2 ms·

> The process which is due (among whatever other redundant triplechecks they should be doing) is to hear all such protests in good faith and evaluate whatever e

> The process which is due (among whatever other redundant triplechecks they should be doing) is to hear all such protests in good faith and evaluate whatever evidence such a person provides. I haven't heard of any refusing to do such a thing (but if they have, it should be grounds for termination). A DOJ lawyer literally said they haven't been doing this sufficiently and then he got sacked by Pam Bondi. SCOTUS then reaffirmed 9 to 0 that the original lawyer who admitted this failure in court was actually correct, that DOJ wasn't giving people their due process rights. I find it extremely hard to believe you have not heard about the Kilmar Abrego case?

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
>I find it extremely hard to believe you have not heard about the Kilmar Abrego case? Yes. And to the best of my knowledge he is not a citizen.
- estearum 1y ago
  Which does not preclude him from having due process rights, as SCOTUS ruled 9-0 (and has been reaffirmed unequivocally by about 180 years of case law).
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    His due process rights were "if he protests that he is a citizen, then they must make effort to determine if that is the case with haste, and release him if it checks out". He did not assert citizenship, they did not violate due process rights. No other process is due him. Anyone claiming that it's a violation of due process rights doesn't know what they mean, though for a moment I had hope for you... you sort of described them, or at least hinted at them, but you're unable to apply what you described to this situation. Due process rights can't and won't keep non-citizens in this country if they are trying to avoid deportation, and shouldn't ever. Non-citizens only have the revocable-for-any-reason-or-none privilege of visiting, and that only if they get the visa.
    - estearum 1y ago
      Why do you think SCOTUS disagreed with you 9-0? What do you know that they don’t?
      - anonfordays 1y ago
        They literally agreed with what he just stated. Don't comment with "gotchas" that you don't understand.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago

>I find it extremely hard to believe you have not heard about the Kilmar Abrego case? Yes. And to the best of my knowledge he is not a citizen.

estearum 1y ago
Which does not preclude him from having due process rights, as SCOTUS ruled 9-0 (and has been reaffirmed unequivocally by about 180 years of case law).
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  His due process rights were "if he protests that he is a citizen, then they must make effort to determine if that is the case with haste, and release him if it checks out". He did not assert citizenship, they did not violate due process rights. No other process is due him. Anyone claiming that it's a violation of due process rights doesn't know what they mean, though for a moment I had hope for you... you sort of described them, or at least hinted at them, but you're unable to apply what you described to this situation. Due process rights can't and won't keep non-citizens in this country if they are trying to avoid deportation, and shouldn't ever. Non-citizens only have the revocable-for-any-reason-or-none privilege of visiting, and that only if they get the visa.
  - estearum 1y ago
    Why do you think SCOTUS disagreed with you 9-0? What do you know that they don’t?
    - anonfordays 1y ago
      They literally agreed with what he just stated. Don't comment with "gotchas" that you don't understand.