2 ms·

FWIW, that's not strictly true. We deport non-criminal foreigners for diplomatic reasons all the time. I think it's very reasonable to imagine an enforcement

by ajross 1y ago

FWIW, that's not strictly true. We deport non-criminal foreigners for diplomatic reasons all the time. I think it's very reasonable to imagine an enforcement regime (not the one we have) where legitimate workers (and their families, yada yada) have easily-available and auditable visa and citizenship documentation. And so if you find someone who doesn't, there's no failure of due process to simply deport them. Done right, there won't be many cheaters anyway as employers will have easy access to documented labor instead.

vkou 1y ago
If you're not going to afford people the rights that they are due when accused of a crime, you can't call what you are accusing them of a crime. It's either a crime, and they are entitled to a a jury trial, or it's a civil issue. Calling people criminals and treating them as criminals, but not granting them the rights afforded to criminals by the constitution is speaking out of both sides of your mouth. The sixth amendment is unambiguous about it. > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
- ajross 1y ago
  You're arguing with someone else, not me. I'm your ally in this fight, remember. But again, you're simply wrong as a matter of practice. Deportation does not require a criminal trial, and never has. The conflation with criminal law is something the current administration essentially invented as a pretext for deploying law enforcement force. And that's a bad thing. Deportation isn't punishment, and it has a trivial remedy in cases where it's misapplied (again, assuming a rational immigration policy): apply for a visa and come back.

by ajross 1y ago

vkou 1y ago

If you're not going to afford people the rights that they are due when accused of a crime, you can't call what you are accusing them of a crime. It's either a crime, and they are entitled to a a jury trial, or it's a civil issue. Calling people criminals and treating them as criminals, but not granting them the rights afforded to criminals by the constitution is speaking out of both sides of your mouth. The sixth amendment is unambiguous about it. > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

ajross 1y ago
You're arguing with someone else, not me. I'm your ally in this fight, remember. But again, you're simply wrong as a matter of practice. Deportation does not require a criminal trial, and never has. The conflation with criminal law is something the current administration essentially invented as a pretext for deploying law enforcement force. And that's a bad thing. Deportation isn't punishment, and it has a trivial remedy in cases where it's misapplied (again, assuming a rational immigration policy): apply for a visa and come back.