3 ms·

There will be a court case where some bit of evidence is going to be similar to: Ice Agents: "Is <name> here illegally?" AI prompt: "you're absolutely right!"

by abuani 11mo ago

viraptor 11mo ago
Not sure why they'd bother, since we're in the "random kidnappings are the MO" territory already, regardless of the citizenship status.
- reactordev 11mo ago
  This. It’s more about using AI to do facial recognition or similar things to detect individuals en masse and flag them for the gulag.
jpk 11mo ago
If only. If ICE arrests and deports someone without due process, there is no court case.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Light_Hope 11mo ago
    While you are correct in stating that an article III court generally is not required, the due process for immigrants, even those not present legally, is more complicated than just "check paperwork for legal status, act immediately". While in some cases expedited removal bypass the normal process, if a deportation is contested, due process still generally entails access to a hearing before an immigration judge (article II judge).
  - terribleperson 11mo ago
    What do you think the process to check whether someone is an illegal immigrant is? It needs to leave a paper trail, and provide someone the opportunity to prove that they're a citizen or here legally. Maybe a court case?
    - EagnaIonat 11mo ago
      That doesn't work in all cases. ESTA visa for example you give up the rights to due process if you overstay on that visa as part of the agreement to the visa. Doesn't justify anything that ICE are currently doing though.
      - Jalad 11mo ago
        Ironically the same argument applies
      - tsimionescu 11mo ago
        And what if someone claims you overstayed the visa, but you didn't? You still need a legal process to defend yourself from arbitrary accusations. Not having a process is not just morally wrong, it is also simply non-functional.
        EagnaIonat 11mo ago
        > And what if someone claims you overstayed the visa, but you didn't? It's just a simple matter of checking the ESTA details online, and your entry stamp in your passport. The ESTA visa states you waive your rights to a judge if you overstay. Like I said, I am not condoning what ICE is doing.
        projectazorian 11mo ago
        Most of the people the admin wants to remove are not eligible for ESTA in the first place.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo ago
  - gameman144 11mo ago
    In the world we could assess this completely and with perfect accuracy, you're spot on that that'd be all that we need! In the current world, though, due process exists because there are sometimes messy and fuzzy details that need evaluation. For instance, the date of an immigration court hearing might be delayed, or an applicant may be granted an extension. An immigrant may have received incorrect information and missed the proper steps through no fault of their own. If immigration enforcement skips due process but is working on even slightly outdated information, we're trashing the rights of people who may be following the process properly. In the cases where an immigrant is clearly here illegally and there are no extenuating circumstances, deportation is already the thing that the current due-process does. > Why would someone who has not committed a crime and is not accused of a crime need a court case? Criminal court is only one type of use-case for the legal system, there are loads of other ones. The phrase "Civil court" refers to scenarios where no one has committed a crime and no one is accused of a crime, and these represent the majority of court cases.
  - rpearl 11mo ago
    When someone is allegedly an il_legal_ immigrant, they are present but allegedly violating immigration _laws_. That is to say, such a person has been accused of a crime. Due process in the constitution guarantees that individuals (including non-citizens facing deportation) have the opportunity to defend themselves in court against such accusations.
    - Light_Hope 11mo ago
      While the importance of due process cannot be overstated, immigration violations are not generally crimes outside of a few specific areas. Removal proceedings are frequently not tied to any particularly crime, but merely unlawful presence, which is not a crime in its own right.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo ago
      >When someone is allegedly an il_legal_ immigrant, t When someone is allegedly a murderer, or a thief, or a vandal, or whatever... a trial is needed to determine guilt or innocence. But when they arrest someone for those things, the preliminary process allows police to determine someone's identity. Their address, things of that nature. Their basic information. Basic information is all that is needed to determine whether or not someone is a citizen. There is no trial needed to determine citizenship. >Due process in the constitution guarantees that individuals (including non-citizens facing deportation) have the opportunity to defend themselves in court No, you attended public school and someone had you memorize "due process" in 3rd grade and you never were taught what it meant. It does not guarantee "a defense in court", because in this case there is no crime to defend against. No one's wanting to send them to prison. In the simplest terms, due process is the idea that the government must have a process for a particular legal proceeding, and that if someone must undergo that proceeding they get the same process everyone else does. If rich people were getting to skip out of the proceeding, or get a shortened one, but you had to go through the entire thing... it'd be a due process violation. Or alternatively if you wanted that proceeding and they were getting to skip it (say you had a full 30 day period to file, but they canceled your filing that same day) you'd have a due process violation.
      - 11mo ago
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - projectazorian 11mo ago
    This is risible. "Sending them home" requires arrest and detention. Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the US Constitution grants people the right to contest their detention in court. So far, the administration hasn't formally suspended habeas corpus, despite what Stephen Miller may assert on TV.
  - dragonwriter 11mo ago
    > Why would someone who has not committed a crime and is not accused of a crime need a court case? So if the executive decides they suspect you are an illegal alien, detains you, claims to have checked you are an illegal alien, and then expels you to some foreign country you have no right to challenge this at any point in the process? Because if that’s what you think “due process” means, than the government never has any need for criminal process at all, it just needs to decide it suspects people of being illegal aliens instead of criminals, then it can imprison them indefinitely while it “checks” and expel them whenever it decides it tires or imprisoning them (perhaps to someplace it knows they will be killed or deprived of then nevessities of life), all without ever defending any of those acts as justified in court.
  - UncleMeat 11mo ago
    I'm curious for your opinion on SEC v Jarkesy.
- golem14 11mo ago
  But the AI vote will be used as a fig leaf so they don't even have to pretend to mete out justice. "AI said it, it must be true" will soon become a mantra (even though most people here know how wrong it can be and how often it actually is). I hear that lazy LEOs now use AI to write police reports. Noice. And the AI can trivially show up for hearings.
heavyset_go 11mo ago
They'd quickly cancel the contract with any supplier that doesn't give them the carte blanche and obfuscation of responsibility they want. Just like other ML and big data LEO projects in the past, assume the use of AI is to greenlight what they already want to do and would like a fig leaf of justification for from a computer.

There will be a court case where some bit of evidence is going to be similar to: Ice Agents: "Is <name> here illegally?" AI prompt: "you're absolutely right!"

by abuani 11mo ago

There will be a court case where some bit of evidence is going to be similar to: Ice Agents: "Is <name> here illegally?" AI prompt: "you're absolutely right!"

viraptor 11mo ago

Not sure why they'd bother, since we're in the "random kidnappings are the MO" territory already, regardless of the citizenship status.

reactordev 11mo ago
This. It’s more about using AI to do facial recognition or similar things to detect individuals en masse and flag them for the gulag.

jpk 11mo ago

If only. If ICE arrests and deports someone without due process, there is no court case.

NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo ago
[flagged]
- Light_Hope 11mo ago
  While you are correct in stating that an article III court generally is not required, the due process for immigrants, even those not present legally, is more complicated than just "check paperwork for legal status, act immediately". While in some cases expedited removal bypass the normal process, if a deportation is contested, due process still generally entails access to a hearing before an immigration judge (article II judge).
- terribleperson 11mo ago
  What do you think the process to check whether someone is an illegal immigrant is? It needs to leave a paper trail, and provide someone the opportunity to prove that they're a citizen or here legally. Maybe a court case?
  - EagnaIonat 11mo ago
    That doesn't work in all cases. ESTA visa for example you give up the rights to due process if you overstay on that visa as part of the agreement to the visa. Doesn't justify anything that ICE are currently doing though.
    - Jalad 11mo ago
      Ironically the same argument applies
    - tsimionescu 11mo ago
      And what if someone claims you overstayed the visa, but you didn't? You still need a legal process to defend yourself from arbitrary accusations. Not having a process is not just morally wrong, it is also simply non-functional.
      - EagnaIonat 11mo ago
        > And what if someone claims you overstayed the visa, but you didn't? It's just a simple matter of checking the ESTA details online, and your entry stamp in your passport. The ESTA visa states you waive your rights to a judge if you overstay. Like I said, I am not condoning what ICE is doing.
        projectazorian 11mo ago
        Most of the people the admin wants to remove are not eligible for ESTA in the first place.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo ago
- gameman144 11mo ago
  In the world we could assess this completely and with perfect accuracy, you're spot on that that'd be all that we need! In the current world, though, due process exists because there are sometimes messy and fuzzy details that need evaluation. For instance, the date of an immigration court hearing might be delayed, or an applicant may be granted an extension. An immigrant may have received incorrect information and missed the proper steps through no fault of their own. If immigration enforcement skips due process but is working on even slightly outdated information, we're trashing the rights of people who may be following the process properly. In the cases where an immigrant is clearly here illegally and there are no extenuating circumstances, deportation is already the thing that the current due-process does. > Why would someone who has not committed a crime and is not accused of a crime need a court case? Criminal court is only one type of use-case for the legal system, there are loads of other ones. The phrase "Civil court" refers to scenarios where no one has committed a crime and no one is accused of a crime, and these represent the majority of court cases.
- rpearl 11mo ago
  When someone is allegedly an il_legal_ immigrant, they are present but allegedly violating immigration _laws_. That is to say, such a person has been accused of a crime. Due process in the constitution guarantees that individuals (including non-citizens facing deportation) have the opportunity to defend themselves in court against such accusations.
  - Light_Hope 11mo ago
    While the importance of due process cannot be overstated, immigration violations are not generally crimes outside of a few specific areas. Removal proceedings are frequently not tied to any particularly crime, but merely unlawful presence, which is not a crime in its own right.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo ago
    >When someone is allegedly an il_legal_ immigrant, t When someone is allegedly a murderer, or a thief, or a vandal, or whatever... a trial is needed to determine guilt or innocence. But when they arrest someone for those things, the preliminary process allows police to determine someone's identity. Their address, things of that nature. Their basic information. Basic information is all that is needed to determine whether or not someone is a citizen. There is no trial needed to determine citizenship. >Due process in the constitution guarantees that individuals (including non-citizens facing deportation) have the opportunity to defend themselves in court No, you attended public school and someone had you memorize "due process" in 3rd grade and you never were taught what it meant. It does not guarantee "a defense in court", because in this case there is no crime to defend against. No one's wanting to send them to prison. In the simplest terms, due process is the idea that the government must have a process for a particular legal proceeding, and that if someone must undergo that proceeding they get the same process everyone else does. If rich people were getting to skip out of the proceeding, or get a shortened one, but you had to go through the entire thing... it'd be a due process violation. Or alternatively if you wanted that proceeding and they were getting to skip it (say you had a full 30 day period to file, but they canceled your filing that same day) you'd have a due process violation.
    - 11mo ago
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- projectazorian 11mo ago
  This is risible. "Sending them home" requires arrest and detention. Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the US Constitution grants people the right to contest their detention in court. So far, the administration hasn't formally suspended habeas corpus, despite what Stephen Miller may assert on TV.
- dragonwriter 11mo ago
  > Why would someone who has not committed a crime and is not accused of a crime need a court case? So if the executive decides they suspect you are an illegal alien, detains you, claims to have checked you are an illegal alien, and then expels you to some foreign country you have no right to challenge this at any point in the process? Because if that’s what you think “due process” means, than the government never has any need for criminal process at all, it just needs to decide it suspects people of being illegal aliens instead of criminals, then it can imprison them indefinitely while it “checks” and expel them whenever it decides it tires or imprisoning them (perhaps to someplace it knows they will be killed or deprived of then nevessities of life), all without ever defending any of those acts as justified in court.
- UncleMeat 11mo ago
  I'm curious for your opinion on SEC v Jarkesy.
golem14 11mo ago
But the AI vote will be used as a fig leaf so they don't even have to pretend to mete out justice. "AI said it, it must be true" will soon become a mantra (even though most people here know how wrong it can be and how often it actually is). I hear that lazy LEOs now use AI to write police reports. Noice. And the AI can trivially show up for hearings.

heavyset_go 11mo ago

They'd quickly cancel the contract with any supplier that doesn't give them the carte blanche and obfuscation of responsibility they want. Just like other ML and big data LEO projects in the past, assume the use of AI is to greenlight what they already want to do and would like a fig leaf of justification for from a computer.