Has this ever been determined? Codified? Held? Surely no one thinks that every illegal can demand a jury trial and get a free public defender like a citizen can, right? That would be astronomically ridiculous. The illegals Obama deported were not afforded anything even remotely similar.

So what's the standard? Is it simply "we verified you are in fact illegal, so out you go"? Is that all that the due process they are afforded? Seems that would be sufficient, but what is the actual standard? Does anyone know?

They're illegal, so, none.

Fat Bottom Squirrels said:

---

Has this ever been determined? Codified? Held? Surely no one thinks that every illegal can demand a jury trial and get a free public defender like a citizen can, right? That would be astronomically ridiculous. The illegals Obama deported were not afforded anything even remotely similar.

So what's the standard? Is it simply "we verified you are in fact illegal, so out you go"? Is that all that the due process they are afforded? Seems that would be sufficient, but what is the actual standard? Does anyone know?

---

That is such a dumb and preposterous notion that only modern western countries over flowing with white liberals would come up with it.

Whether legally afforded or not the one certainty that is backed up simply by facts in recent years is that the judicial system and DA's in populated areas in the US do far more to protect criminals and illegal immigrants than normal law abiding US citizens.

Quote:

---

So what's the standard? Is it simply "we verified you are in fact illegal, so out you go"? Is that all that the due process they are afforded? Seems that would be sufficient, but what is the actual standard? Does anyone know?

---

That is pretty much it.

The democrats are just trying to muddy the waters so no one can get deported, then they can open the borders anytime they have an anti-American in the White House and there is nothing the republicans can do to stop them. They see the Constitution as a roadblock.

They intend to destroy the country via Cloward-Piven and will not give up on their marxist dreams.

agaberto said:

---

They're illegal, so, none.

---

Can you go be an annoying dork somewhere else? Your posts are not funny or witty.

Everyone is up in arms screaming about the importance of due process when they're being shipped out but somehow that's ignored when we talk about how they got here.

The answer is that it depends on the situation.

The due process required for a person subject to an Executive Order on Alien Enemies Act is vastly different than a person claiming asylum from a country for religious reasons, etc.

A helluva lot more the Jan 6'ers, obviously!

Article 2 courts is where they are adjudicated...

Not everybody or every law gets the same Due Process....Your parking ticket gets a different Due Process from your Murder Trial, as does your tax evasion charge...

Fat Bottom Squirrels said:

---

Has this ever been determined? Codified? Held? Surely no one thinks that every illegal can demand a jury trial and get a free public defender like a citizen can, right? That would be astronomically ridiculous. The illegals Obama deported were not afforded anything even remotely similar.

So what's the standard? Is it simply "we verified you are in fact illegal, so out you go"? Is that all that the due process they are afforded? Seems that would be sufficient, but what is the actual standard? Does anyone know?

---

Ok, so let's take a look at this picture:



1. White shoes is on the other side of our border. They have not managed to cross over legally or illegally. As such, they have no "due process" afforded to them because they haven't crossed our border. Correct?

2. Brown shoes managed to sneak across the border and is here illegally. There is no visa, no green card, no government permission to be on this side of that orange line. Brown shoes just managed to slip across, something white shoes was unable to do.

By your logic, brown shoes, as a reward for his illegal activity, is now afforded "due process" that white shoes does not have.

What's the difference between the two? Brown shoes broke the law, white shoes didn't. That's it. But now you want brown shoes to have some "right" to "due process".

I'm trying to be pragmatic here. Someone who is caught climbing up the bank of the Rio Grande, dripping wet, should be eligible for immediate deportation. Someone who was given a work permit and released, even if you disagree with the policy, should be entitled to some degree of due process. If they are to be deported, it should be for a specific and proven reason.

torrid said:

---

I'm trying to be pragmatic here. Someone who is caught climbing up the bank of the Rio Grande, dripping wet, should be eligible for immediate deportation. Someone who was given a work permit and released, even if you disagree with the policy, should be entitled to some degree of due process. If they are to be deported, it should be for a specific and proven reason.

---

I disagree. Biden had no right to do much of what he did (his Chinese puppet masters), and no one even bothered to tell the American people why they were doing it. There is nothing pragmatic about allowing 21 million illegals into America, from any standpoint that benefits America.

They are eligible to have an immigration hearing before an article II immigration judge and can claim asylum or CAT.

They are not entitled to court appointed counsel.

The bottleneck of running every person through an IJ Court is what is causing the problem. With limited detention space, they are free inside the US awaiting their hearing date.

Expedited removal is severely limited.

I personally don't believe they should have ANY due process at all. The fact that we give them ANY is monumentally stupid and contrary to our interests as a sovereign nation. I think that due process should only apply to citizens. But unfortunately, that is not what our Supreme Court has held. If you are on American soil, then apparently you are afforded some level of due process and I am simply trying to figure out how much due process an illegal is granted.

If you didn't choose due process when entering the country, then you shouldn't be entitled to it when exiting.

Only enough to make sure we are dealing with the person we think we are dealing with, and to make sure they aren't a citizen. If that is properly determined, then we don't owe them a thing.

Due process is a principle. It's erroneously become synonymous with a bureaucratic structure, but the PROCESS that is DUE depends on the situation and was left intentionally open ended by our founding fathers who didn't want to get bogged down in that minutia.

So to answer your question OP: illegals rate just as much "due process" as anyone else. It's just that their circumstances restrict the extent of procedure that they are due to nothing more than being tossed (humanely) back to where they came from.

If you came here illegally and didn't officially claim assylum or have a green card or some type of visa issued, you shouldn't get any due process. You get caught, you go staight back home.

Don't you remember the due process outcry under all those Obama deportations????

Yeah. Me either.

atmtws said:

---

If you didn't choose due process when entering the country, then you shouldn't be entitled to it when exiting.

---

I regret that I have but one blue star to give you.

Ag87H2O said:

---

If you came here illegally and didn't officially claim assylum or have a green card or some type of visa issued, you shouldn't get any due process. You get caught, you go staight back home.

---

This. And if they're going to claim asylum, they better have proof their asylum claim was rejected by every country they passed through to get here.

So I guess what Biden did was planned out and orchestrated. Issue an executive order allowing anyone to come through the checkpoints on an "asylum" claim knowing that none would ever get deported as they'd all have to go through the court systems first, each case dragging on for years and years. Absolute treason.

Fat Bottom Squirrels said:

---

So I guess what Biden did was planned out and orchestrated. Issue an executive order allowing anyone to come through the checkpoints on an "asylum" claim knowing that none would ever get deported as they'd all have to go through the court systems first, each case dragging on for years and years. Absolute treason.

---

Yea, I don't remember such an EO...please show me!

I do not get why this is a 5th amendment due process issue. Their presence is the crime. Deportation is not a punishment. It does not deny them of any life, liberty, or property. It simply ends the crime. The police removing a burglar from your home does not require a judge. It stops the crime. Sending them to prison is where the judge and trial comes in. Sending someone home when they are not permitted to be here is not prison. It is not a fine. It is not a death sentence. It is not a punishment. It is ending the crime and nothing more. This seems like egregious judicial over-reach based on a very liberal and wrong-headed reading of the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Has this ever been determined? Codified? Held? Surely no one thinks that every illegal can demand a jury trial and get a free public defender like a citizen can, right? T

---

Well, if you want to wade through this maze, you will find answers to your question.


https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/immigration/immig_west/E.pdf

Quote:

---

A. Generally "Immigration proceedings, although not subject to the full range of constitutional protections, must conform to the Fifth Amendment's requirement of due process."

"[A]n alien in civil removal proceedings is not entitled to the same bundle of constitutional rights afforded defendants in criminal proceedings

---

AND no I did not read all this stuff, too many legal citations of case precedent. Sufficient to say Immigration lawyers and liberal judges............

Seems much better to catch them at the border than drag them out of the interior.

torrid said:

---

I'm trying to be pragmatic here. Someone who is caught climbing up the bank of the Rio Grande, dripping wet, should be eligible for immediate deportation. Someone who was given a work permit and released, even if you disagree with the policy, should be entitled to some degree of due process. If they are to be deported, it should be for a specific and proven reason.

---

Executive branch giveth permit, executive branch taketh away.

Having been in hundreds of other countries, the Democrats are holding ourselves to a higher standard than the rest of the world. I have seen it all. From hotels demanding to hold your passport during your stay, to having to pay fees to enter the country that seem to be completely made up, to having to pay export taxes on items that I brought into the country when leaving. You name it. All without any backing of law or the legal system of the country.

torrid said:

---

I'm trying to be pragmatic here. Someone who is caught climbing up the bank of the Rio Grande, dripping wet, should be eligible for immediate deportation. Someone who was given a work permit and released, even if you disagree with the policy, should be entitled to some degree of due process. If they are to be deported, it should be for a specific and proven reason.

---

If they have a work permit then they are here at the pleasure of the US. Since work permits are under executive Perview they are subject to whatever rules the executive wants to set unless otherwise codified by law.

That is their due process.

Don't like it? Go pick tomatoes or code somewhere else

VitruvianAg said:

---

Fat Bottom Squirrels said:

---

So I guess what Biden did was planned out and orchestrated. Issue an executive order allowing anyone to come through the checkpoints on an "asylum" claim knowing that none would ever get deported as they'd all have to go through the court systems first, each case dragging on for years and years. Absolute treason.

---

Yea, I don't remember such an EO...please show me!

---

He changed Trump's policy of having them wait in Mexico while their asylum claim was processed. That is how he screwed us.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-administration-reinstating-remain-mexico-program-2025-01-21/

atmtws said:

---

If you didn't choose due process when entering the country, then you shouldn't be entitled to it when exiting.

---

I can tell you don't understand the concept of due process.

sam callahan said:

---

Don't you remember the due process outcry under all those Obama deportations????

Yeah. Me either.

---

A big chunk of Obama deportations were apprehensions at the border that were subject to immediate removal. He was also big on deporting those that had committed serious crimes, so that's probably why you didn't hear much about it. That being said, there were plenty of people on the left that gave him the nickname "deporter in chief."

How much does judicial discretion play in the process? If a person is illegal and before a judge, what are they allowed to do?

My $0.02 FWIW...... if you are not a US citizen and you are in the US, the US govt (state or federal) has the right to remove you from the country for any reason. Doesn't matter if you are here legally or not. Doesn't matter if you have committed a crime or not. If you aren't a citizen you can be sent to your home country at any time for any reason.

HTownAg98 said:

---

atmtws said:

---

If you didn't choose due process when entering the country, then you shouldn't be entitled to it when exiting.

---

I can tell you don't understand the concept of due process.

---

I'm sure he does understand it. But his point is that there is a PROCESS for legally coming into this country and those who ignore it should be removed immediately absent some asylum claim, and even then, there should be limits.