incarcerating them for life in CECOT where they'll be raped and tortured before being murdered.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
firesteelrain 1y ago
Constitution guarantees checks and balances but not justice in every case. People can still be disenfranchised. Especially when the system values procedural order over urgent harm. Someone might be deported, incarcerated, or otherwise harmed before the courts even rule on whether their rights were violated. US legal system highly values procedural fairness and due process. This is by design, not accident
- paulryanrogers 1y ago
  So... no nationwide injunctions except from SCOTUS? Meaning the executive can just keep deporting without due process or honoring birthrights, so long as they back down for anyone with the means to challenge it. (And their lawyer is fast enough, and knows which district they were spirited off to in the middle of the night.)
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    The idea of a nationwide injunction was not originally envisioned. It’s newish. Only Supreme Court in a court-sense can check the Executive. Congress can also check the Executive. Illegal aliens have less due process by law.
    - sterlind 1y ago
      the Constitution entitles all persons in the US to have due process, including aliens: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/removal-of-aliens-who-have-entered-the-united-states https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/r... reversing that case law would be a bit much even for Alito, I think.
      - firesteelrain 1y ago
        Not exactly Non-citizens in removal proceedings get civil hearings, with fewer procedural protection. Expedited removal allows certain undocumented immigrants to be deported without ever seeing a judge, unless they claim asylum or prove long-term presence. Courts have upheld that due process is contextual. It is not “one-size-fits-all” So yes, undocumented immigrants have a constitutional floor of protections but not the same ceiling as citizens or green card holders

msgodel 1y ago

No that's completely insane. If that were actually what the constitution meant than the federal government needs to be dissolved because it's completely useless. Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them.

magicalist 1y ago
> Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them. Because what could go wrong with not determining if someone is a citizen or not before deporting them?
- msgodel 1y ago
  Sure ask for ID. But a lot less could go wrong than just letting anyone into the country en mass with no practical way to remove them. You effectively don't have a country at all under that regime.
  - magicalist 1y ago
    > Sure ask for ID Let's just turn to our national ID system...oh wait... > But a lot less could go wrong than just letting anyone into the country en mass with no practical way to remove them. Are you suggesting the only two options are extraordinary rendition to concentration camps in El Salvador with no recourse or instant squatters rights for all foreigners? > You effectively don't have a country at all under that regime. Let me offer an existence proof: gestures all around to where we're currently standing
    - msgodel 1y ago
      The time to be careful was 10-20 years ago. Now it's just getting solved. We do have birth certificates and in most states it is actually very hard to get state ID without at least residency so yes asking for ID is usually enough.
sterlind 1y ago
> Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them. why not just shoot them? seems less cruel than deporting them to an active war zone in Libya or South Sudan, or incarcerating them for life in CECOT where they'll be raped and tortured before being murdered.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

firesteelrain 1y ago

Constitution guarantees checks and balances but not justice in every case. People can still be disenfranchised. Especially when the system values procedural order over urgent harm. Someone might be deported, incarcerated, or otherwise harmed before the courts even rule on whether their rights were violated. US legal system highly values procedural fairness and due process. This is by design, not accident

paulryanrogers 1y ago
So... no nationwide injunctions except from SCOTUS? Meaning the executive can just keep deporting without due process or honoring birthrights, so long as they back down for anyone with the means to challenge it. (And their lawyer is fast enough, and knows which district they were spirited off to in the middle of the night.)
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  The idea of a nationwide injunction was not originally envisioned. It’s newish. Only Supreme Court in a court-sense can check the Executive. Congress can also check the Executive. Illegal aliens have less due process by law.
  - sterlind 1y ago
    the Constitution entitles all persons in the US to have due process, including aliens: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/removal-of-aliens-who-have-entered-the-united-states https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/r... reversing that case law would be a bit much even for Alito, I think.
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      Not exactly Non-citizens in removal proceedings get civil hearings, with fewer procedural protection. Expedited removal allows certain undocumented immigrants to be deported without ever seeing a judge, unless they claim asylum or prove long-term presence. Courts have upheld that due process is contextual. It is not “one-size-fits-all” So yes, undocumented immigrants have a constitutional floor of protections but not the same ceiling as citizens or green card holders