9 ms·

Neither of these claims are true. Miranda rights apply to criminal arrests but immigration arrests are typically civil. The 6th Amendment guarantees the right

Neither of these claims are true. Miranda rights apply to criminal arrests but immigration arrests are typically civil. The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a lawyer during critical stages such as interrogation and court proceedings only, e.g. in California the window in which arraignment is guaranteed is 48 hours (this is where the court will offer defendants the opportunity for a court-appointed lawyer).

CamperBob2 1y ago
If the end result is that people are forcibly abducted, extradited, and thrown into an El Salvadoran prison without due process, I really don't give a shit what the law says. It can't be described as "civil." Due process is ultimately what keeps this from happening to YOU.
- jahewson 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    I don't know the law, and didn't say I did. I know the difference between right and wrong, though. I was responding to the GP comment where you basically argued that, "Well, actshually, nothing Trump's doing is illegal." I also know that the courts are turning into wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Trump Organization. Not all of them, of course. But as for the rest, if there is no way for them to enforce their rulings -- and it seems there is not -- then they have no more power than random commenters on Hacker News, and deserve no more consideration.
  - thomastjeffery 1y ago
    Of course they can! They just did right there. You don't have to accept their argument. You can be a heartless sycophant and reject it out-of-hand because their argument doesn't follow the rules of the very framework they are arguing against. That's your choice. Progress is being made in both directions on this front. If you truly believe in the law, then argue for it. Considering the fact that the current POTUS is a convicted felon, and the supreme court has practically eliminated all checks on his power, I'll be taking arguments for lawlessness seriously.
slg 1y ago
What type of "immigration arrests" are valid against citizens?
- jahewson 1y ago
  Arrests are based on suspicion. As long as there is reasonable suspicion at the time of the arrest then it’s valid.
  - slg 1y ago
    What qualifies as "reasonable suspicion" of a citizen committing an immigration crime? Aren't you just advocating for the ability of ICE to arrest anyone who has the wrong color skin or speaks the wrong language?
    - dudefeliciano 1y ago
      isn't that the point?
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Probable cause or a warrant. I am not sure what PC for being an illegal immigrant looks like, maybe seeing someone climbing the border wall?
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      Obviously it's being brown or speaking Spanish...
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    Reasonable suspicion is not a high enough bar to jail somebody.
Buttons840 1y ago
> Miranda rights apply to criminal arrests but immigration arrests are typically civil. > The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a lawyer I think people arrested by ICE are not guaranteed a lawyer, because, as you say, it's a civil matter. This means if you find yourself sleeping on a cot behind a chain link fence in Alligator Alcatraz, and you want to speak to a lawyer, you'll have to pay for it yourself, because it's all a civil matter. Are we great again?
- anonfordays 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Buttons840 1y ago
    Maybe, but I think they meant "treat it like a civil matter while giving civil-matter protections". Be consistent. The current criminal treatment with civil protections is inconsistent. Pick a lane.
    - HaZeust 1y ago
      It's also just not true that they're giving the much-lower civil protections either. Garcia didn't get a jury despite the Seventh Amendment guaranteeing one in common law (for cases exceeding a challenge of $20, which we've been purposively interpreting for decades)
      - anonfordays 1y ago
        Garcia doesn't get the protections afforded by the Seventh Amendment: Deportation is a civil treatment. It's one of the actions the government can use when you violate civil immigration laws: The Court added that an alien being removed by the government is not being “deprived of life, liberty, or property” and that “the provisions of the Constitution securing the right to trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments [therefore] have no application. That is also why federal immigration officers do not need a warrant issued by a judge before arresting and detaining aliens and why aliens are not entitled to be advised of their Miranda rights or to the assistance of a government-appointed lawyer during their deportation proceedings. https://www.heritage.org/border-security/report/due-process-and-aliens-what-they-are-and-are-not-entitled-immigration https://www.heritage.org/border-security/report/due-process-...
whstl 1y ago
Something being into law doesn't change reality. It is abduction even if the Pope and the Queen sign on it, period. Remember not everyone in the planet is American, this is like quoting North Korean law to justify some random atrocity. It is Hacker News so of course someone is gonna rationalize fucking abducting people.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

CamperBob2 1y ago

If the end result is that people are forcibly abducted, extradited, and thrown into an El Salvadoran prison without due process, I really don't give a shit what the law says. It can't be described as "civil." Due process is ultimately what keeps this from happening to YOU.

jahewson 1y ago
[flagged]
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  I don't know the law, and didn't say I did. I know the difference between right and wrong, though. I was responding to the GP comment where you basically argued that, "Well, actshually, nothing Trump's doing is illegal." I also know that the courts are turning into wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Trump Organization. Not all of them, of course. But as for the rest, if there is no way for them to enforce their rulings -- and it seems there is not -- then they have no more power than random commenters on Hacker News, and deserve no more consideration.
- thomastjeffery 1y ago
  Of course they can! They just did right there. You don't have to accept their argument. You can be a heartless sycophant and reject it out-of-hand because their argument doesn't follow the rules of the very framework they are arguing against. That's your choice. Progress is being made in both directions on this front. If you truly believe in the law, then argue for it. Considering the fact that the current POTUS is a convicted felon, and the supreme court has practically eliminated all checks on his power, I'll be taking arguments for lawlessness seriously.

slg 1y ago

What type of "immigration arrests" are valid against citizens?

jahewson 1y ago
Arrests are based on suspicion. As long as there is reasonable suspicion at the time of the arrest then it’s valid.
- slg 1y ago
  What qualifies as "reasonable suspicion" of a citizen committing an immigration crime? Aren't you just advocating for the ability of ICE to arrest anyone who has the wrong color skin or speaks the wrong language?
  - dudefeliciano 1y ago
    isn't that the point?
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  Probable cause or a warrant. I am not sure what PC for being an illegal immigrant looks like, maybe seeing someone climbing the border wall?
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    Obviously it's being brown or speaking Spanish...
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  Reasonable suspicion is not a high enough bar to jail somebody.

Buttons840 1y ago

> Miranda rights apply to criminal arrests but immigration arrests are typically civil. > The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a lawyer I think people arrested by ICE are not guaranteed a lawyer, because, as you say, it's a civil matter. This means if you find yourself sleeping on a cot behind a chain link fence in Alligator Alcatraz, and you want to speak to a lawyer, you'll have to pay for it yourself, because it's all a civil matter. Are we great again?

anonfordays 1y ago
[flagged]
- Buttons840 1y ago
  Maybe, but I think they meant "treat it like a civil matter while giving civil-matter protections". Be consistent. The current criminal treatment with civil protections is inconsistent. Pick a lane.
  - HaZeust 1y ago
    It's also just not true that they're giving the much-lower civil protections either. Garcia didn't get a jury despite the Seventh Amendment guaranteeing one in common law (for cases exceeding a challenge of $20, which we've been purposively interpreting for decades)
    - anonfordays 1y ago
      Garcia doesn't get the protections afforded by the Seventh Amendment: Deportation is a civil treatment. It's one of the actions the government can use when you violate civil immigration laws: The Court added that an alien being removed by the government is not being “deprived of life, liberty, or property” and that “the provisions of the Constitution securing the right to trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments [therefore] have no application. That is also why federal immigration officers do not need a warrant issued by a judge before arresting and detaining aliens and why aliens are not entitled to be advised of their Miranda rights or to the assistance of a government-appointed lawyer during their deportation proceedings. https://www.heritage.org/border-security/report/due-process-and-aliens-what-they-are-and-are-not-entitled-immigration https://www.heritage.org/border-security/report/due-process-...

whstl 1y ago

Something being into law doesn't change reality. It is abduction even if the Pope and the Queen sign on it, period. Remember not everyone in the planet is American, this is like quoting North Korean law to justify some random atrocity. It is Hacker News so of course someone is gonna rationalize fucking abducting people.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]